nach oben

European Spine Journal

Erschienen in:

21.02.2018 | Original Article

Comparative study of two spinous process (SP) osteotomy techniques for posterior decompression surgery in lumbar spinal stenosis: SP base versus splitting osteotomy

verfasst von: Gun Woo Lee, Myun-Whan Ahn

Erschienen in: European Spine Journal | Ausgabe 7/2018

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the postoperative clinical and radiological outcomes of the SP base osteotomy versus SP splitting techniques for PD for treating LSS.

Methods

Of 139 patients who underwent PD surgery for LSS, 97 who met the study criteria were enrolled in the study. Group A comprised 53 patients who underwent SP base osteotomy, and group B included 44 patients who underwent SP splitting osteotomy. The primary study endpoint was intensity of lower back pain (LBP) and pain radiation to the lower extremities measured with the visual analogue scale (VAS). Secondary endpoints included (1) clinical outcomes assessed using Oswestry disability index and 12-short health form questionnaire; (2) surgical outcomes; and (3) procedure-related complications.

Results

LBP was more or less greater in SP base osteotomy group than in SP splitting osteotomy group at postoperative 1 week and 1 year (P = 0.04 and 0.03), but radiating pain was no significant difference between the groups throughout the 1-year follow-up period. One year after the surgery, the fusion rate at the osteotomized site was significantly greater in SP splitting osteotomy group (77%) than in SP base osteotomy group (55%) (P = 0.03). Clinical outcomes, surgical outcomes, and complications did not differ significantly between groups during follow-up times.

Conclusions

The two SP osteotomy techniques offer excellent clinical and radiological outcomes at least for the first year after the surgery. In fusion rate at the osteotomized SP site, the SP splitting technique was superior to the SP base osteotomy technique.

Graphical abstract

These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Benz RJ, Garfin SR (2001) Current techniques of decompression of the lumbar spine. Clin Orthop Relat Res 384:75–81CrossRef

Overdevest GM, Jacobs W, Vleggeert-Lankamp C, Thomé C, Gunzburg R, Peul W (2015) Effectiveness of posterior decompression techniques compared with conventional laminectomy for lumbar stenosis. In: The Cochrane Collaboration (ed) Cochrane database of systematic reviews. Wiley, Chichester

Weiner BK, Walker M, Brower RS, McCulloch JA (1999) Microdecompression for lumbar spinal canal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 24:2268–2272CrossRef

Castro-Menéndez M, Bravo-Ricoy JA, Casal-Moro R, Hernández-Blanco M, Jorge-Barreiro FJ (2009) Midterm outcome after microendoscopic decompressive laminotomy for lumbar spinal stenosis: 4-year prospective study. Neurosurgery 65:100–110CrossRefPubMed

Takaso M, Nakazawa T, Imura T, Okada T, Fukushima K, Ueno M, Saito W, Shitani R, Sakagami H, Takahashi K, Yamazaki M, Ohtori S, Kotani T (2011) Less invasive and less technically demanding decompressive procedure for lumbar spinal stenosis—appropriate for general orthopaedic surgeons? Int Orthop 35:67–73CrossRefPubMed

Sihvonen T, Herno A, Paljärvi L, Airaksinen O, Partanen J, Tapaninaho A (1993) Local denervation atrophy of paraspinal muscles in postoperative failed back syndrome. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 18:575–581CrossRef

Zoidl G, Grifka J, Boluki D, Willburger RE, Zoidl C, Krämer J, Dermietzel R, Faustmann PM (2003) Molecular evidence for local denervation of paraspinal muscles in failed-back surgery/postdiscotomy syndrome. Clin Neuropathol 22:71–77PubMed

Sienkiewicz PJ, Flatley TJ (1987) Postoperative spondylolisthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 221:172–180

Mikami Y, Nagae M, Ikeda T, Tonomura H, Fujiwara H, Kubo T (2013) Tubular surgery with the assistance of endoscopic surgery via midline approach for lumbar spinal canal stenosis: a technical note. Eur Spine J 22:2105–2112CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Chatani K (2016) A novel surgical approach to the lumbar spine involving hemilateral split-off of the spinous process to preserve the multifidus muscle: technical note. J Neurosurg Spine 24:694–699CrossRefPubMed

11.

Watanabe K, Hosoya T, Shiraishi T, Matsumoto M, Chiba K, Toyama Y (2005) Lumbar spinous process-splitting laminectomy for lumbar canal stenosis. Technical note. J Neurosurg Spine 3:405–408CrossRefPubMed

12.

Hatta Y, Shiraishi T, Sakamoto A, Yato Y, Harada T, Mikami Y, Hase H, Kubo T (2009) Muscle-preserving interlaminar decompression for the lumbar spine: a minimally invasive new procedure for lumbar spinal canal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:E276–E280CrossRef

13.

Yong-Hing K, Kirkaldy-Willis WH (1978) Osteotomy of lumbar spinous process to increase surgical exposure. Clin Orthop Relat Res 134:218–220

14.

Maruo K, Tachibana T, Inoue S, Arizumi F, Yoshiya S (2015) Prognostic factors of surgical outcome after spinous process-splitting laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis. Asian Spine J 9:705–712CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Fraser RD, Hall DJ (1993) Laminectomy combined with posterolateral stabilisation: a muscle-sparing approach to the lumbosacral spine. Eur Spine J 1:249–253CrossRefPubMed

16.

Weiner BK, Fraser RD, Peterson M (1999) Spinous process osteotomies to facilitate lumbar decompressive surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 24:62–66CrossRef

17.

Hermansen E, Moen G, Fenstad AM, Birketvedt R, Indrekvam K (2014) Spinous process osteotomy to facilitate the access to the spinal canal when decompressing the spinal canal in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Asian Spine J 8:138–144CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Baghdadi YM, Moussallem CD, Shuaib MA, Clarke MJ, Dekutoski MB, Nassr AN (2016) Lumbar spinous process-splitting laminoplasty: a novel technique for minimally invasive lumbar decompression. Orthopedics 39:e950–e956CrossRefPubMed

19.

Machado GC, Ferreira PH, Yoo RI, Harris IA, Pinheiro MB, Koes BW, van Tulder MW, Rzewuska M, Maher CG, Ferreira ML (2016) Surgical options for lumbar spinal stenosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 11:CD012421PubMed

20.

Hermansen E, Romild UK, Austevoll IM, Solberg T, Storheim K, Brox JI, Hellum C, Indrekvam K (2017) Does surgical technique influence clinical outcome after lumbar spinal stenosis decompression? A comparative effectiveness study from the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery. Eur Spine J 26:420–427CrossRefPubMed

21.

Kim HJ, Chun HJ, Kang KT, Lee HM, Chang BS, Lee CK, Yeom JS (2015) Finite element analysis for comparison of spinous process osteotomies technique with conventional laminectomy as lumbar decompression procedure. Yonsei Med J 56:146–153CrossRefPubMed

22.

Keller TS, Szpalski M, Gunzburg R, Spratt KF (2003) Assessment of trunk function in single and multi-level spinal stenosis: a prospective clinical trial. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 18:173–181CrossRef

Titel: Comparative study of two spinous process (SP) osteotomy techniques for posterior decompression surgery in lumbar spinal stenosis: SP base versus splitting osteotomy
verfasst von: Gun Woo Lee
Myun-Whan Ahn
Publikationsdatum: 21.02.2018
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: European Spine Journal / Ausgabe 7/2018
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-018-5526-z

Arthropedia

Grundlagenwissen der Arthroskopie und Gelenkchirurgie. Erweitert durch Fallbeispiele, Videos und Abbildungen.
» Jetzt entdecken

Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

23.04.2024 | Leitsymptom Rückenschmerzen | Nachrichten

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

Comparative study of two spinous process (SP) osteotomy techniques for posterior decompression surgery in lumbar spinal stenosis: SP base versus splitting osteotomy

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Graphical abstract

Arthropedia

Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Ärztliche Empathie hilft gegen Rückenschmerzen

Stereotaktische Radiatio schlägt konventionelle Bestrahlung

Vorsicht mit hohen NSAR-Dosen bei ankylosierender Spondylitis!

Brustkrebs in der Vorgeschichte macht Gelenkersatz komplikationsträchtiger

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Graphical abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 7/2018

Letter to the Editor concerning “Percutaneous cement discoplasty for the treatment of advanced degenerative disk disease in elderly patients” by Sola C, Camino Willhuber G, Kido G et al. Eur Spine J (2018): Doi 10.1007/s00586-018-5547-7

Risk factors for sciatica leading to hospitalization

Correlation between the Oswestry Disability Index and objective measurements of walking capacity and performance in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic literature review

Expert’s comment concerning Grand Rounds case entitled “Management of a high thoracic Chance Fracture” by A. Bourghli et al. (Eur Spine J; 2017. doi:10.1007/s00586-017-5247-8)

Chiropractic care and risk for acute lumbar disc herniation: a population-based self-controlled case series study

Answer to the Letter to the Editor of M. Ganau et al. concerning “Osteoporotic thoracolumbar compression fractures: long-term retrospective comparison between vertebroplasty and conservative treatment” by K. Martikos et al. [Eur Spine J (2018) doi: 10.1007/s00586-018-5605-1]

Arthropedia

Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Ärztliche Empathie hilft gegen Rückenschmerzen

Stereotaktische Radiatio schlägt konventionelle Bestrahlung

Vorsicht mit hohen NSAR-Dosen bei ankylosierender Spondylitis!

Brustkrebs in der Vorgeschichte macht Gelenkersatz komplikationsträchtiger

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie