Technical Nuances of Minimal Invasive Interlaminar Decompression in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: The Role of Minimal Invasive Bilateral Approach

We report a series of patients operated for one or multilevel lumbar spinal stenosis (with and without spondylolisthesis) using the minimal invasive bilateral interlaminar decompression. We discuss our results, comparing this procedure (from a technical point of view) with the muscle-preserving interlaminar decompression (MILD) and the unilateral approach for bilateral decompression (ULBD). Clinical and outcome data of 62 consecutive patients were reviewed, using the Visual Analogue Scale for both low back pain (LBP) and legs pain and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) for the degree of disability. Mean age was 68.88 ± 9.54 years and mean follow-up (FU) was 16.38 ± 11.12 months. A statistically significant improvement of LBP, legs pain and ODI was globally observed. At latest FU, patients with multilevel lumbar spinal stenosis significantly improved all scores and patients with spondylolisthesis significantly decreased their disability. No major complications occurred. Two cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) collections were treated conservatively. No wound infection occurred. No progression of spondylolisthesis was observed. No reoperation was needed. Although efficacious in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis, MILD and ULBD can have both some limitations. MILD has been found to decrease lumbar function in multilevel decompression (increasing sagittal translation and lumbar lordosis probably due to the removal of half of the spinous processes) and ULBD shows some disadvantages due to the difficulty of manipulating instruments through a small portal and the inadequate decompression due to a minimal exposure. The minimal invasive bilateral interlaminar decompression (in this technique, the access is bilateral but the supraspinous and interspinous ligaments and the spinous processes are preserved) allows wide access (bilateral exposure) with minimal invasiveness and very low morbidity in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis at one or more levels.

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

[2]  F. Kovacs,et al.  Degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. , 2016, Radiologia.

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

[4]  Sung-Woo Choi,et al.  Adjacent Segment Pathology after Lumbar Spinal Fusion , 2015, Asian spine journal.

[5]  J. Keers,et al.  Bilateral versus unilateral interlaminar approach for bilateral decompression in patients with single-level degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a multicenter retrospective study of 175 patients on postoperative pain, functional disability, and patient satisfaction. , 2015, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[6]  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.

[7]  T. Yoshii,et al.  A Prospective Comparative Study of 2 Minimally Invasive Decompression Procedures for Lumbar Spinal Canal Stenosis: Unilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Decompression (ULBD) Versus Muscle-Preserving Interlaminar Decompression (MILD) , 2014, Spine.

[8]  D. Sakas,et al.  Predictors of long-term outcome in an elderly group after laminectomy for lumbar stenosis. , 2010, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[9]  T. Kubo,et al.  Muscle-Preserving Interlaminar Decompression for the Lumbar Spine: A Minimally Invasive New Procedure for Lumbar Spinal Canal Stenosis , 2009, Spine.

[10]  Brett Hanscom,et al.  Surgical versus nonsurgical therapy for lumbar spinal stenosis. , 2008, The New England journal of medicine.

[11]  I. Colak,et al.  Efficacy of unilateral laminectomy for bilateral decompression in lumbar spinal stenosis. , 2007, Turkish neurosurgery.

[12]  Markku Heliövaara,et al.  Surgical or Nonoperative Treatment for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis?: A Randomized Controlled Trial , 2007, Spine.

[13]  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.

[14]  B. Walters,et al.  Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 9: fusion in patients with stenosis and spondylolisthesis. , 2005, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[15]  U. Spetzger,et al.  Unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis part II: Clinical experiences , 2005, Acta Neurochirurgica.

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

[17]  M. Mariconda,et al.  Unilateral laminectomy for bilateral decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis: a prospective comparative study with conservatively treated patients. , 2002, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[18]  L H Chen,et al.  Surgical Treatment of Adjacent Instability After Lumbar Spine Fusion , 2001, Spine.

[19]  K Kaneda,et al.  Stability of Posterior Spinal Instrumentation and Its Effects on Adjacent Motion Segments in the Lumbosacral Spine , 1998, Spine.

[20]  R. Deyo,et al.  The Maine Lumbar Spine Study, Part III: 1‐Year Outcomes of Surgical and Nonsurgical Management of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis , 1996, Spine.