Symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) unresponsive to conservative therapy is commonly treated using direct surgical decompression.33 Current guidelines recommend additional arthrodesis in patients with LSS and preexisting spondylolisthesis.21,24,31,49,50,52 Various techniques are currently used for direct decompression of LSS. Standard open laminectomy has been shown to be an effective procedure for LSS decompression.36,46,54,60–64,66 However, wide laminectomies violating stabilizing bony and ligamentous structures may exacerbate preexisting spondylolisthesis.19,37 Minimally invasive laminectomy through tubular or similar retractors is a recently introduced alternative procedure for decompression of LSS.47 This technique avoids detachment of the paraspinal muscles and may promote preservation of stabilizing ligamentous and bony spinal structures.29,30,39,41–45 Biomechanical studies indicate that compared with open laminectomy, minimally invasive laminectomy may result in less postoperative instability.1,6,12,23,34
The current study had two main goals: first, to evaluate the efficacy of minimally invasive laminectomy as a decompressive procedure for the treatment of patients with LSS. The second aim was to compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of minimally invasive laminectomy in patients with and without preexisting stable spondylolisthesis.
To better achieve the first goal, outcomes for LSS following minimally invasive laminectomies in our retrospective case series were compared with those achieved via other surgical interventions described in the literature.
Methods
Patient Population
Institutional approval for this study was obtained from Weill Cornell Medical College. Data for this retrospective case series were extracted from the prospectively collected hospital database. We sought all patients who had undergone minimally invasive laminectomy for decompression of LSS between 2004 and 2011. Demographic and perioperative data on these patients were collected. For the demographic data, age, sex, body mass index (BMI), smoking status, history of diabetes, and steroid medication use were recorded. Operative and anesthesia reports as well as hospital charts were reviewed to add data on estimated blood loss, number and levels of surgery, complications, and length of hospital stay. The presence of preoperative spondylolisthesis was determined on radiographic studies. Postoperative radiographs were evaluated to assess changes in the amount and grade of previous spondylolisthesis and/or the development of new slippage. Standardized radiographs were used for assessments, both preoperatively and postoperatively. Patients who had presented with preoperative spondylolisthesis and primarily mechanical back pain and/or instability on flexion/extension films were not included in this study. Comparisons were made between the outcomes of minimally invasive laminectomies in our cohort and the outcomes of other decompressive surgical interventions for LSS, as published in the literature.
Operative Procedure
With the patient lying prone under general anesthesia, a small skin incision is made overlying the target level approximately 1.5 cm lateral to the midline. An 18- or 19-mm tubular retractor is placed over a series of tubular dilators for retraction, and under the microscope, the inferior edge of the lamina and the inferior edge and base of the spinous process are exposed (Fig. 1). The decompression is performed step by step starting with an ipsilateral partial laminectomy using a 3-mm curved matchstick drill bit and bayonet-shaped 2- and 3-mm Kerrison punches (Fig. 2). To achieve appropriate visualization of contralateral structures, the operating table is tilted away from the surgeon and the tubular retractor is angled medially. Next, the spinous process and the contralateral lamina are undercut using the drill and rongeurs (Fig. 3). The ligamentum flavum is completely exposed bilaterally and cranially until its insertion under the lamina. During the laminectomy, the ligamentum flavum protects the dura. Next, we insert a nerve hook and then a Kerrison rongeur in the midline where the two leaves of the ligamentum flavum meet, an area that is typically identified by the presence of epidural fat (Figs. 4 and 5). These techniques minimize risks of injury to the dura. The ligamentum flavum is then removed (Fig. 6). Great care is taken to completely decompress the lateral recess and entirely remove the yellow ligament. This also allows visualization and decompression, if needed, of the contralateral exiting and traversing nerve root.
An 18- or 19-mm tubular retractor is placed over a series of tubular dilators for retraction, and under the microscope, the inferior edge of the lamina and the inferior edge and base of the spinous process are exposed. Illustration by Thomas Graves. Copyright Roger Härtl. Published with permission.
The decompression is performed starting with an ipsilateral partial laminectomy using a 3-mm curved matchstick drill bit and bayonetshaped 2- and 3-mm Kerrison punches. Illustration by Thomas Graves. Copyright Roger Härtl. Published with permission.
The operating table is tilted away from the surgeon, and the tubular retractor is angled medially to achieve appropriate visualization of contralateral sublaminar structures. Next, the spinous process and the contralateral lamina are undercut using the drill and rongeurs. The ligamentum flavum is completely exposed cranially until its insertion under the lamina. Illustration by Thomas Graves. Copyright Roger Härtl. Published with permission.
A nerve hook is inserted in the midline where the two leaves of the ligamentum flavum meet, an area that is typically identified by the presence of epidural fat. Illustration by Thomas Graves. Copyright Roger Härtl. Published with permission.
The ligamentum flavum is then carefully removed using Kerrison rongeurs. Illustration by Thomas Graves. Copyright Roger Härtl. Published with permission.
Dural exposure and decompression after complete removal of the ligamentum flavum. The contralateral approach allows visualization and decompression, if needed, of the contralateral exiting and traversing nerve root. Illustration by Thomas Graves. Copyright Roger Härtl. Published with permission.
Adequate decompression is always confirmed by identifying certain landmark structures and achieving particular surgical end points, as follows: contralaterally and caudally by palpating the pedicle using a ball tip instrument, cranially by confirming complete removal of the yellow ligament and the absence of bony compression of the dura mater, and ipsilaterally by complete removal of the ligamentum flavum and by clear identification of the lateral aspect of the thecal sac and inspection of the traversing nerve root. As the next and final step, the table and retractor are brought back into the initial position, and the ipsilateral decompression is completed.
Clinical Outcome Evaluation
The preoperative and latest available follow-up Oswestry Disability Index (ODI)14 and visual analog scale (VAS) scores for back, buttock, and leg pain were collected and compared. Functional outcome was evaluated using Macnab's criteria.35 Patients without late follow-up outcome scores recorded in the hospital's database were contacted by phone, and the ODI and VAS pain scores and Macnab's level of satisfaction were assessed. These patients were also asked if they had undergone any further lumbar spine surgery at outside medical centers.
A 12-point improvement on the ODI3,20,22 and 3-point improvement on the VAS were regarded as the minimum clinically important difference (MCID).15,16,22 As for functional outcome, 4 levels were defined according to Macnab's criteria: excellent (no pain; no restriction of activity), good (occasional back or leg pain of sufficient severity to interfere with the ability to work), fair (improved functional capacity but handicapped by intermittent pain of sufficient severity to curtail work), or poor (no improvement or insufficient improvement to enable increase in activities; further operative interventions required).35
The patients who required another operation and underwent a second surgery at our and other institutions were identified. The indication for the second operation and a description of the procedure were recorded.
Radiographic Evaluation
In patients with postoperative radiographic studies, the latest study was used to assess changes in the amount and grade of previous spondylolisthesis and/or development of new slippage.
Statistical Analysis
Patients with preoperative radiographic studies, who had been evaluated for the presence or absence of preoperative spondylolisthesis, were divided into 2 groups: patients with concomitant preoperative spondylolisthesis and those without. We reported results for the entire group of patients as well as for each of the 2 groups separately. Comparisons were made between the 2 different groups and between each group and the entire study group.
Continuous variables are shown as the mean ± standard deviation. Percentages were calculated for categorical variables. Differences in categorical variables were assessed using the chi-square test. Differences in continuous variables were tested using the independent t-test, and differences for repeatedly measured variables were assessed using the repeated measures t-test. All analyses were performed using appropriate statistical software (SPSS, version 18.0.0.1, SPSS Inc.). A p value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results
Patient Demographics
One hundred ten consecutive patients, 58 males and 52 females, with isolated LSS who had undergone minimally invasive laminectomy surgery for decompression were included in our study. The mean age at surgery was 68.5 years (range 32–89 years; Table 1), and the mean BMI was 28.6 kg/m2. A history positive for smoking, diabetes, and steroid medication use was present in 11.8%, 14.8%, and 4.6% of patients, respectively. In 97 patients with available preoperative imaging, spondylolisthesis Grade I was present in 51 patients (52.6%), whereas 46 patients (47.4%) did not have preoperative spondylolisthesis.
Summary of preoperative characteristics in 110 patients with LSS with and without spondylolisthesis
| Characteristic | All Patients | Patients w/ Spondylolisthesis | Patients w/o Spondylolisthesis | p Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. of patients | 110 | 51 | 46 | |
| Mean age at surgery in yrs* | 68.5 ± 12.77 | 72.4 ± 12.69 | 64.4 ± 12.33 | 0.002† |
| Sex | ||||
| Male | 58 (52.7%) | 24 (47.1%) | 23 (50%) | 0.84 |
| Female | 52 (47.3%) | 27 (52.9%) | 23 (50%) | |
| Mean BMI in kg/m²* | 28.6 ± 4.74 | 28.5 ± 4.94 | 29.2 ± 4.68 | 0.49 |
| Diabetes | ||||
| Yes | 14.8% | 12.2% | 19.6% | 0.40 |
| No | 85.2% | 87.8% | 80.4% | |
| Smoking | ||||
| Yes | 11.8% | 9.1% | 7.9% | 0.84 |
| No | 88.2% | 90.9% | 92.1% | |
| Steroid medication use | ||||
| Yes | 4.6% | 2% | 6.5% | 0.35 |
| No | 95.4% | 98% | 93.5% | |
| Preop spondylolisthesis level‡ | ||||
| L2–3 | 5 (8.1%) | 5 (8.1%) | — | — |
| L3–4 | 15 (24.2%) | 15 (24.2%) | — | — |
| L4–5 | 37 (59.6%) | 37 (59.6%) | — | — |
| L5–S1 | 5 (8.1%) | 5 (8.1%) | — | — |
— = not applicable.
Values expressed as the mean ± standard deviation.
Statistically significant.
Fifty-one patients, 62 levels.
Surgical Details
One-, 2-, and 3-level surgeries were done in 57 patients (51.8%), 47 (42.7%), and 6 (5.4%), respectively. A total of 169 levels were operated on in 110 patients, and the most common level of surgery was L4–5 (50.3% of cases). The L3–4 level made up 29% of cases; L5–S1, 11.2%; and L2–3, the remaining 9.5%. The median estimated blood loss for 1-, 2-, and 3-level surgeries was 25, 50, and 150 ml, respectively (Table 2). More than half of the patients (56%) were discharged on either the day of surgery or the first postoperative day, while the mean duration of hospitalization was 2.2 ± 2.63 days (range 0–13 days).
Summary of surgical details in 110 patients who underwent laminectomy
| Characteristic | All Patients | Patients w/ Spondylolisthesis | Patients w/o Spondylolisthesis | p Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. of patients | 110 | 51 | 46 | |
| No. of operated levels | 169 | 78 | 71 | |
| No. of levels/patient | ||||
| 1 | 57 (51.8%) | 28 (54.9%) | 23 (50%) | |
| 2 | 47 (42.7%) | 19 (37.3%) | 21 (45.7%) | 0.60 |
| 3 | 6 (5.5%) | 4 (7.8%) | 2 (4.3%) | |
| Level of surgery | ||||
| L2–3 | 16 (9.5%) | 9 (11.5%) | 5 (7%) | 0.39 |
| L3–4 | 49 (29.0%) | 19 (24.4%) | 23 (32.4%) | 0.22 |
| L4–5 | 85 (50.3%) | 42 (53.8%) | 36 (50.7%) | 0.62 |
| L5–S1 | 19 (11.2%) | 8 (10.3%) | 7 (9.9%) | 0.94 |
| Estimated blood loss (ml)* | ||||
| 1-level op | 25 (0;550) | 20 (0;150) | 50 (0;550) | 0.04† |
| 2-level op | 50 (0;400) | 75 (0;200) | 50 (0;400) | 0.61 |
| 3-level op | 150 (100;300) | 125 (100;300) | 250‡ | 0.80 |
| Hospital stay (days)* | 1 (0;13) | 1 (0;12) | 1 (0;13) | 0.28 |
Values expressed as the median (min;max).
Statistically significant.
Single case.
Clinical Outcome
The mean preoperative ODI was 45.3 ± 19.62 (range 0–88; Tables 3 and 4), which decreased to 28.9 ± 21.76 at a mean follow-up of 28.8 months. An MCID (defined as improvement on the ODI by 12 or more points3,20,22) was achieved in 54.8% of patients (Table 5). The median preoperative VAS back, buttock, and leg pain scores were 8, 4.5, and 4.6, respectively. At the latest follow-up, the median VAS back, buttock, and leg pain scores decreased to 3.5, 0, and 0, respectively. Three-point improvement on the VAS was regarded as the MCID.15,16,22 The MCID for VAS back, buttock, and leg pain was achieved in 50.0%, 45.2%, and 52.4% of the patients, respectively. All 4 scores indicated statistically significant improvement at the latest follow-up. A comparison of ODI and VAS outcome scores in patients with and without preoperative spondylolisthesis showed no significant difference between the 2 groups (Tables 4 and 5).
Summary of clinical outcome measures in 84 patients with available preoperative and postoperative data*
| Measure | Preop | Last FU | p Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean preop ODI (out of 100) | 45.3 ± 19.62 | 28.9 ± 21.76 | <0.0001† |
| VAS back | 8 (0;10) | 3.5 (0;10) | <0.0001† |
| VAS buttock | 4.5 (0;10) | 0 (0;10) | <0.0001† |
| VAS leg | 4.6 (0;10) | 0 (0;8) | <0.0001† |
FU = follow-up.
The mean follow-up duration was 28.8 ± 19.39 months.
Statistically significant.
Summary of clinical improvement in patients with and without spondylolisthesis
| Parameter | All Patients | Patients w/ Spondylolisthesis | Patients w/o Spondylolisthesis | p Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. of patients* | 84 | 37 | 38 | |
| FU duration in mos | 0.81 | |||
| Mean ± SD | 28.5 ± 19.63 | 26.7 ± 18.60 | 27.7 ± 19.43 | |
| Median (min;max) | 22.8 (6.2;74.3) | 20.7 (8.5;74.3) | 20.5 (6.2;74.3) | |
| % ODI improvement | 16.00 (−48.8;62.2) | 11.00 (−37.8;62.2) | 19.45 (−48.8;53.0) | 0.55 |
| VAS back improvement (points) | 2.75 (−10;10) | 3.00 (−6;10) | 2.00 (−10;9) | 0.26 |
| VAS buttock improvement (points) | 2.25 (−10;9) | 3.50 (−10;8) | 2.50 (−5;9) | 0.54 |
| VAS leg improvement (points) | 3.00 (−5;10) | 3.00 (−1;9) | 3.50 (−5;10) | 0.88 |
Preoperative and follow-up outcome scores were available in 84 patients; 9 of these patients had no preoperative imaging data.
Summary of improvements on ODI and VAS
| Parameter | All Patients | Patients w/ Spondylolisthesis | Patients w/o Spondylolisthesis | p Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | 84 | 37 | 38 | |
| w/ ODI improvement | 59 (70.2%) | 24 (64.9%) | 26 (68.4%) | 0.80 |
| w/ MCID in ODI | 46 (54.8%) | 18 (48.6%) | 23 (60.5%) | 0.35 |
| w/ VAS back pain improvement | 56 (66.7%) | 25 (67.6%) | 24 (63.2%) | 0.80 |
| w/ MCID in VAS back pain | 42 (50.0%) | 21 (56.8%) | 17 (44.7%) | 0.35 |
| w/ VAS buttock pain improvement | 55 (65.5%) | 26 (70.3%) | 24 (63.2%) | 0.62 |
| w/ MCID in VAS buttock pain | 38 (45.2%) | 19 (51.4%) | 17 (44.7%) | 0.64 |
| w/ VAS leg pain improvement | 62 (73.8%) | 30 (81.1%) | 24 (63.2%) | 0.12 |
| w/ MCID in VAS leg pain | 44 (52.4%) | 19 (51.4%) | 20 (52.6%) | 0.91 |
Functional outcome, as assessed using Macnab's criteria,35 was excellent and good in 71.6% of the patients. A comparison of Macnab's results in patients with and without preoperative spondylolisthesis showed no significant difference (Table 6).
Summary of Macnab results
| Parameter | All Patients | Patients w/ Spondylolisthesis | Patients w/o Spondylolisthesis | p Value of Difference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. of patients* | 74 | 32 | 34 | |
| Outcome | ||||
| Excellent & good | 53 (71.6%) | 23 (71.9%) | 26 (76.5%) | 0.67 |
| Fair & poor | 21 (28.4%) | 9 (28.1%) | 8 (23.5%) |
Data were only available in the listed number of patients.
Sixteen cases with dural injuries were not associated with CSF leakage and were intraoperatively repaired using DuraSeal. There were no intraoperative and/or inpatient complications. At a mean follow-up of 28 months, the reoperation rate at the same level (with or without surgery at a different level) for the entire study group was 12.9%. Among the 11 reoperated patients, 7 (8.2%) underwent repeat decompression without fusion at the same level (with or without surgery at a different level), whereas in 3 patients (3.5%) a fusion was performed at the same level. Comparison of total reoperation rates as well as reoperation with fusion in patients with and without preoperative spondylolisthesis showed no significant difference between the 2 groups (Table 7).
Reoperation rate
| Parameter | All Patients | Patients w/ Spondylolisthesis | Patients w/o Spondylolisthesis | p Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. of patients* | 85 | 38 | 38 | |
| FU duration in mos | 0.81 | |||
| Mean ± SD | 28.5 ± 19.63 | 26.7 ± 18.60 | 27.7 ± 19.43 | |
| Median (min;max) | 22.8 (6.2;74.3) | 20.7 (8.5;74.3) | 20.5 (6.2;74.3) | |
| Total reop rate | 11 (12.9%) | 5 (13.2%) | 6 (15.8%) | 0.74 |
| Isolated decompression of the same (w/ or w/o different) level(s) | 7 (8.2%) | 3 (7.8%) | 4 (10.5%) | 0.55 |
| Fusion w/ or w/o decompression of same (w/ or w/o different) level(s) | 3 (3.5%) | 2 (5.2%) | 1 (2.6%) | |
| Time btwn 1st & 2nd op in mos (min;max) | 16.9 (0.2;39.7) | 23.1 (6.5;38.1) | 10.5 (0.2;39.7) | 0.25 |
Data were available in the listed number of patients. The type of reoperation procedure performed was unknown in 1 patient.
Radiographic Results
Because postoperative imaging was not routinely done in this retrospective case series, only a limited number of patients (41) had available follow-up imaging. In patients with preoperative spondylolisthesis the mean slippage prior to surgery was 5.5 ± 3.04 mm, which increased to 6.4 ± 3.5 at the latest follow-up. This increase did not reach statistical significance. None of the imaged patients without preoperative spondylolisthesis demonstrated any slippage at the latest follow-up. Although we report the radiographic follow-up for the study group, we emphasize that radiographic outcome was not used to draw definite conclusions in this study. Instead, clinical outcome has been mainly used as evidence to draw possible conclusions.
Learning Curve
The first 55 patients were grouped into an early experience group and the second 55 cases into a late experience group. Operative time, estimated blood loss, dural injury rates, clinical outcome, Macnab's criteria, and reoperation rate were compared between these 2 groups. Comparisons showed no statistically significant difference in operative time, estimated blood loss, clinical outcome, and Macnab results in the 2 groups. Dural injuries occurred in 15 cases (27.3%) in the early experience group and in only 1 case (1.8%) in the late experience group (p < 0.0001). Moreover, 9 patients (23.7%) in the early experience group needed reoperation, whereas only 2 patients (4.2%) in the late experience group underwent a second operation (p = 0.008). The follow-up duration for clinical outcome and Macnab's criteria estimation was 45.7 ± 17.03 months in the early group and 15.5 ± 7.03 months in the late experience group. Similarly, the follow-up duration for reoperation was 44.5 ± 18.34 months in the early group and 15.5 ± 7.03 months in the late experience group. Nonetheless, the period between the first and second operation was found to be similar and not statistically different between the early and late experience groups. The median interval between the first surgery and the reoperation was 16.9 months (minimum 0.2; maximum 39.7).
Discussion
Background
Several less-invasive surgical techniques have been introduced for direct decompression of the lumbar spine. The introduction of a less-invasive retractor system dates back to 1991 when Caspar and colleagues proposed the use of less-invasive specular retractors for discectomies.7,17 Independently, Foley and Smith, in 1997, described the tubular microendoscopic discectomy in the lumbar spine, in which endoscopes were used through tubular retractors to perform a discectomy.18 They had worked on this approach in the laboratory since 1994, and the first clinical case was performed in early 1996 (K. Foley, personal communication, 2004). The METRx tubular retractor system was introduced in 2003 and permitted the use of the microscope, which allows excellent illumination and visualization of pathology. The use of tubular retractors to access spinal pathology has been associated with several biomechanical and clinical advantages: First, the approach through a minimally invasive retractor can spare attachments of paraspinal ligaments and muscles, which stabilize the spine. Minimizing injury to paraspinal ligaments and muscles allows for postoperative strengthening of back muscles and maintains stabilization of the motion segment. Second, the minimally invasive approach allows contralateral decompression of the spinal canal, lateral recess, and foramen without another incision while also sparing part of the lamina, spinous process, and interspinous ligaments.2,67
The anatomical description and clinical results of a unilateral laminotomy for contralateral decompression were first reported by Spetzger in 1997.55,56 Similar observations were also described by McCulloch in 1999.38,59 Adopting tubular retractors for this approach led to excellent decompression of the contralateral lateral recess and even foraminal disc herniations and contralateral foraminal stenosis.2,67 For example, we reported that synovial cysts can be resected safely and without compromising the facet joint by approaching them from the contralateral side and from “normal” dura and anatomy via tubular retractors.28 Biomechanical and laboratory results indicate that laminectomy via tubular retractors or bilateral laminotomies are associated with less destabilization than an open bilateral laminectomy.1,5,6,12,23,34,57 In their biomechanical study, Lee et al. demonstrated that bilateral laminotomy was associated with significantly less hypermobility and stiffness reduction than a full laminectomy, and they proposed that this could be attributed to preservation of the central posterior osteoligamentous structures in laminotomy.34 In summary, minimally invasive laminectomy via tubular and similar retractors achieves effective neural decompression with simultaneous preservation of the stability of motion segments. Figure 7 features a case of LSS in which was achieved complete decompression and a favorable outcome after treatment via this technique.
Images obtained in a patient with severe LSS at L4–5 treated using minimally invasive laminectomy through tubular retractors. Left: Preoperative axial T2-weighted MR image of the lumbar spine at the L4–5 level showing severe stenosis. Right: Postoperative MR image at the same level showing marked and effective decompression of the neural elements.
Minimally Invasive Decompression of LSS
Minimally invasive laminectomy through tubular retractors has been shown in previous studies to be a feasible and effective technique for treating LSS.8,30,39,41–45 In the present study we evaluated the outcome of this procedure in a larger group of patients with a longer duration of follow-up. The results were compared with those of other decompressive procedures published in the literature (Table 8). Our study produced results corroborating the findings in previous studies on the same technique. Parikh et al. and Pao et al. reported higher ODI and pain score improvements than we did in the present study;44,45 this may be explained to some extent by the shorter follow-up duration in those studies (9 and 15 months, respectively) compared with ours (28 months).
Comparison of outcome among different decompressive procedures, as reported in the literature
| Authors & Year | Type of Study | No. of Cases | FU Duration | ODI Improvement (out of 100) | VAS Back Pain Improvement | VAS Leg Pain Improvement | Satisfaction | Total Reop Rate | Reop w/ Fusion Rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Open surgery | |||||||||
| Wilby et al., 2006 | Prospective cohort | 100 | 2 yrs | NA | 76% of pts improved | 87% of pts improved | NA | NA | NA |
| Weinstein et al., 2007 | Randomized (& observational) cohort | 324 | 2 yrs | 24.2 | NA | NA | NA | 11% | 2.6% |
| Malmivaara et al., 2007 | Randomized clinical trial | 50 | 2 yrs | 12.8 | NA | NA | NA | 6% | NA |
| Weinstein et al., 2008 | Randomized (& observational) cohort | 335 | 2 yrs | 20.5 | NA | NA | NA | 8% | NA |
| Yaşar et al., 2009 | Prospective case series | 125 | 2 yrs | 16 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Weinstein et al., 2009 | Randomized (& observational) cohort | 264 | 4 yrs | 23 | NA | NA | NA | 15% | NA |
| Weinstein et al., 2010 | Randomized (& observational) cohort | 92 | 4 yrs | 18.7 | NA | NA | NA | 13% | NA |
| Parker et al., 2011 | Prospective cohort | 54 | 2 yrs | 18.1 | NA | 4.15 points | NA | NA | NA |
| Slätis et al., 2011 | Randomized clinical trial | 47 | 2 yrs | 13.4 | 4.2 points | 3.7 points | NA | 2.1% | NA |
| Less-invasive open surgery (open decompression w/ less-extensive removal of pst stabilizing elements of spine) | |||||||||
| Thomé et al., 2005 | Randomized cohort | 40 (in each of 2 groups) | 1 yr | NA | Residual pain: 2.3 points (bilat laminot), 3.6 points (unilat laminot) | NA | Overall satisfaction: 97% (bilat laminot), 74% (unilat laminot) | 2.5% (bilat laminot), 5% (unilat laminot) | NA |
| Yamashita et al., 2006 | Prospective observational | 70 | 5 yrs | NA | 2.5 points | 4.5 points | NA | 4.2% | NA |
| Cavuşoğlu et al., 200710 | Prospective | 50 | 22 mos | 17.1 | 4.7 points | 4.7 points | NA | 0% | 0% |
| Cavuşoğlu et al., 20079 | Prospective randomized cohort | 50 (in each of 2 groups) | 5.4 yrs | 17 (unilat laminot) 17 (unilat laminec) | NA | NA | NA | 2% (unilat laminec), 0% (unilat laminot) | 0% (unilat laminec), 0% (unilat laminot) |
| Costa et al., 2007 | Retrospective | 374 | 5 yrs | NA | 5 points | NA | NA | 0% | 0% |
| Orpen et al., 2010 | Prospective | 100 | 3.5 yrs | 32 | 5 points | 6 points | NA | NA | 4% required, (2% refused) |
| Hong et al., 2011 | Retrospective cohort | 24 (unilat laminot), 29 (bilat laminot) | 4 yrs | 12.2 (unilat laminot), 15 (bilat laminot) | 2.3 points (unilat laminot), 4.1 points (bilat laminot) | 4.7 points (unilat laminot), 5.1 points (bilat laminot) | NA | NA | 0% (unilat laminot), 3.4% (bilat laminot) |
| Other MI procedures (MS &/or FE) | |||||||||
| Ruetten et al., 2009 | Randomized clinical trial | 80 (MS), 81 (FE) | 2 yrs | 55 (MS), 56 (FE) | −1.1 points (MS), 0.4 points (FE) | 7.2 points (MS), 6.7 points (FE) | NA | 6.2% | NA |
| Castro-Menéndez et al., 2009 | Prospective | 50* | 4 yrs | 30.2 | 0.84 points | 6.02 points | 72% excellent to good | 10% | 4% |
| Komp et al., 2011 | Prospective | 72† | 2 yrs | 54 | 0.6 points | 6.5 points | NA | 9.5% | NA |
| MI tubular retractor laminectomy | |||||||||
| Palmer et al., 200242 | Prospective | 17 | 3 mos | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Parikh et al., 2008 | Prospective & retrospective | 60 | 9 mos | 29.6 | 4.53 points | 5.43 points | NA | 3.4% | NA |
| Pao et al., 2009 | Prospective | 50 | 15 mos | 47.6 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Kim et al., 2012 | Retrospective observational cohort | 57 | 42 mos | NA | NA | NA | NA | 15% | 7% |
| Müslüman et al., 2012 | Prospective observational | 84 | 24 mos | 16 | 1.63 points | NA | 80% excellent to good | 1.2% | 0% |
| Palmer et al., 2012 | Prospective | 54 | 27 mos | NA | 3 points | 6 points | 80% overall satisfaction | NA | 2% |
| Present case | Retrospective | 84 | 28 mos | 16 (70% of pts improved) | 2.75 points (67% of pts improved) | 3.0 points (74% of pts improved) | 72% excellent to good | 12.9% | 3.5% |
FE = full endoscopy; laminec = laminectomy; laminot = laminotomy; MI = minimally invasive; MS = microsurgery; NA = not applicable; pst = posterior; pts = patients.
All patients underwent microendoscopic decompression.
All patients underwent full endoscopic decompression.
There is wide variability in the clinical outcome of different decompressive procedures in the literature, which makes it difficult to draw definite conclusions (Table 8). Nonetheless, comparisons between the minimally invasive laminectomy through tubular retractors and open laminectomy suggest that the former can have clinical outcomes comparable to those for the open procedures, while also having the benefits of minimally invasive surgery.36,46,54,60–64,66 Moreover, previous studies reporting reoperation rates for minimally invasive laminectomy suggest that there is an overall lower reoperation rate associated with this technique compared with that for open laminectomy.30,36,39,45,60–63
Lumbar Spinal Stenosis and Spondylolisthesis
Little research has been done to compare the outcome of different decompressive procedures in patients with and without preoperative spondylolisthesis. Clinical results of the current investigation showed no significant difference in outcome for patients with and without preoperative spondylolisthesis. However, it must be remembered that our cohort included only patients with “stable” spondylolisthesis, without movement on flexion/extension films, and with neurogenic claudication in the absence of mechanical back pain. The radiographic results corroborated the clinical outcomes. They showed no significant progression of the slippage after surgery in patients with preoperative spondylolisthesis. Similarly, in patients without preoperative spondylolisthesis, no slippage developed after surgery. However, we reemphasize that although we have reported on the radiographic presence and extent of slippage in patients with available follow-up imaging, no direct conclusions have been made based on the radiographic results per se given the limited availability of these studies. The radiographic findings have been reported to provide a more comprehensive picture of the study group and have been discussed and interpreted with caution. On the contrary, in the current study we have mainly focused on clinical outcome and have used it to provide possible evidence and draw careful conclusions. The clinical outcome included pain and functional outcome scores, satisfaction level, as well as the reoperation rate. Palmer et al., who studied the feasibility of minimally invasive laminectomy via tubular retractors in 2002, also reported no radiographic progression of the slippage at 3 months' follow-up in 8 patients with preoperative slippage.42,43 Given the small sample size and the short follow-up, conclusions for that study were limited. Findings in the current study are consistent with those of Pao et al. and Müslüman et al., who reported no progression of spondylolisthesis following a microsurgical unilateral approach for tubular bilateral decompression after 2 years' follow-up.39,44 The reoperation rates in our study compare favorably with those of Kim et al., who reported a 15% total reoperation rate and 7.1% reoperation rate with fusion following bilateral tubular decompressive surgery via a unilateral approach using tubular retractors.30 Those authors concluded that decompression without fusion is more cost-effective than instrumented fusion for a selected group of patients whom they defined as those with leg-dominant pain and stable Grade I spondylolisthesis.
A small number of studies have looked at the outcome in patients with preoperative spondylolisthesis treated using other minimally invasive decompressive techniques such as the full-endoscopic interlaminar approach. These studies all reported very low reoperation rates and/or minimal progressive spondylolisthesis postoperatively.
Standard open laminectomy, with or without fusion, is currently the most common procedure to treat LSS. However, conventional open laminectomy in the presence of preexisting spondylolisthesis can be associated with a high rate of subsequent instability requiring delayed fusion surgery. Radiographic results in Iguchi et al.'s study demonstrated the development of new spondylolisthesis in 6% of the patients without preoperative slippage at 10 years' follow-up, and the average progression of slippage was 2.3 mm.26 In Epstein's study, progression from Grade I to Grade II spondylolisthesis at the 2-year follow-up was seen in 31.4% of cases.13 In a well-designed prospective study on open laminectomy in 58 patents with preoperative slippage, Blumenthal et al. found that the reoperation rate with fusion was 37.5% at 3 years' follow-up.4 Current surgical guidelines state that the “best medical evidence available in the literature confirms the utility of fusion for improving patient outcomes following decompression for stenosis associated with spondylolisthesis.”51
Despite all the variations in outcome among the different decompressive procedures, minimally invasive laminectomy through tubular retractors seems to result in clinical outcome and reoperation rates comparable to those for other decompressive procedures.8–11,25,32,36,40,46,53,54,58,60–66 However, the radiographic results suggest that this technique is associated with a lower instability rate than the full-open procedures, probably because of the preservation of posterior elements of the lumbar spine. Results from a cost-utility study showed that tubular retractor–guided decompression without fusion in this setting is more cost-effective than conventional decompression and fusion (Table 9).30
Comparison of outcome among different types of decompressive procedures in patients with Grade I spondylolisthesis
| Authors & Year | Type of Study | No. of Pts w/ GIS* | FU Duration (yrs) | ODI Improvement (out of 100) | Points Improvement on VAS Back | Points Improvement on VAS Leg | Satisfaction | % Pts w/ Spondylolisthesis Among All Pts | Postoperative Progression of Spondylolisthesis | Total Reop Rate | Reop w/ Fusion Rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Open laminectomy | |||||||||||
| Iguchi et al., 2000 | Retrospective study | 10/151 | 10 | JOA improvement: 55.8% | NA | NA | NA | 6% | 6% new spondylolisthesis; average progression of slippage: 2.3 mm | NA | NA |
| Epstein, 2004 | Not specified | 35 pts w/ GIS, 45 w/o any spondylolisthesis | 2 | NA | NA | NA | 58% to 63% excellent to good surgeon-based outcome | 43% | 31.4% of pts w/ GIS progressed to GIIS | 14.2% in pts w/ GIS, 6.6% in pts w/o any spondylolisthesis | 8.5% in pts w/ GIS, 4.4% in pts w/o any spondylolisthesis |
| Weinstein et al., 2009 | Randomized (& observational) cohort | 264 | 4 | 23 | NA | NA | NA | 100% | NA | 15% | NA |
| Blumenthal et al., 2013 | Prospective study | 40 | 3.6 | 15 | NA | NA | NA | 100% | NA | 37.5% | NA |
| MI laminectomy | |||||||||||
| Podichetty et al., 2006 (microdecompression & microendoscopic decompression) | Retrospective case series | 69/220 | 0.25 | NA | NA | NA | NA | 31% | NA | NA | 1.4% |
| Iwatsuki et al., 2007 (microscopic decompression using Caspar retractor) | Not specified | 7/47 | 2 | NA | NA | NA | NA | 15% | No progression | NA | 0% |
| MI tubular retractor laminectomy | |||||||||||
| Palmer et al., 200243 | Retrospective case series | 8/17 | 0.25 | NA | NA | NA | NA | 47% | No progression | NA | NA |
| Pao et al., 2009 | Prospective study | 12/60 | 1.25 | 47.6 | NA | NA | NA | 20% | No progression | NA | NA |
| Müslüman et al., 2012 | Prospective observational study | 25/84 | 2 | 16 | 1.63 | NA | 80% excellent to good | 30% | No progression | 1.2% | 0% |
| Kim et al., 2012 | Retrospective observational cohort | 57 | 3.5 | NA | NA | NA | NA | 100% | NA | 15% | 7.1% |
| Present case | Retrospective study | 51 pts w/ GIS, 46 w/o any spondylolisthesis | 2.4 | 16 (70% of pts improved) | 2.75 (67% of pts improved) | 3.0 (74% of pts improved) | 72% excellent to good | 52% | No progression | 13.2% in pts w/ GIS, 15.8% in pts w/o any spondylolisthesis | 5.2% in pts w/ GIS, 2.6% in pts w/o any spondylolisthesis |
GIS = Grade I spondylolisthesis; JOA = Japanese Orthopaedic Association.
Listed alone, per the total number of patients in the study, or along with the number of patients without any spondylolisthesis.
We divided the patients into early and late groups, and no significant differences in operative time, estimated blood loss, and clinical outcome were observed between the two. In contrast, the CSF leakage rate and reoperation rates were higher in the early group. These differences are probably attributable to the learning curve associated with this technique.
Study Limitations
Finally, several limitations of the current study should be noted. It is a retrospective case series based on a prospectively collected database. The most important limitation lies in the fact that it was not designed to compare the outcome of different decompressive procedures. Thus, we attempted to compare the results of this study with those in the published literature. The wide variety of outcome measures used in these studies complicated the interpretation. In addition, because a number of between-group analyses may have been underpowered given the available sample size, the lack of observed statistical differences between the groups should be interpreted with caution. The current study provides preliminary estimates of differences between groups that can be used to power larger studies. The p values for between-group comparisons in the range of 0.06–0.20 should be considered as potential evidence for underpowered evaluations, and readers may wish to consider these differences as suggestive of nonsignificant trends. Another limitation of the study lies in the fact that comparison between preoperative and follow-up imaging was possible in only a small group of patients. For a small number of patients, neither pre- nor postoperative imaging was available in the hospital database; therefore, the presence or absence of spondylolisthesis was not determined in this group. Consequently, the small sample size for the radiographic comparison necessitates interpretation with caution.
Conclusions
Minimally invasive laminectomy through retractors is an effective procedure to treat LSS and shows similar results in patients with and without preoperative spondylolisthesis with low reoperation rates. This procedure is associated with a lower postoperative instability rate than the conventional open decompressive procedures but has a comparable clinical outcome. Moreover, it has the benefits of minimally invasive surgery such as less blood loss and shorter hospital stay. In light of this and other studies demonstrating the potential benefit of tubular and other minimally invasive retractors in decompression surgery, the need for routine fusion surgery in LSS patients with preexisting spondylolisthesis and multilevel LSS should be critically reevaluated.
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge Dr. Paul Christos for helping in the statistical analysis of the current study. We also thank AOSpine and Baxter for supporting Marjan Alimi's fellowship.
Author Contributions
Conception and design: Härtl, Alimi, Hofstetter, Pyo. Acquisition of data: Alimi, Paulo. Analysis and interpretation of data: Härtl, Alimi, Hofstetter. Drafting the article: Alimi. Critically revising the article: all authors. Reviewed submitted version of manuscript: all authors. Statistical analysis: Alimi, Hofstetter. Study supervision: Härtl.
References
- 1↑
Abumi K, , Panjabi MM, , Kramer KM, , Duranceau J, , Oxland T, & Crisco JJ: Biomechanical evaluation of lumbar spinal stability after graded facetectomies. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 15:1142–1147, 1990
- 2↑
Berra LV, , Foti D, , Ampollini A, , Faraca G, , Zullo N, & Musso C: Contralateral approach for far lateral lumbar disc herniations: a modified technique and outcome analysis of nine patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35:709–713, 2010
- 3↑
Beurskens AJ, , de Vet HC, , Köke AJ, , van der Heijden GJ, & Knipschild PG: Measuring the functional status of patients with low back pain. Assessment of the quality of four disease-specific questionnaires. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 20:1017–1028, 1995
- 4↑
Blumenthal C, , Curran J, , Benzel EC, , Potter R, , Magge SN, & Harrington JF Jr, : Radiographic predictors of delayed instability following decompression without fusion for degenerative Grade I lumbar spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine 18:340–346, 2013
- 5↑
Bresnahan L, , Ogden AT, , Natarajan RN, & Fessler RG: A biomechanical evaluation of graded posterior element removal for treatment of lumbar stenosis: comparison of a minimally invasive approach with two standard laminectomy techniques. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:17–23, 2009
- 6↑
Cardoso MJ, , Dmitriev AE, , Helgeson M, , Lehman RA, , Kuklo TR, & Rosner MK: Does superior-segment facet violation or laminectomy destabilize the adjacent level in lumbar transpedicular fixation? An in vitro human cadaveric assessment. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:2868–2873, 2008
- 7↑
Caspar W, , Campbell B, , Barbier DD, , Kretschmmer R, & Gotfried Y: The Caspar microsurgical discectomy and comparison with a conventional standard lumbar disc procedure. Neurosurgery 28:78–87, 1991
- 8↑
Castro-Menéndez M, , Bravo-Ricoy JA, , Casal-Moro R, , Hernández-Blanco M, & Jorge-Barreiro FJ: Midterm outcome after microendoscopic decompressive laminotomy for lumbar spinal stenosis: 4-year prospective study. Neurosurgery 65:100–110, 2009
- 9↑
Cavuşoğlu H, , Kaya RA, , Türkmenoglu ON, , Tuncer C, , Colak I, & Aydin Y: Midterm outcome after unilateral approach for bilateral decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis: 5-year prospective study. Eur Spine J 16:2133–2142, 2007
- 10↑
Cavuşoğlu H, , Türkmenoğlu O, , Kaya RA, , Tuncer C, , Colak I, & Sahin Y, : Efficacy of unilateral laminectomy for bilateral decompression in lumbar spinal stenosis. Turk Neurosurg 17:100–108, 2007
- 11
Costa F, , Sassi M, , Cardia A, , Ortolina A, , De Santis A, & Luccarell G, : Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: analysis of results in a series of 374 patients treated with unilateral laminotomy for bilateral microdecompression. J Neurosurg Spine 7:579–586, 2007
- 12↑
Delank KS, , Gercek E, , Kuhn S, , Hartmann F, , Hely H, & Röllinghoff M, : How does spinal canal decompression and dorsal stabilization affect segmental mobility? A biomechanical study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 130:285–292, 2010
- 13↑
Epstein NE: Lumbar laminectomy for the resection of synovial cysts and coexisting lumbar spinal stenosis or degenerative spondylolisthesis: an outcome study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29:1049–1056, 2004
- 14↑
Fairbank JC, , Couper J, , Davies JB, & O'Brien JP: The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy 66:271–273, 1980
- 15↑
Farrar JT, , Portenoy RK, , Berlin JA, , Kinman JL, & Strom BL: Defining the clinically important difference in pain outcome measures. Pain 88:287–294, 2000
- 16↑
Farrar JT, , Young JP Jr, , LaMoreaux L, , Werth JL, & Poole RM: Clinical importance of changes in chronic pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical pain rating scale. Pain 94:149–158, 2001
- 17↑
Faubert C, & Caspar W: Lumbar percutaneous discectomy. Initial experience in 28 cases. Neuroradiology 33:407–410, 1991
- 19↑
Fox MW, , Onofrio BM, , Onofrio BM, & Hanssen AD: Clinical outcomes and radiological instability following decompressive lumbar laminectomy for degenerative spinal stenosis: a comparison of patients undergoing concomitant arthrodesis versus decompression alone. J Neurosurg 85:793–802, 1996
- 20↑
Fritz JM, & Irrgang JJ: A comparison of a modified Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire and the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale. Phys Ther 81:776–788, 2001
- 21↑
Glassman SD, , Carreon LY, , Djurasovic M, , Dimar JR, , Johnson JR, & Puno RM, : Lumbar fusion outcomes stratified by specific diagnostic indication. Spine J 9:13–21, 2009
- 22↑
Hägg O, , Fritzell P, & Nordwall A: The clinical importance of changes in outcome scores after treatment for chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J 12:12–20, 2003
- 23↑
Hamasaki T, , Tanaka N, , Kim J, , Okada M, , Ochi M, & Hutton WC: Biomechanical assessment of minimally invasive decompression for lumbar spinal canal stenosis: a cadaver study. J Spinal Disord Tech 22:486–491, 2009
- 24↑
Herkowitz HN: Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: evolution of surgical management. Spine J 9:605–606, 2009
- 25↑
Hong SW, , Choi KY, , Ahn Y, , Baek OK, , Wang JC, & Lee SH, : A comparison of unilateral and bilateral laminotomies for decompression of L4-L5 spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36:E172–E178, 2011
- 26↑
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 (Phila Pa 1976) 25:1754–1759, 2000
- 27
Iwatsuki K, , Yoshimine T, & Aoki M: Bilateral interlaminar fenestration and unroofing for the decompression of nerve roots by using a unilateral approach in lumbar canal stenosis. Surg Neurol 68:487–492, 2007
- 28↑
James A, , Laufer I, , Parikh K, , Nagineni VV, , Saleh TO, & Härtl R: Lumbar juxtafacet cyst resection: the facet sparing contralateral minimally invasive surgical approach. J Spinal Disord Tech 25:E13–E17, 2012
- 29↑
Khoo LT, & Fessler RG: Microendoscopic decompressive laminotomy for the treatment of lumbar stenosis. Neurosurgery 51:5 Suppl S146–S154, 2002
- 30↑
Kim S, , Mortaz Hedjri S, , Coyte PC, & Rampersaud YR: Costutility of lumbar decompression with or without fusion for patients with symptomatic degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Spine J 12:44–54, 2012
- 31↑
Knaub MA, , Won DS, , McGuire R, & Herkowitz HN: Lumbar spinal stenosis: indications for arthrodesis and spinal instrumentation. Instr Course Lect 54:313–319, 2005
- 32↑
Komp M, , Hahn P, , Merk H, , Godolias G, & Ruetten S: Bilateral operation of lumbar degenerative central spinal stenosis in full-endoscopic interlaminar technique with unilateral approach: prospective 2-year results of 74 patients. J Spinal Disord Tech 24:281–287, 2011
- 33↑
Kovacs FM, , Urrútia G, & Alarcón JD: Surgery versus conservative treatment for symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36:E1335–E1351, 2011
- 34↑
Lee MJ, , Bransford RJ, , Bellabarba C, , Chapman JR, , Cohen AM, & Harrington RM, : The effect of bilateral laminotomy versus laminectomy on the motion and stiffness of the human lumbar spine: a biomechanical comparison. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35:1789–1793, 2010
- 35↑
Macnab I: Negative disc exploration. An analysis of the causes of nerve-root involvement in sixty-eight patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 53:891–903, 1971
- 36↑
Malmivaara A, , Slätis P, , Heliövaara M, , Sainio P, , Kinnunen H, & Kankare J, : Surgical or nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis? A randomized controlled trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32:1–8, 2007
- 37↑
Mardjetko SM, , Connolly PJ, & Shott S: Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. A meta-analysis of literature 1970–1993. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 19:20 Suppl 2256S–2265S, 1994
- 38↑
McCulloch JA, & Young PH: Musculoskeletal and neuroanatomy of the lumbar spine. Essentials of Spinal Microsurgery Philadelphia, Lippincott-Raven, 1998. 249–292
- 39↑
Müslüman AM, , Cansever T, , Yılmaz A, , Çavuşoğlu H, , Yüce İ, & Aydın Y: Midterm outcome after a microsurgical unilateral approach for bilateral decompression of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine 16:68–76, 2012
- 40↑
Orpen NM, , Corner JA, , Shetty RR, & Marshall R: Microdecompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: the early outcome using a modified surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg Br 92:550–554, 2010
- 41
Palmer S, & Davison L: Minimally invasive surgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: two-year follow-up in 54 patients. Surg Neurol Int 3:41, 2012
- 42↑
Palmer S, , Turner R, & Palmer R: Bilateral decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis involving a unilateral approach with microscope and tubular retractor system. J Neurosurg 97:2 Suppl 213–217, 2002
- 43↑
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
- 44↑
Pao JL, , Chen WC, & Chen PQ: Clinical outcomes of microendoscopic decompressive laminotomy for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Eur Spine J 18:672–678, 2009
- 45↑
Parikh K, , Tomasino A, , Knopman J, , Boockvar J, & Härtl R: Operative results and learning curve: microscope-assisted tubular microsurgery for 1- and 2-level discectomies and laminectomies. Neurosurg Focus 25:2 E14, 2008
- 46↑
Parker SL, , Fulchiero EC, , Davis BJ, , Adogwa O, , Aaronson OS, & Cheng JS, : Cost-effectiveness of multilevel hemilaminectomy for lumbar stenosis-associated radiculopathy. Spine J 11:705–711, 2011
- 47↑
Perez-Cruet MJ, , Foley KT, , Isaacs RE, , Rice-Wyllie L, , Wellington R, & Smith MM, : Microendoscopic lumbar discectomy: technical note. Neurosurgery 51:5 Suppl S129–S136, 2002
- 48
Podichetty VK, , Spears J, , Isaacs RE, , Booher J, & Biscup RS: Complications associated with minimally invasive decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis. J Spinal Disord Tech 19:161–166, 2006
- 49↑
Resnick DK, , Choudhri TF, , Dailey AT, , Groff MW, , Khoo L, & Matz PG, : Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 2: assessment of functional outcome. J Neurosurg Spine 2:639–646, 2005
- 50↑
Resnick DK, , Choudhri TF, , Dailey AT, , Groff MW, , Khoo L, & Matz PG, : Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 7: intractable low-back pain without stenosis or spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine 2:670–672, 2005
- 51↑
Resnick DK, , Choudhri TF, , Dailey AT, , Groff MW, , Khoo L, & Matz PG, : Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 9: fusion in patients with stenosis and spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine 2:679–685, 2005
- 52↑
Resnick DK, , Choudhri TF, , Dailey AT, , Groff MW, , Khoo L, & Matz PG, : Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 10: fusion following decompression in patients with stenosis without spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine 2:686–691, 2005
- 53↑
Ruetten S, , Komp M, , Merk H, & Godolias G: Surgical treatment for lumbar lateral recess stenosis with the full-endoscopic interlaminar approach versus conventional microsurgical technique: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. J Neurosurg Spine 10:476–485, 2009
- 54↑
Slätis P, , Malmivaara A, , Heliövaara M, , Sainio P, , Herno A, & Kankare J, : Long-term results of surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomised controlled trial. Eur Spine J 20:1174–1181, 2011
- 55↑
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) 139:392–396, 1997
- 56↑
Spetzger U, , Bertalanffy H, , Reinges MH, & Gilsbach JM: Unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis. Part II: Clinical experiences. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 139:397–403, 1997
- 57↑
Tai CL, , Hsieh PH, , Chen WP, , Chen LH, , Chen WJ, & Lai PL: Biomechanical comparison of lumbar spine instability between laminectomy and bilateral laminotomy for spinal stenosis syndrome – an experimental study in porcine model. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 9:84, 2008
- 58↑
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 3:129–141, 2005
- 59↑
Weiner BK, , Walker M, , Brower RS, & McCulloch JA: Microdecompression for lumbar spinal canal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 24:2268–2272, 1999
- 60
Weinstein JN, , Lurie JD, , Tosteson TD, , Hanscom B, , Tosteson AN, & Blood EA, : Surgical versus nonsurgical treatment for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. N Engl J Med 356:2257–2270, 2007
- 61
Weinstein JN, , Lurie JD, , Tosteson TD, , Zhao W, , Blood EA, & Tosteson AN, : Surgical compared with nonoperative treatment for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. Four-year results in the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) randomized and observational cohorts. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91:1295–1304, 2009
- 62
Weinstein JN, , Tosteson TD, , Lurie JD, , Tosteson A, , Blood E, & Herkowitz H, : Surgical versus nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis four-year results of the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35:1329–1338, 2010
- 63
Weinstein JN, , Tosteson TD, , Lurie JD, , Tosteson AN, , Blood E, & Hanscom B, : Surgical versus nonsurgical therapy for lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med 358:794–810, 2008
- 64
Wilby MJ, , Seeley H, & Laing RJ: Laminectomy for lumbar canal stenosis: a safe and effective treatment. Br J Neurosurg 20:391–395, 2006
- 65
Yamashita K, , Ohzono K, & Hiroshima K: Five-year outcomes of surgical treatment for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a prospective observational study of symptom severity at standard intervals after surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:1484–1490, 2006
- 66↑
Yaşar B, , Simşek S, , Er U, , Yiğitkanli K, , Ekşioğlu E, & Altuğ T, : Functional and clinical evaluation for the surgical treatment of degenerative stenosis of the lumbar spinal canal. J Neurosurg Spine 11:347–352, 2009
- 67↑
Yeom JS, , Kim KH, , Hong SW, , Park KW, , Chang BS, & Lee CK, : A minimally invasive technique for L5-S1 intraforaminal disc herniations: microdiscectomy with a tubular retractor via a contralateral approach. J Neurosurg Spine 8:193–198, 2008
