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.
References
[1]
Bouras, T., Stranjalis, G., Loufardaki, M., Sourtzis, I., Stavrinou, L.C. and Sakas, D.E. (2010) Predictors of Long-Term Outcome in an Elderly Group after Laminectomy for Lumbar Stenosis. Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine, 13, 329-334. http://dx.doi.org/10.3171/2010.3.SPINE09487
[2]
Cavusoglu, H., Turkmenoglu, O., Kaya, R.A., Tuncer, C., Colak, I., Sahin, Y. and Aydin, Y. (2007) Efficacy of Unilateral Laminectomy for Bilateral Decompression in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis. Turkish Neurosurgery, 17, 100-108.
[3]
Mariconda, M., Fava, R., Gatto, A., Longo, C. and Milano, C. (2002) Unilateral Laminectomy for Bilateral Decompression of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Prospective Comparative Study with Conservatively Treated Patients. Journal of Spinal Disorders & Techniques, 15, 39-46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00024720-200202000-00006
[4]
Atlas, S.J., Deyo, R.A., Keller, R.B., Chapin, A.M., Patrick, D.L., Long, J.M. and Singer, D.E. (1996) The Maine Lumbar Spine Study, Part III. 1-Year Outcomes of Surgical and Nonsurgical Management of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis. Spine, 21, 1787-1795. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199608010-00012
[5]
Malmivaara, A., Slatis, P., Heliovaara, M., Sainio, P., Kinnunen, H., Kankare, J., Dalin-Hirvonen, N., Seitsalo, S., Herno, A., Kortekangas, P., Niinimaki, T., Ronty, H., Tallroth, K., Turunen, V., Knekt, P., Harkanen, T. and Hurri, H. (2007) Finnish Lumbar Spinal Research Group: Surgical or Nonoperative Treatment for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis? A Randomized Controlled Trial. Spine, 32, 1-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000251014.81875.6d
[6]
Weinstein, J.N., Tosteson, T.D., Lurie, J.D., Tosteson, A.N., Blood, E., Hanscom, B., Herkowitz, H., Cammisa, F., Albert, T., Boden, S.D., Hilibrand, A., Goldberg, H., Berven, S. and An, H. (2008) SPORT Investigators: Surgical versus Nonsurgical Therapy for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis. The New England Journal of Medicine, 358, 794-810. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0707136
[7]
Guha, D., Heary, R.F. and Shamji, M.F. (2015) Iatrogenic Spondylolisthesis Following Laminectomy for Degenerative Lumbar Stenosis: Systematic Review and Current Concepts. Neurosurgical Focus, 39, E9. http://dx.doi.org/10.3171/2015.7.FOCUS15259
[8]
Hatta, Y., Shiraishi, T., Sakamoto, A., Yato, Y., Harada, T., Mikami, Y., Hase, H. and Kubo, T. (2009) Muscle-Preserving Interlaminar Decompression for the Lumbar Spine: A Minimally Invasive New Procedure for Lumbar Spinal Canal Stenosis. Spine, 34, E276-E280. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e318195d943
[9]
Spetzger, U., Bertalanffy, H., Reinges, M.H. and Gilsbach, J.M. (1997) Unilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Decompression of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis. Part II: Clinical Experiences. Acta Neurochirurgica, 139, 397-403. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01808874
[10]
Arai, Y., Hirai, T., Yoshii, T., Sakai, K., Kato, T., Enomoto, M., Matsumoto, R., Yamada, T., Kawabata, S., Shinomiya, K. and Okawa, A. (2014) 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). Spine, 39, 332-340. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000000136
[11]
den Boogert, H.F., Keers, J.C., Marinus Oterdoom, D.L. and Kuijlen, J.M. (2015) 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. Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine, 23, 326-335. http://dx.doi.org/10.3171/2014.12.SPINE13994
[12]
Mobbs, R.J., Li, J., Sivabalan, P., Raley, D. and Rao, P.J. (2014) Outcomes after Decompressive Laminectomy for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Comparison between Minimally Invasive Unilateral Laminectomy for Bilateral Decompression and Open Laminectomy. Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine, 21, 179-186. http://dx.doi.org/10.3171/2014.4.SPINE13420
[13]
Phan, K. and Mobbs, R.J. (2015) Minimally Invasive versus Open Laminectomy for Lumbar Stenosis—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Spine, 41, E91-E100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001161
[14]
Thome, C., Zevgaridis, D., Leheta, O., Bazner, H., Pockler-Schoniger, C., Wohrle, J. and Schmiedek, P. (2005) Outcome after Less-Invasive Decompression of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Randomized Comparison of Unilateral Laminotomy, Bilateral Laminotomy, and Laminectomy. Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine, 3, 129-141. http://dx.doi.org/10.3171/spi.2005.3.2.0129
[15]
Khoo, L.T. and Fessler, R.G. (2002) Microendoscopic Decompressive Laminotomy for the Treatment of Lumbar Stenosis. Neurosurgery, 51, S146-S154. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00006123-200211002-00020
[16]
Resnick, D.K., Choudhri, T.F., Dailey, A.T., Groff, M.W., Khoo, L., Matz, P.G., Mummaneni, P., Watters 3rd, W.C., Wang, J., Walters, B.C. and Hadley, M.N. (2005) American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological Surgeons: Guidelines for the Performance of Fusion Procedures for Degenerative Disease of the Lumbar Spine. Part 9: Fusion in Patients with Stenosis and Spondylolisthesis. Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine, 2, 679-685. http://dx.doi.org/10.3171/spi.2005.2.6.0679
[17]
Shono, Y., Kaneda, K., Abumi, K., McAfee, P.C. and Cunningham, B.W. (1998) Stability of Posterior Spinal Instrumentation and Its Effects on Adjacent Motion Segments in the Lumbosacral Spine. Spine, 23, 1550-1558. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199807150-00009
[18]
Lee, J.C. and Choi, S.W. (2015) Adjacent Segment Pathology after Lumbar Spinal Fusion. Asian Spine Journal, 9, 807-817. http://dx.doi.org/10.4184/asj.2015.9.5.807
[19]
Chen, W.J., Lai, P.L., Niu, C.C., Chen, L.H., Fu, T.S. and Wong, C.B. (2001) Surgical Treatment of Adjacent Instability after Lumbar Spine Fusion. Spine, 26, E519-E524. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200111150-00024