Lumbar decompression using a traditional midline approach versus a tubular retractor system: Comparison of patient-based clinical outcomes

Spine

Volumn 36, Issue 5, 2011, Pages

  Anderson, D Greg ^a,b   Patel, Amar ^a   Maltenfort, Mitchell ^a   Vaccaro, Alexander R ^a,b   Ratliff, John ^a   Hilibrand, Alan ^a,b   Harrop, James S ^a,b   Sharan, Ashwini D ^a   Ponnappan, Ravi K ^a,b   Rihn, Jeffrey ^a,b   Albert, Todd J ^a,b  

^a THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b ROTHMAN INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

approach; lumbar decompression; minimally invasive; outcome; spine; tubular retractor

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LOW BACK PAIN; LUMBAR RADICULOPATHY; LUMBAR SPINE; LUMBAR SPINE DECOMPRESSION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MIDLINE APPROACH; OSWESTRY DISABILITY INDEX; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADICULOPATHY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SHORT FORM 12; SPINAL CORD DECOMPRESSION; SPINE DISEASE; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; TUBULAR RETRACTOR APPROACH; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE;

ADULT; DECOMPRESSION, SURGICAL; FEMALE; HEALTH SURVEYS; HUMANS; LUMBAR VERTEBRAE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; QUESTIONNAIRES; RADICULOPATHY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 79952315281     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181db1dfb     Document Type: Article

References (11)

1. Tureyen K. One-level one-sided lumbar disc surgery with and without microscopic assistance: 1-year outcome in 114 consecutive patients. J Neurosurg 2003;99:247-50.
2. Weinstein JN, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD, et al. Surgical versus non-operative treatment for lumbar disc herniation: four-year results for the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT). Spine 2008;33:2789-800.
3. Williams RW. Microdiskectomy - myth, mania, or milestone? An 18-year surgical adventure. Mt Sinai J Med 1991;58:139-45.
4. Kogias E, Vougioukas VI, Hubbe U, et al. Minimally invasive approach for the treatment of lateral lumbar disc herniations. Technique and results. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 2007;50:160-2. (Pubitemid 47535757)
5. Palmer S. Use of a tubular retractor system in microscopic lumbar discectomy: 1 year prospective results in 135 patients. Neurosurg Focus 2002;13:E5.
6. Ranjan A, Lath R. Microendoscopic discectomy for prolapsed lumbar intervertebral disc. Neurol India 2006;54:190-4. (Pubitemid 44015026)
7. Wu X, Zhuang S, Mao Z, et al. Microendoscopic discectomy for lumbar disc herniation: surgical technique and outcome in 873 consecutive cases. Spine 2006;31:2689-94. (Pubitemid 44673380)
8. German JW, Adamo MA, Hoppenot RG, et al. Perioperative results following lumbar discectomy: comparison of minimally invasive discectomy and standard microdiscectomy. Neurosurg Focus 2008;25:E20.
9. Harrington JF, French P. Open versus minimally invasive lumbar microdiscectomy: comparison of operative times, length of hospital stay, narcotic use, and complications. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 2008;51:30-5. (Pubitemid 351373671)
10. Jakobsson U. Using the 12-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12) to measure quality of life among older people. Aging Clin Exp Res 2007;19:457-64. (Pubitemid 351149176)
11. Podichetty VK, Spears J, Isaacs RE, et al. Complications associated with minimally invasive decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis. J Spinal Disord Tech 2006;19:161-6. (Pubitemid 44284135)