» Articles » PMID: 24840246

Patient Outcomes After Laminotomy, Hemilaminectomy, Laminectomy and Laminectomy with Instrumented Fusion for Spinal Canal Stenosis: a Propensity Score-based Study from the Spine Tango Registry

Overview
Journal Eur Spine J
Specialty Orthopedics
Date 2014 May 21
PMID 24840246
Citations 26
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: To compare patient outcomes and complication rates after different decompression techniques or instrumented fusion (IF) in lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).

Methods: The multicentre study was based on Spine Tango data. Inclusion criteria were LSS with a posterior decompression and pre- and postoperative COMI assessment between 3 and 24 months. 1,176 cases were assigned to four groups: (1) laminotomy (n = 642), (2) hemilaminectomy (n = 196), (3) laminectomy (n = 230) and (4) laminectomy combined with an IF (n = 108). Clinical outcomes were achievement of minimum relevant change in COMI back and leg pain and COMI score (2.2 points), surgical and general complications, measures taken due to complications, and reintervention on the index level based on patient information. The inverse propensity score weighting method was used for adjustment.

Results: Laminotomy, hemilaminectomy and laminectomy were significantly less beneficial than laminectomy in combination with IF regarding leg pain (ORs with 95% CI 0.52, 0.34-0.81; 0.25, 0.15-0.41; 0.44, 0.27-0.72, respectively) and COMI score improvement (ORs with 95% CI 0.51, 0.33-0.81; 0.30, 0.18-0.51; 0.48, 0.29-0.79, respectively). However, the sole decompressions caused significantly fewer surgical (ORs with 95% CI 0.42, 0.26-0.69; 0.33, 0.17-0.63; 0.39, 0.21-0.71, respectively) and general complications (ORs with 95% CI 0.11, 0.04-0.29; 0.03, 0.003-0.41; 0.25, 0.09-0.71, respectively) than laminectomy in combination with IF. Accordingly, the likelihood of required measures was also significantly lower after laminotomy (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.17-0.46), hemilaminectomy (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.15-0.53) and after laminectomy (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.22-0.68) in comparison with laminectomy with IF. The likelihood of a reintervention was not significantly different between the treatment groups.

Discussion: As already demonstrated in the literature, decompression in patients with LSS is a very effective treatment. Despite better patient outcomes after laminectomy in combination with IF, caution is advised due to higher rates of surgical and general complications and consequent required measures. Based on the current study, laminotomy or laminectomy, rather than hemilaminectomy, is recommendable for minimum relevant pain relief.

Citing Articles

Evaluation of Postoperative Kyphotic Changes in Patients Who Underwent Cervical Laminectomy.

Abduljabbar Omar A Cureus. 2024; 16(11):e73034.

PMID: 39640143 PMC: 11618663. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.73034.


The Essence of Clinical Practice Guidelines for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis, 2021: 4. Surgical Treatment.

Inoue G Spine Surg Relat Res. 2023; 7(4):308-313.

PMID: 37636139 PMC: 10447186. DOI: 10.22603/ssrr.2022-0209.


Artificial lamina after laminectomy: Progress, applications, and future perspectives.

Yue J, Han Q, Chen H, Zhang A, Liu Y, Gong X Front Surg. 2023; 10:1019410.

PMID: 36816003 PMC: 9932198. DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2023.1019410.


Real-world data and evidence in pain research: a qualitative systematic review of methods in current practice.

Vollert J, Kleykamp B, Farrar J, Gilron I, Hohenschurz-Schmidt D, Kerns R Pain Rep. 2023; 8(2):e1057.

PMID: 36741790 PMC: 9891449. DOI: 10.1097/PR9.0000000000001057.


Comparison of 3 Different Minimally Invasive Surgical Techniques for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Hermansen E, Austevoll I, Hellum C, Storheim K, Myklebust T, Aaen J JAMA Netw Open. 2022; 5(3):e224291.

PMID: 35344046 PMC: 8961320. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.4291.


References
1.
Gibson J, Waddell G . Surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005; (2):CD001352. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001352.pub2. View

2.
Ostelo R, Deyo R, Stratford P, Waddell G, Croft P, Von Korff M . Interpreting change scores for pain and functional status in low back pain: towards international consensus regarding minimal important change. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008; 33(1):90-4. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31815e3a10. View

3.
Wilby M, Seeley H, Laing R . Laminectomy for lumbar canal stenosis: a safe and effective treatment. Br J Neurosurg. 2007; 20(6):391-5. DOI: 10.1080/02688690601048195. View

4.
Rompe J, Eysel P, Zollner J, Nafe B, Heine J . Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Long-term results after undercutting decompression compared with decompressive laminectomy alone or with instrumented fusion. Neurosurg Rev. 1999; 22(2-3):102-6. DOI: 10.1007/s101430050040. View

5.
Iguchi T, Kurihara A, Nakayama J, Sato K, Kurosaka M, Yamasaki K . Minimum 10-year outcome of decompressive laminectomy for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000; 25(14):1754-9. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200007150-00003. View