Minimally invasive versus open laminectomy for lumbar stenosis a systematic review and meta-analysis

Spine

Volumn 41, Issue 2, 2016, Pages E91-E100

  Phan, Kevin ^a,b,c   Mobbs, Ralph J ^a,b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

^b PRINCE OF WALES PRIVATE HOSPITAL   (Australia)

^c NeuroSpine Surgery Research Group (NSURG)   (Australia)

Author keywords

Bilateral decompression; Laminectomy; Laminotomy; Lumbar spinal stenosis; Minimally invasive

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BACKACHE; CLAUDICATION; DECOMPRESSION SURGERY; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMAN; LAMINECTOMY; LENGTH OF STAY; LIQUORRHEA; LUMBAR SPINAL STENOSIS; META ANALYSIS; MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGERY; OPERATION DURATION; OPERATIVE BLOOD LOSS; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REOPERATION; SURGICAL INFECTION; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; UNILATERAL LAMINECTOMY FOR BILATERAL DECOMPRESSION; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE; ADULT; ADVERSE EFFECTS; AGED; CHI SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; FEMALE; LUMBAR VERTEBRA; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; ODDS RATIO; PAIN, POSTOPERATIVE; PROCEDURES; RISK FACTOR; SPINAL STENOSIS; TIME FACTOR; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VERY ELDERLY;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BLOOD LOSS, SURGICAL; CHI-SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; DECOMPRESSION, SURGICAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; LAMINECTOMY; LENGTH OF STAY; LUMBAR VERTEBRAE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGICAL PROCEDURES; ODDS RATIO; OPERATIVE TIME; PAIN, POSTOPERATIVE; PATIENT SATISFACTION; RISK FACTORS; SPINAL STENOSIS; TIME FACTORS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84957848978     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001161     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Deyo RA, Mirza SK, Martin BI, et al. Trends, major medical complications, and charges associated with surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis in older adults. JAMA 2010;303:1259-65.
2. Mobbs RJ, Sivabalan P, Li J. Minimally invasive surgery compared to open spinal fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine pathologies. J Clin Neurosci 2012;19:829-35.
3. Thome C, Zevgaridis D, Leheta O, et al. Outcome after less-invasive decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized comparison of unilateral laminotomy, bilateral laminotomy, and laminectomy. J Neurosurg Spine 2005;3:129-41.
4. Usman M, Ali M, Khanzada K, et al. Unilateral approach for bilateral decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis: a minimal invasive surgery. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 2013;23:852-6.
5. Hides JA, Richardson CA, Jull GA. Multifidus muscle recovery is not automatic after resolution of acute, first-episode low back pain. Spine 1996;21:2763-9.
6. Foley KT, Smith MM. Microendoscopic discectomy. Tech Neuro-surg 1997;3:301-7.
7. Rahman M, Summers LE, Richter B, et al. Comparison of techniques for decompressive lumbar laminectomy: the minimally invasive versus the "classic" open approach. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 2008;51:100-5.
8. Yagi M, Okada E, Ninomiya K, et al. Postoperative outcome after modified unilateral-approach microendoscopic midline decompression for degenerative spinal stenosis. J Neurosurg Spine 2009;10:293-9.
9. Ikuta K, Arima J, Tanaka T, et al. Short-term results of micro-endoscopic posterior decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis. J Neurosurg Spine 2005;2:624-33.
10. Kim JS, Jung B, Arbatti N, et al. Surgical experience of unilateral laminectomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) of ossified lig-amentum flavum in the thoracic spine. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 2009;52:74-8.
11. Palmer S, Turner R, Palmer R. Bilateral decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis involving a unilateral approach with microscope and tubular retractor system. J Neurosurg 2002;97:213-7.
12. Tsai RY, Yang RS, Bray RS Jr. Microscopic laminotomies for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. J Spinal Disord 1998;11: 389-94.
13. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS medicine 2009;6:e1000097.
14. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2007;7:10.
15. Furlan AD, Pennick V, Bombardier C, et al. 2009 updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Back Review Group. Spine 2009;34:1929-41.
16. van Tulder M, Furlan A, Bombardier C, et al. Updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the cochrane collaboration back review group. Spine 2003;28:1290-9.
17. Cowley DE. Prostheses for primary total hip replacement. A critical appraisal of the literature. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1995;11:770-8.
18. Ostelo RW, Deyo RA, Stratford P, et al. Interpreting change scores for pain and functional status in low back pain: towards international consensus regarding minimal important change. Spine 2008;33:90-4.
19. Duval S, Tweedie R. Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics 2000;56:455-63.
20. Ang CL, Phak-Boon Tow B, Fook S, et al. Minimally invasive compared with open lumbar laminotomy: no functional benefits at 6 or 24 months after surgery. Spine 2015;15:1705-12.
21. Ercegovic Z, Moranjkic M, Hodzic M, et al. Spinal instability following surgery for degenerative lumbar stenosis. Acta Medica Saliniana 2012;41:22-8.
22. Khoo LT, Fessler RG. Microendoscopic decompressive laminot-omy for the treatment of lumbar stenosis. Neurosurgery 2002; 51:S146-54.
23. Liu X, Yuan S, Tian Y. Modified unilateral laminotomyfor bilateral decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 2013;38:E732-7.
24. Mobbs RJ, Li J, Sivabalan P, et al. Outcomes after decompressive laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis: comparison between minimally invasive unilateral laminectomy for bilateral decompression and open laminectomy. J Neurosurg Spine 2014;21:179-86.
25. Morgalla MH, Noak N, Merkle M, et al. Lumbar spinal stenosis in elderly patients: is a unilateral microsurgical approach sufficient for decompression?. J Neurosurg Spine 2011;14:305-12.
26. Shih P, Wong AP, Smith TR, et al. Complications of open compared to minimally invasive lumbar spine decompression. J Clin Neurosci 2011;18:1360-4.
27. Cavusoglu H, Kaya RA, Turkmenoglu ON, et al. Midterm outcome after unilateral approach for bilateral decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis: 5-year prospective study. Eur Spine J 2007;16:2133-42.
28. Asgarzadie F, Khoo LT. Minimally invasive operative management for lumbar spinal stenosis: overview of early and long-term outcomes. Orthop Clin North Am 2007;38:387-99.
29. Mayer T, Gatchel R, Betancur J, et al. Trunk muscle endurance measurement. Isometric contrasted to isokinetic testing in normal subjects. Spine 1995;20:920-6.
30. See DH, Kraft GH. Electromyography in paraspinal muscles following surgery for root compression. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1975;56:80-3.
31. Prestar FJ. Morphology and function of the interspinal ligaments and the supraspinal ligament of the lumbar portion of the spine. Morphologia Medica 1982;2:53-8.
32. Hosono N, Yonenobu K, Ono K. Neck and shoulder pain after laminoplasty. Anoticeable complication. Spine 1996;21:1969-73.
33. Henderson CM, Hennessy RG, Shuey HM Jr, et al. Posterior-lateral foraminotomy as an exclusive operative technique for cervical radiculopathy: a review of 846 consecutively operated cases. Neurosurgery 1983;13:504-12.
34. Boehm H, Greiner-Perth R, El-Saghir H, et al. A new minimally invasive posterior approach for the treatment of cervical radicul-opathy and myelopathy: surgical technique and preliminary results. Eur Spine J 2003;12:268-73.