RSS-Feed abonnieren
PDF herunterladen
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1756421
Long-Term Outcomes of Laminectomy in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Funding This work was funded by Sina Trauma and Surgery Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences [grant number is 94-03-38-30374]. This systematic review is the thesis of the first author for certification of general practice in medicine under supervision of the corresponding author.
Abstract
Objective Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) patients suffer from significant pain and disability. To assess long-term safety and efficacy of laminectomy in LSS patients, a systematic review and meta-analysis study was conducted.
Methods Literature review in MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases was performed using a predefined search strategy. Articles were included if they met the following characteristics: human studies, LSS, and at least 5 years of follow-up. Outcome measures included patient satisfaction, pain, disability, claudication, reoperation rates, and complications.
Results Twelve articles met the eligibility criteria for our study. Overall, there was low-quality evidence that patients undergoing laminectomy, with at least 5 years of follow-up, have significantly more satisfaction, and less pain and disability, compared with the preoperative baseline. Assessment of neurogenic intermittent claudication showed significant improvement in walking abilities. We also reviewed the postoperative complication and adverse events in the included studies. After meta-analysis was performed, the reoperation rate was found to be 14% (95% confidence interval: 13–16%).
Conclusion Our study provides low-quality evidence suggesting that patients undergoing laminectomy for LSS have less disability and pain and can be more physically active postoperatively.
Ethical Approval
The Ethics Committee of Sina Trauma and Surgery Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, approved the study, and the reference number is IR.TUMS.MEDICINE.REC.1397.875.
Publikationsverlauf
Artikel online veröffentlicht:
29. August 2022
© 2022. Asian Congress of Neurological Surgeons. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India
-
References
- 1 Kobayashi S. Pathophysiology, diagnosis and treatment of intermittent claudication in patients with lumbar canal stenosis. World J Orthop 2014; 5 (02) 134-145
- 2 Hobart J, Gilkes C, Adams W, Germon T. Interspinous spacers for lumbar foraminal stenosis: formal trials are justified. Eur Spine J 2013; 22 (Suppl. 01) S47-S53
- 3 Harrop JS, Hilibrand A, Mihalovich KE, Dettori JR, Chapman J. Cost-effectiveness of surgical treatment for degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal stenosis. Spine 2014; 39 (22, Suppl 01) S75-S85
- 4 Porter RW, Ward D. Cauda equina dysfunction. The significance of two-level pathology. Spine 1992; 17 (01) 9-15
- 5 Suri P, Rainville J, Kalichman L, Katz JN. Does this older adult with lower extremity pain have the clinical syndrome of lumbar spinal stenosis?. JAMA 2010; 304 (23) 2628-2636
- 6 Pao JL, Chen WC, Chen PQ. Clinical outcomes of microendoscopic decompressive laminotomy for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Eur Spine J 2009; 18 (05) 672-678
- 7 Atlas SJ, Delitto A. Spinal stenosis: surgical versus nonsurgical treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006; 443 (443) 198-207
- 8 Amirdelfan K, McRoberts P, Deer TR. The differential diagnosis of low back pain: a primer on the evolving paradigm. Neuromodulation 2014; 17 (Suppl. 02) 11-17
- 9 Foulongne E, Derrey S, Ould Slimane M. et al. Lumbar spinal stenosis: which predictive factors of favorable functional results after decompressive laminectomy?. Neurochirurgie 2013; 59 (01) 23-29
- 10 Shabat S, Arinzon Z, Gepstein R, Folman Y. Long-term follow-up of revision decompressive lumbar spinal surgery in elderly patients. J Spinal Disord Tech 2011; 24 (03) 142-145
- 11 Malter AD, McNeney B, Loeser JD, Deyo RA. 5-year reoperation rates after different types of lumbar spine surgery. Spine 1998; 23 (07) 814-820
- 12 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 2000; 25 (14) 1754-1759
- 13 Kim CH, Chung CK, Park CS. et al. Reoperation rate after surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis without spondylolisthesis: a nationwide cohort study. Spine J 2013; 13 (10) 1230-1237
- 14 Kao FC, Hsu YC, Wang CB, Tu YK, Liu PH. Short-term and long-term revision rates after lumbar spine discectomy versus laminectomy: a population-based cohort study. BMJ Open 2018; 8 (07) e021028
- 15 Lehto MU, Honkanen P. Factors influencing the outcome of operative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 1995; 137 (1-2): 25-28
- 16 Chang Y, Singer DE, Wu YA, Keller RB, Atlas SJ. The effect of surgical and nonsurgical treatment on longitudinal outcomes of lumbar spinal stenosis over 10 years. J Am Geriatr Soc 2005; 53 (05) 785-792
- 17 Mannion AF, Denzler R, Dvorak J, Grob D. Five-year outcome of surgical decompression of the lumbar spine without fusion. Eur Spine J 2010; 19 (11) 1883-1891
- 18 Lurie JD, Tosteson TD, Tosteson A. et al. Long-term outcomes of lumbar spinal stenosis: eight-year results of the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT). Spine 2015; 40 (02) 63-76
- 19 Lee GW, Jang SJ, Shin SM, Jang JH, Kim JD. Clinical and radiological outcomes following microscopic decompression utilizing tubular retractor or conventional microscopic decompression in lumbar spinal stenosis with a minimum of 10-year follow-up. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2014; 24 (Suppl. 01) S145-S151
- 20 Atlas SJ, Keller RB, Wu YA, Deyo RA, Singer DE. Long-term outcomes of surgical and nonsurgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis: 8 to 10 year results from the Maine Lumbar Spine Study. Spine 2005; 30 (08) 936-943
- 21 Fritsch CG, Ferreira ML, Maher CG. et al. The clinical course of pain and disability following surgery for spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. Eur Spine J 2017; 26 (02) 324-335
- 22 Lurie J, Tomkins-Lane C. Management of lumbar spinal stenosis. BMJ 2016; 352: h6234
- 23 Zaina F, Tomkins-Lane C, Carragee E, Negrini S. Surgical versus nonsurgical treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 2016; 41 (14) E857-E868
- 24 Macedo LG, Hum A, Kuleba L. et al. Physical therapy interventions for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review. Phys Ther 2013; 93 (12) 1646-1660
- 25 Mo Z, Zhang R, Chang M, Tang S. Exercise therapy versus surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pak J Med Sci 2018; 34 (04) 879-885
- 26 Ammendolia C, Stuber KJ, Rok E. et al. Nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; (08) CD010712
- 27 Goel SA, Modi HN. Reoperations following lumbar spinal canal stenosis. Indian J Orthop 2018; 52 (06) 578-583