Long-term clinical outcomes after bilateral laminotomy or total laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis: a single-institution experience.

OBJECTIVELumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is the most common spinal disease in the geriatric population, and is characterized by a compression of the lumbosacral neural roots from a narrowing of the lumbar spinal canal. LSS can result in symptomatic compression of the neural elements, requiring surgical treatment if conservative management fails. Different surgical techniques with or without fusion are currently treatment options. The purpose of this study was to provide a description of the long-term clinical outcomes of patients who underwent bilateral laminotomy compared with total laminectomy for LSS.METHODSThe authors retrospectively reviewed all the patients treated surgically by the senior author for LSS with total laminectomy and bilateral laminotomy with a minimum of 10 years of follow-up. Patients were divided into 2 treatment groups (total laminectomy, group 1; and bilateral laminotomy, group 2) according to the type of surgical decompression. Clinical outcomes measures included the visual analog scale (VAS), the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) scores, and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). In addition, surgical parameters, reoperation rate, and complications were evaluated in both groups.RESULTSTwo hundred fourteen patients met the inclusion and exclusion criteria (105 and 109 patients in groups 1 and 2, respectively). The mean age at surgery was 69.5 years (range 58-77 years). Comparing pre- and postoperative values, both groups showed improvement in ODI and SF-36 scores; at final follow-up, a slightly better improvement was noted in the laminotomy group (mean ODI value 22.8, mean SF-36 value 70.2), considering the worse preoperative scores in this group (mean ODI value 70, mean SF-36 value 38.4) with respect to the laminectomy group (mean ODI 68.7 vs mean SF-36 value 36.3), but there were no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups. Significantly, in group 2 there was a lower incidence of reoperations (15.2% vs 3.7%, p = 0.0075).CONCLUSIONSBilateral laminotomy allows adequate and safe decompression of the spinal canal in patients with LSS; this technique ensures a significant improvement in patients' symptoms, disability, and quality of life. Clinical outcomes are similar in both groups, but a lower incidence of complications and iatrogenic instability has been shown in the long term in the bilateral laminotomy group.

[1]  T. Witham,et al.  Iatrogenic Spondylolisthesis Following Open Lumbar Laminectomy: Case Series and Review of the Literature. , 2018, World neurosurgery.

[2]  A. Ramieri,et al.  Long-term Clinical Outcomes and Quality of Life in Elderly Patients Treated with Interspinous Devices for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis , 2017, Journal of Neurological Surgery Part A: Central European Neurosurgery.

[3]  E. Uhl,et al.  Microsurgical unilateral laminotomy for decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis: long-term results and predictive factors , 2016, Acta Neurochirurgica.

[4]  R. Mobbs,et al.  Minimally Invasive Versus Open Laminectomy for Lumbar Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis , 2016, Spine.

[5]  M. Shamji,et al.  Iatrogenic spondylolisthesis following laminectomy for degenerative lumbar stenosis: systematic review and current concepts. , 2015, Neurosurgical focus.

[6]  Ø. Salvesen,et al.  Minimally invasive decompression versus open laminectomy for central stenosis of the lumbar spine: pragmatic comparative effectiveness study , 2015, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[7]  R. Mobbs,et al.  Outcomes after decompressive laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis: comparison between minimally invasive unilateral laminectomy for bilateral decompression and open laminectomy: clinical article. , 2014, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[8]  Gyu Yeul Ji,et al.  Spinal canal morphology and clinical outcomes of microsurgical bilateral decompression via a unilateral approach for lumbar spinal canal stenosis , 2014, European Spine Journal.

[9]  J. Chapman,et al.  The Effect of Bilateral Laminotomy Versus Laminectomy on the Motion and Stiffness of the Human Lumbar Spine: A Biomechanical Comparison , 2010, Spine.

[10]  J. H. Oppenheimer,et al.  Minimally invasive spine technology and minimally invasive spine surgery: a historical review. , 2009, Neurosurgical focus.

[11]  B. Zeng,et al.  Long-term Outcomes of Two Different Decompressive Techniques for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis , 2008, Spine.

[12]  M. Sassi,et al.  Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: analysis of results in a series of 374 patients treated with unilateral laminotomy for bilateral microdecompression. , 2007, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[13]  J. Seldomridge,et al.  Minimally invasive spine surgery. , 2010, American journal of orthopedics.

[14]  J. Wöhrle,et al.  Outcome after less-invasive decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized comparison of unilateral laminotomy, bilateral laminotomy, and laminectomy. , 2005, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[15]  H. Mayer Minimally invasive spine surgery : a surgical manual , 2000 .

[16]  B. Weiner,et al.  Microdecompression for lumbar spinal canal stenosis. , 1999, Spine.

[17]  R. Seiler,et al.  Surgical Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis in the Elderly , 1998, Acta Neurochirurgica.

[18]  G. Rea,et al.  Quantitative outcome and radiographic comparisons between laminectomy and laminotomy in the treatment of acquired lumbar stenosis. , 1997, Neurosurgery.

[19]  C. Poletti Central lumbar stenosis caused by ligamentum flavum: unilateral laminotomy for bilateral ligamentectomy: preliminary report of two cases. , 1995, Neurosurgery.

[20]  D. Perugia,et al.  The surgical treatment of central lumbar stenosis. Multiple laminotomy compared with total laminectomy. , 1993, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[21]  M. Panjabi,et al.  Biomechanical Evaluation of Lumbar Spinal Stability After Graded Facetectomies , 1990, Spine.

[22]  I. Redlund‐Johnell,et al.  Preoperative and Postoperative Instability in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis , 1989, Spine.

[23]  S. O’laoire,et al.  Relief of lumbar canal stenosis using multilevel subarticular fenestrations as an alternative to wide laminectomy: preliminary report. , 1988, Neurosurgery.

[24]  E. Kirwan,et al.  Partial undercutting facetectomy for bony entrapment of the lumbar nerve root. , 1981, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[25]  S. Grabias Current concepts review. The treatment of spinal stenosis. , 1980, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[26]  E. Binet,et al.  Quantitative assessment of the lumbar spinal canal by computed tomography. , 1980, Radiology.

[27]  W. Lane CASE OF SPONDYLOLISTHESIS ASSOCIATED WITH PROGRESSIVE PARAPLEGIA; LAMINECTOMY. , 1893 .