Alimi Marjan, Hofstetter Christoph P, Pyo Se Young, Paulo Danika, Härtl Roger
Weill Cornell Brain and Spine Center, Department of Neurological Surgery, Weill Cornell Medical College, NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York.
J Neurosurg Spine. 2015 Apr;22(4):339-52. doi: 10.3171/2014.11.SPINE13597. Epub 2015 Jan 30.
Surgical decompression is the intervention of choice for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) when nonoperative treatment has failed. Standard open laminectomy is an effective procedure, but minimally invasive laminectomy through tubular retractors is an alternative. The aim of this retrospective case series was to evaluate the clinical and radiographic outcomes of this procedure in patients who underwent LSS and to compare outcomes in patients with and without preoperative spondylolisthesis.
Patients with LSS without spondylolisthesis and with stable Grade I spondylolisthesis who had undergone minimally invasive tubular laminectomy between 2004 and 2011 were included in this analysis. Demographic, perioperative, and radiographic data were collected. Clinical outcome was evaluated using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analog scale (VAS) scores, as well as Macnab's criteria.
Among 110 patients, preoperative spondylolisthesis at the level of spinal stenosis was present in 52.5%. At a mean follow-up of 28.8 months, scoring revealed a median improvement of 16% on the ODI, 2.75 on the VAS back, and 3 on the VAS leg, compared with the preoperative baseline (p < 0.0001). The reoperation rate requiring fusion at the same level was 3.5%. Patients with and without preoperative spondylolisthesis had no significant differences in their clinical outcome or reoperation rate.
Minimally invasive laminectomy is an effective procedure for the treatment of LSS. Reoperation rates for instability are lower than those reported after open laminectomy. Functional improvement is similar in patients with and without preoperative spondylolisthesis. This procedure can be an alternative to open laminectomy. Routine fusion may not be indicated in all patients with LSS and spondylolisthesis.
当非手术治疗失败时,手术减压是腰椎管狭窄症(LSS)的首选干预措施。标准开放性椎板切除术是一种有效的手术方法,但通过管状牵开器进行的微创椎板切除术是一种替代方法。本回顾性病例系列的目的是评估该手术在接受LSS治疗患者中的临床和影像学结果,并比较术前有无椎体滑脱患者的结果。
本分析纳入了2004年至2011年间接受微创管状椎板切除术的无椎体滑脱和稳定的I度椎体滑脱的LSS患者。收集了人口统计学、围手术期和影像学数据。使用Oswestry功能障碍指数(ODI)、视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分以及Macnab标准评估临床结果。
110例患者中,52.5%在椎管狭窄水平存在术前椎体滑脱。平均随访28.8个月时,评分显示ODI较术前基线中位数改善16%,VAS背部评分改善2.75,VAS腿部评分改善3分(p < 0.0001)。同一水平需要融合的再次手术率为3.5%。术前有无椎体滑脱的患者在临床结果或再次手术率方面无显著差异。
微创椎板切除术是治疗LSS的有效方法。不稳定的再次手术率低于开放性椎板切除术后报告的比率。术前有无椎体滑脱的患者功能改善相似。该手术可以替代开放性椎板切除术。并非所有LSS和椎体滑脱患者都需要常规融合。