» Articles » PMID: 33942964

The Durability of Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression Procedure in Patients with Symptomatic Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Long-term Follow-up

Overview
Journal Pain Pract
Specialties Neurology
Psychiatry
Date 2021 May 4
PMID 33942964
Citations 7
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Minimally invasive lumbar decompression (mild ) has been shown to be safe and effective for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis patients with hypertrophic ligamentum flavum as a contributing factor. This study examines the long-term durability of the mild procedure through 5-year follow-up. Pain relief and opioid medications utilization during 12-month follow-up were also assessed.

Methods: All patients diagnosed with lumbar spinal stenosis secondary to ligamentum flavum hypertrophy who underwent mild from 2010 through 2015 at the Cleveland Clinic Department of Pain Management were included in this retrospective longitudinal observational cohort study. The primary outcome measure was the incidence of open lumbar decompression surgery at the same level(s) as the mild intervention during 5-year follow-up. Secondary outcome measures were the change in pain levels using the Numeric Rating Scale and opioid medications utilization using Morphine Milligram Equivalent dose per day from baseline to 3, 6, and 12 months post-mild procedure. Postprocedural complications (minor or major) were also collected.

Results: Seventy-five patients received mild during the protocol-defined time period and were included in the study. Only 9 out of 75 patients required lumbar surgical decompression during the 5-year follow-up period. Subjects experienced statistically significant pain relief and reduction of opioid medications utilization at 3, 6, and 12 months compared to baseline.

Conclusion: Based on our analysis, the mild procedure is durable over 5 years and may allow elderly patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis to avoid lumbar decompression surgery while providing significant symptomatic relief.

Citing Articles

An Algorithmic Overview of Advanced Pain Therapies: A Narrative Review.

Vu P, DSouza R, Javed S Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2025; 29(1):36.

PMID: 39869170 DOI: 10.1007/s11916-024-01343-2.


Management of cerebrospinal fluid leak after a minimally invasive lumbar decompression procedure: illustrative case.

Pacult M, Farber S, Tumialan L, Oppenlander M J Neurosurg Case Lessons. 2024; 8(24).

PMID: 39652849 PMC: 11633019. DOI: 10.3171/CASE24497.


Percutaneous image-guided lumbar decompression and outpatient laminectomy for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: a 2-year Medicare claims benchmark study.

Staats P, Dorsi M, Reece D, Strand N, Poree L, Hagedorn J Interv Pain Med. 2024; 3(2):100412.

PMID: 39238588 PMC: 11373052. DOI: 10.1016/j.inpm.2024.100412.


Efficacy of lumbar decompression under large-channel spinal endoscope in elderly patients with segmental lumbar spinal stenosis.

Zhang F, Ye D, Zhang W, Sun Y, Guo L, Li J J Orthop Surg Res. 2024; 19(1):16.

PMID: 38167077 PMC: 10763422. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-023-04389-x.


Lumbar Spinal Stenosis and Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression: A Narrative Review.

Yuan H, Yi X J Pain Res. 2023; 16:3707-3724.

PMID: 37954472 PMC: 10637222. DOI: 10.2147/JPR.S428112.


References
1.
Staats P, Chafin T, Golovac S, Kim C, Li S, Richardson W . Long-Term Safety and Efficacy of Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression Procedure for the Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis With Neurogenic Claudication: 2-Year Results of MiDAS ENCORE. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2018; 43(7):789-794. PMC: 6319572. DOI: 10.1097/AAP.0000000000000868. View

2.
Kim C, Chung C, Park C, Choi B, Hahn S, Kim M . Reoperation rate after surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis without spondylolisthesis: a nationwide cohort study. Spine J. 2013; 13(10):1230-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2013.06.069. View

3.
Yavin D, Casha S, Wiebe S, Feasby T, Clark C, Isaacs A . Lumbar Fusion for Degenerative Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Neurosurgery. 2017; 80(5):701-715. DOI: 10.1093/neuros/nyw162. View

4.
Ciol M, Deyo R, Howell E, Kreif S . An assessment of surgery for spinal stenosis: time trends, geographic variations, complications, and reoperations. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1996; 44(3):285-90. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1996.tb00915.x. View

5.
Hansson T, Suzuki N, Hebelka H, Gaulitz A . The narrowing of the lumbar spinal canal during loaded MRI: the effects of the disc and ligamentum flavum. Eur Spine J. 2009; 18(5):679-86. PMC: 3234003. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-009-0919-7. View