Postoperative outcome after modified unilateral-approach microendoscopic midline decompression for degenerative spinal stenosis

Clinical article

Mitsuru Yagi M.D., Ph.D., Eijiro Okada M.D., Ken Ninomiya M.D., Ph.D., and Michiya Kihara M.D., Ph.D.
View More View Less
  • Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Kawasaki Municipal Hospital, Kawasaki City, Japan
Restricted access

Purchase Now

USD  $45.00

Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $369.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $600.00
Print or Print + Online

Object

The object of this study was to assess the feasibility and efficacy of a novel, minimally invasive spinal surgery technique to correct degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis involving a modified unilateral-approach microendoscopic midline decompression.

Methods

In this prospective study, 41 patients with lumbar stenosis were randomly assigned to undergo either a novel, median-approach microendoscopic laminectomy (20 patients) or a conventional laminectomy (21 patients). Spinal anteroposterior diameter, cross-sectional area, lateral recess distance, spinal stability, postoperative back pain, functional outcomes, and muscle trauma were evaluated. Follow-up ranged from 16 to 24 months, with a mean of 17.8 months for the novel procedure group and 18.6 months for the conventional laminectomy group.

Results

Compared with patients in the conventional laminectomy group, patients who received the novel procedure had a reduced mean duration of hospital stay, a lower mean creatine phosphokinase muscular-type isoenzyme level, a lower visual analog scale score for back pain at 1-year follow-up, and a faster recovery rate. These patients also had less mean blood loss compared with the conventionally treated group. Satisfactory neurological decompression and symptom relief were achieved in 90% of these patients. There was no significant clinical difference compared with the conventional laminectomy group's results. There was no evidence of spinal instability in any patient, and no patient required a follow-up conventional laminectomy.

Conclusions

This novel procedure provides effective spinal decompression. Although this method requires more operating time than a conventional method, it requires only minimal muscle trauma and spinal stability maintenance, and allows for early mobilization. This shortens the hospital stay, reduces postoperative back pain, and leads to satisfactory neurological and functional outcomes. Moreover, with the midline approach, decompression was accomplished without compromising the facet joints, even with a narrow width of lamina.

Abbreviations used in this paper: CPK-MM = creatine phosphokinase muscular-type isoenzyme; JOA = Japanese Orthopaedic Association; VAS = visual analog scale.

Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $369.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $600.00

Contributor Notes

Address correspondence to: Mitsuru Yagi, M.D., Ph.D., Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Kawasaki Municipal Hospital, 12-1 Saiwai-Ku Shinkawa-Tori, Kawasaki City, 2100013 Japan. email: yagiman@qg7.so-net.ne.jp.
  • 1

    Airaksinen O, , Herno A, , Turunen V, , Saari T, & Suomlainen O: Surgical outcome of 438 patients treated surgically for lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 22:22782282, 1997

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    Asgarzadie F, & Khoo LT: Minimally invasive operative management for lumbar spinal stenosis: overview of early and long-term outcomes. Orthop Clin North Am 38:387399, 2007

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Atlas SJ, , Keller RB, , Wu YA, , Deyo RA, & Singer DE: Long-term outcomes of surgical and nonsurgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis: 8 to 10 year results from the Maine lumbar spine study. Spine 30:936943, 2005

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Bogduk N: The lumbar mamilloaccessory ligament: its anatomical and neurosurgical significance. Spine 6:162167, 1981

  • 5

    Bogduk N, , Wilson AS, & Tynan W: The human lumbar dorsal rami. J Anat 134:383397, 1982

  • 6

    Carreon LY, , Puno RM, , Dimar JR II, , Glassman SD, & Johnson JR: Perioperative complications of posterior lumbar decompression and arthrodesis in older adults. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85:20892092, 2003

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    Costa F, , Sassi M, , Cardia A, , Ortolina A, , De Santis A, & Fornari M: Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: analysis of results in a series of 374 patients treated with unilateral laminotomy for bilateral microdecompression. J Neurosurg Spine 7:579586, 2007

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Eule JM, , Breeze R, & Kindt GW: Bilateral partial laminectomy: a treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis and midline disc herniation. Surg Neurol 52:329338, 1999

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Foley KT, & Smith MM: Microendoscopic discectomy. Tech Neurosurg 3:301307, 1997

  • 10

    Goel VK, , Fromknecht SJ, , Nishiyama K, , Weinstein J, & Liu YK: The role of the lumbar spinal elements in flexion. Spine 10:516523, 1985

  • 11

    Greenough CG, & Fraser RD: Assessment of outcome in patients with low back pain. Spine 17:3641, 1992

  • 12

    Guiot BH, , Khoo LT, & Fessler RG: A minimally invasive technique for decompression of the lumbar spine. Spine 27:432438, 2002

  • 13

    Hindle RJ, , Pearcy MJ, & Cross A: Mechanical function of the human lumbar interspinous and supraspinous ligaments. J Biomed Eng 12:340344, 1990

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Iguchi T, , Kurihara A, , Nakayama J, , Sato K, , Kurosaka M, & Yamasaki K: Minimum 10-year outcome of decompressive laminectomy for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 25:17541759, 2000

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    Javid MJ, & Hadar EJ: Long-term follow-up review of patients who underwent laminectomy for lumbar stenosis: a prospective study. J Neurosurg 89:17, 1998

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

    Khoo LT, & Fessler RG: Microendoscopic decompressive laminotomy for the treatment of lumbar stenosis. Neurosurgery 51:S146S154, 2002

  • 17

    Mariconda M, , Fava R, , Gatto A, , Longo C, & Milano C: Unilateral laminectomy for bilateral decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis: a prospective comparative study with conservatively treated patients. J Spinal Disord Tech 15:3946, 2002

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18

    Niggemeyer O, , Strauss JM, & Schulitz KP: Comparison of surgical procedures for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a meta-analysis of the literature from 1975 to 1995. Eur Spine J 6:423429, 1997

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

    Mayer T, , Gatchel R, , Betancur J, & Bovasso E: Trunk muscle endurance measurement. Isometric contrasted to isokinetic testing in normal subjects. Spine 20:920926, 1995

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20

    Palmer S, , Turner R, & Palmer R: Bilateral decompressive surgery in lumbar spinal stenosis associated with spondylolisthesis: unilateral approach and use of a microscope and tubular retractor system. Neurosurg Focus 13:1 E4, 2002

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21

    Palmer S, , Turner R, & Palmer R: Bilateral decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis involving a unilateral approach with microscope and tubular retractor system. J Neurosurg 97:213217, 2002

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22

    Perez-Cruet MJ, , Foley KT, , Isaacs RE, , Rice-Wyllie L, , Wellington R, & Smith MM: Microendoscopic lumbar discectomy: technical note. Neurosurgy 51:129136, 2002

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23

    Prestar FJ: Morphology and function of the interspinal ligaments and the supraspinal ligament of the lumbar portion of the spine. Morphol Med 2:5358, 1982

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24

    Schillberg B, & Nyström B: Quality of life before and after microsurgical decompression in lumbar spinal stenosis. J Spinal Disord 13:237241, 2000

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25

    See DH, & Kraft GH: Electromyography in paraspinal muscles following surgery for root compression. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 56:8083, 1975

  • 26

    Sihvonen T, , Herno A, , Paljarva L, , Airaksinen O, , Patanen J, & Tapaninaho A: Local denervation atrophy of paraspinal muscles in postoperative failed back syndrome. Spine 18:575581, 1993

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27

    Spetzger U, , Bertalanffy H, , Naujokat C, , von Keyserlingk DG, & Gilsbach JM: Unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis. Part I: anatomical and surgical considerations. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 139:392396, 1997

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28

    Spetzger U, , Bertalanffy H, , Reinges MH, & Gilsbach JM: Unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis. Part II: clinical experiences. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 139:397403, 1997

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29

    Thomé C, , Zevgaridis D, , Leheta O, , Bäzner H, , Pöckler-Schöniger C, & Wöhrle J, : Outcome after less-invasive decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized comparison of unilateral laminotomy, bilateral laminotomy, and laminectomy. J Neurosurg Spine 3:129141, 2005

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30

    Weiner BK, , Fraser RD, & Peterson M: Spinous process osteotomies to facilitate lumbar decompressive surgery. Spine 24:6266, 1999

  • 31

    Weiner BK, , Walker M, , Brower RS, & McCulloch JA: Microdecompression for lumbar spinal canal stenosis. Spine 24:22682272, 1999

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 672 207 30
Full Text Views 127 23 3
PDF Downloads 102 21 3
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0