Minimally invasive surgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: Two-year follow-up in 54 patients

Objective: Minimally invasive surgery has seen increasing application in the treatment of spinal disorders. Treatment of degenerative spinal stenosis, with or without spondylolisthesis, with minimally invasive technique preserves stabilizing ligaments, bone, and muscle. Satisfactory results can be achieved without the need for fusion in most cases. Methods: Fifty-four consecutive patients underwent bilateral decompressions from a unilateral approach for spinal stenosis using METRx instrumentation. Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores were recorded preoperatively and patients were interviewed, in person or by phone, by our office nurse practitioner (LD) to assess postoperative VAS scores, and patient satisfaction with the clinical results 21-39 months postoperatively (median 27 months). Results: Fifty-four patients underwent decompression at 77 levels (L4/5 = 43, L3/4 = 22, L5/S1 = 8, L1/2 = 4, L2/3 = 4), (single = 35, double = 16, triple = 2, quadruple = 1). There were 39 females and 15 males. The average age was 67 years. The average operative time was 78 minutes and the average blood loss was 37 ml per level. Twenty-seven patients had preoperative degenerative spondylolisthesis (Grade 1 = 26, Grade 2 = 1). Eight patients had discectomies and four had synovial cysts. Patient satisfaction was high. Use of pain medication for leg and back pain was low, and VAS scores improved by more than half. There were three dural tears. There were no deaths or infections. One patient with an unrecognized dural tear required re-exploration for repair of a pseudomeningocele and one patient required a lumbar fusion for pain associated with progression of her spondylolisthesis. Conclusions: Minimally invasive bilateral decompression of acquired spinal stenosis from a unilateral approach can be successfully accomplished with reasonable operative times, minimal blood loss, and acceptable morbidity. Two-year outcomes in this series revealed high patient satisfaction and only one patient progressed to lumbar fusion.

[1]  吉田 宗人,et al.  Microendoscopic discectomy. , 1999, Clinical privilege white paper.

[2]  W. Hitselberger,et al.  Abnormal myelograms in asymptomatic patients. , 1968, Journal of neurosurgery.

[3]  P. Kambin,et al.  Arthroscopic Microdiscectomy and Selective Fragmentectomy , 1998, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[4]  B. Sachs,et al.  PROGRESSIVE ANKYLOTIC RIGIDITY OF THE SPINE (SPONDYLOSE RHIZOMÉLIQUE) , 1900 .

[5]  N. Kahanovitz,et al.  Automated percutaneous discectomy: a prospective multi-institutional study. , 1990, Neurosurgery.

[6]  W Liebler,et al.  Percutaneous laser nucleolysis of lumbar disks. , 1987, The New England journal of medicine.

[7]  L. Smith.  ENZYME DISSOLUTION OF THE NUCLEUS PULPOSUS IN HUMANS. , 1964, JAMA.

[8]  H. Verbiest,et al.  RESULTS OF SURGICAL TREATMENT OF IDIOPATHIC DEVELOPMENTAL STENOSIS OF THE LUMBAR VERTEBRAL CANAL , 2005 .

[9]  R. Fessler,et al.  Microendoscopic Decompressive Laminotomy for the Treatment of Lumbar Stenosis , 2002, Neurosurgery.

[10]  J. Malik,et al.  Treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis by extensive unilateral decompression and contralateral autologous bone fusion: operative technique and results. , 1996, Journal of neurosurgery.

[11]  T. Adamson.  Microendoscopic posterior cervical laminoforaminotomy for unilateral radiculopathy: results of a new technique in 100 cases. , 2001, Journal of neurosurgery.

[12]  M. Adams,et al.  The Resistance to Flexion of the Lumbar Intervertebral Joint , 1980, Spine.

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

[14]  M. Miner,et al.  The effect of postlaminectomy spinal instability on the outcome of lumbar spinal stenosis patients. , 1996, Journal of spinal disorders.

[15]  J. Cusick,et al.  Biomechanics of sequential posterior lumbar surgical alterations. , 1992, Journal of neurosurgery.

[16]  O. Nakai,et al.  Long-term roentgenographic and functional changes in patients who were treated with wide fenestration for central lumbar stenosis. , 1991, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[17]  M. Adams,et al.  The Mechanical Function of the Lumbar Apophyseal Joints , 1983, Spine.

[18]  P. Rissanen,et al.  The surgical anatomy and pathology of the supraspinous and interspinous ligaments of the lumbar spine with special reference to ligament ruptures. , 1960, Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica. Supplementum.

[19]  R. Turner,et al.  Bilateral decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis involving a unilateral approach with microscope and tubular retractor system. , 2002, Journal of neurosurgery.

[20]  T. Ducker,et al.  Multilevel lumbar laminotomies: an alternative to laminectomy in the treatment of lumbar stenosis. , 1990, Neurosurgery.

[21]  R. Deyo,et al.  Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Attempted Meta‐Analysis of the Literature , 1992, Spine.

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