Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Microsurgical unilateral laminotomy for decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis: long-term results and predictive factors

  • Clinical Article - Spine
  • Published:
Acta Neurochirurgica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The microsurgical unilateral laminotomy (MUL) technique for bilateral decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a less destabilizing alternative to laminectomy and leads to good short-term outcomes. However, little is known about the long-term results including predictive factors.

Methods

Medical records of patients who underwent MUL for LSS decompression between 2005 and 2010 were reviewed, and a questionnaire was distributed to complement the long-term outcome data. The study population consisted of 176 patients including 17 patients with stable grade I spondylolisthesis. Complications and reoperations were meticulously analyzed. Clinical outcome was measured using a modified Prolo scale and was further dichotomized in good vs. poor outcome. Predictive factors were obtained from uni- and multivariate analyses.

Results

The median age of the cohort was 70.0 years and the follow-up 71.7 months. Complications occurred in 5.1 % of the patients. The overall reoperation rate was 17.0 %, including surgery, which was exclusively performed at other levels in 4.0 %. The reoperation rate for fusion was 4.5 %. Good neurogenic claudication outcome faded from 98.3 % at hospital discharge to 47.2 % at 6 years. Multivariate analysis identified previous lumbar operation as a potential independent predictor of a reoperation; potential independent predictors of poor long-term claudication outcome were older age, female gender, higher body mass index (BMI) and tobacco smoking.

Conclusions

In our experience, the long-term reoperation rate after MUL for LSS is not negligible and higher in previously operated patients. It seems like the good initial clinical results after MUL may fade over time, and several patient-related predictive factors including potentially modifiable obesity and tobacco smoking seem to play an important role.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Aalto T, Sinikallio S, Kröger H, Viinamäki H, Herno A, Leinonen V, Turunen V, Savolainen S, Airaksinen O (2012) Preoperative predictors for good postoperative satisfaction and functional outcome in lumbar spinal stenosis surgery—a prospective observational study with a two-year follow-up. Scand J Surg 101:255–260

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Aalto TJ, Malmivaara A, Kovacs F, Herno A, Alen M, Salmi L, Kröger H, Andrade J, Jiménez R, Tapaninaho A, Turunen V, Savolainen S, Airaksinen O (2006) Preoperative predictors for postoperative clinical outcome in lumbar spinal stenosis: systematic review. Spine 31:E648–663

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Abbas J, Hamoud K, May H, Peled N, Sarig R, Stein D, Alperovitch-Najemson D, Hershkovitz I (2013) Socioeconomic and physical characteristics of individuals with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 38:E554–561

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Airaksinen O, Herno A, Kaukanen E, Saari T, Sihvonen T, Suomalainen O (1996) Density of lumbar muscles 4 years after decompressive spinal surgery. Eur Spine J 5:193–197

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Alimi M, Hofstetter CP, Pyo SY, Paulo D (2015) Minimally invasive laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis in patients with and without preoperative spondylolisthesis: clinical outcome and reoperation rates. J Neurosurg Spine 22:339–352

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Athiviraham A, Wali ZA, Yen D (2011) Predictive factors influencing clinical outcome with operative management of lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine J 11:613–617

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Atlas SJ, Keller RB, Robson D, Deyo RA, Singer DE (2000) Surgical and nonsurgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis four-year outcomes from the Maine Lumbar Spine Study. Spine 25:556–562

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Atlas SJ, Keller RB, Wu YA, Deyo RA, Singer DE (2005) Long-term outcomes of surgical and nonsurgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis: 8 to 10 year results from the maine lumbar spine study. Spine 30:936–943

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Blumenthal C, Curran J, Benzel EC, Potter R, Magge SN, Harrington JF, Coumans J-V, Ghogawala Z (2013) Radiographic predictors of delayed instability following decompression without fusion for degenerative grade I lumbar spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine 18:340–346

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Caputy AJ, Luessenhop AJ (1992) Long-term evaluation of decompressive surgery for degenerative lumbar stenosis. J Neurosurg 77:669–676

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Cavuşoğlu H, Kaya RA, Türkmenoglu ON, Tuncer C, Colak I, Aydin Y (2007) Midterm outcome after unilateral approach for bilateral decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis: 5-year prospective study. Eur Spine J 16:2133–2142

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Costa F, Sassi M, Cardia A, Ortolina A, De Santis A, Luccarell G, Fornari M (2007) Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: analysis of results in a series of 374 patients treated with unilateral laminotomy for bilateral microdecompression. J Neurosurg Spine 7:579–586

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Desai A, Pa B, Bekelis K, Lurie J, Mirza SK, Tosteson TD, Weinstein JN (2011) SPORT: does incidental durotomy affect long-term outcomes in cases of spinal stenosis? Neurosurgery 69:38–44

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Deyo RA, Martin BI, Ching A, Tosteson AN, Jarvik JG, Kreuter W, Mirza SK (2013) Interspinous spacers compared with decompression or fusion for lumbar stenosis: complications and repeat operations in the Medicare population. Spine 38:865–872

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Försth P, Michaelsson K, Sanden B (2013) Does fusion improve the outcome after decompressive surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis?: A two-year follow-up study involving 5390 patients. Bone Joint J 95-B:960–965

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Fox MW, Onofrio BM, Hanssen AD (1996) Clinical outcomes and radiological instability following decompressive lumbar laminectomy for degenerative spinal stenosis: a comparison of patients undergoing concomitant arthrodesis versus decompression alone. J Neurosurg 85:793–802

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Fu K-MG, Smith JS, Polly DW, Perra JH, Sansur CA, Berven SH, Broadstone PA, Choma TJ, Goytan MJ, Noordeen HH, Knapp DR, Hart RA, Zeller RD, Donaldson WF, Boachie-Adjei O, Shaffrey CI (2010) Morbidity and mortality in the surgical treatment of 10,329 adults with degenerative lumbar stenosis. J Neurosurg Spine 12:443–446

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Gerling MC, Leven D, Passias PG, Lafage V, Bianco K, Lee A, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD, Zhao W, Spratt KF, Radcliff K, Errico TJ (2015) Risk factors for reoperation in patients treated surgically for lumbar stenosis: a subanalysis of the 8 year data from the SPORT trial. Spine. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000001361

    Google Scholar 

  19. Getty CJ, Johnson JR, Kirwan EO, Sullivan MF (1981) Partial undercutting facetectomy for bony entrapment of the lumbar nerve root. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 63-B:330–335

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Giannadakis C, Nerland US, Solheim O, Jakola AS, Gulati M, Weber C, Nygaard OP, Solberg TK, Gulati S (2015) Does obesity affect outcomes after decompressive surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis? A multicenter, observational, registry-based study. World Neurosurg 84:1227–1234

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Gulati S, Nordseth T, Nerland US, Gulati M, Weber C, Giannadakis C, Nygaard OP, Solberg TK, Solheim O, Jakola AS (2015) Does daily tobacco smoking affect outcomes after microdecompression for degenerative central lumbar spinal stenosis?—A multicenter observational registry-based study. Acta Neurochir 157:1157–1164

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Herron LD, Mangelsdorf C (1991) Lumbar spinal stenosis: results of surgical treatment. J Spinal Disord 4:26–33

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ho Lee B, Kim T-H, Chong H-S, Lee S-H, Park J-O, Kim H-S, Shim D-W, Lee H-M, Moon S-H (2015) Prognostic factors for surgical outcomes including preoperative total knee replacement and knee osteoarthritis status in female patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. J Spinal Disord Tech 28:47–52

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Jansson KÅ, Németh G, Granath F, Blomqvist P (2005) Spinal stenosis re-operation rate in Sweden is 11% at 10 years—A national analysis of 9,664 operations. Eur Spine J 14:659–663

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Jarrett MS, Orlando JF, Grimmer-Somers K (2012) The effectiveness of land based exercise compared to decompressive surgery in the management of lumbar spinal-canal stenosis: a systematic review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 13:30–30

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Jonsson B, Annertz M, Sjoberg C, Stromqvist B (1997) A prospective and consecutive study of surgically treated lumbar spinal stenosis. Part II: Five-year follow-up by an independent observer. Spine 22:2938–2944

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kelleher MO, Timlin M, Persaud O, Rampersaud YR (2010) Success and failure of minimally invasive decompression for focal lumbar spinal stenosis in patients with and without deformity. Spine 35:E981–E987

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kim CH, Chung CK, Park CS, Choi B, Hahn S, Kim MJ, Lee KS, Park BJ (2013) Reoperation rate after surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis without spondylolisthesis: a nationwide cohort study. Spine J 13:1230–1237

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Kleeman TJ, Hiscoe AC, Berg EE (2000) Patient outcomes after minimally destabilizing lumbar stenosis decompression. Spine 25:865–870

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Kovacs FM, Urrútia G, Alarcón JD (2011) Surgery versus conservative treatment for symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Spine 36:E1335–1351

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Lee C-H, Hyun S-J, Kim K-J, Jahng T-A, Kim H-J (2013) Decompression only versus fusion surgery for lumbar stenosis in elderly patients over 75 years old: which is reasonable? Neurol Med Chir 53:870–874

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Lønne G, Johnsen LG, Aas E, Lydersen S, Andresen H, Ronning R, Nygaard OP (2015) Comparing cost-effectiveness of X-Stop with minimally invasive decompression in lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized controlled trial. Spine 40:514–520

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Lønne G, Johnsen LG, Rossvoll I, Andresen H, Storheim K, Zwart JA, Nygaard OP (2015) Minimally invasive decompression versus x-stop in lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized controlled multicenter study. Spine 40:77–85

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Lurie JD, Tosteson TD, Tosteson A, Abdu WA, Zhao W, Morgan TS, Weinstein JN (2015) Long-term outcomes of lumbar spinal stenosis: eight-year results of the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT). Spine 40:63–76

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Micankova Adamova B, Vohanka S, Dusek L, Jarkovsky J, Bednarik J (2012) Prediction of long-term clinical outcome in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Eur Spine J 21:2611–2619

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Nerland US, Jakola AS, Giannadakis C, Solheim O, Weber C, Nygaard OP, Solberg TK, Gulati S (2015) The risk of getting worse: predictors of deterioration after decompressive surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: a multicenter observational study. World Neurosurg 84:1095–1102

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Nerland US, Jakola AS, Solheim O, Weber C, Rao V, Lonne G, Solberg TK, Salvesen O, Carlsen SM, Nygaard OP, Gulati S (2015) Minimally invasive decompression versus open laminectomy for central stenosis of the lumbar spine: pragmatic comparative effectiveness study. BMJ 350:h1603. doi:10.1136/bmj.h1603

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Oertel MF, Ryang Y-M, Korinth MC, Gilsbach JM, Rohde V (2006) Long-term results of microsurgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis by unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression. Neurosurgery 59:1264–1269

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Ortega A, Sarmiento JM, Patil C, Mukherjee D, Ugiliweneza B, Nuno M, Lad S, Boakye M (2015) Comparative analysis of inpatient and outpatient interspinous process device placement for lumbar spinal stenosis. J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg 76:443–450

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Papavero L, Thiel M, Fritzsche E, Kunze C, Westphal M, Kothe R (2009) Lumbar spinal stenosis: prognostic factors for bilateral microsurgical decompression using a unilateral approach. Neurosurgery 65:182–187

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Podichetty VK, Spears J, Isaacs RE, Booher J, Biscup RS (2006) Complications associated with minimally invasive decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis. J Spinal Disord Tech 19:161–166

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Poletti CE (1995) Central lumbar stenosis caused by ligamentum flavum: unilateral laminotomy for bilateral ligamentectomy: preliminary report of two cases. Neurosurgery 37:343–347

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Postacchini F, Cinotti G, Perugia D, Gumina S (1993) The surgical treatment of central lumbar stenosis. Multiple laminotomy compared with total laminectomy. J Bone Joint Surg Br 75:386–392

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Rabin R, de Charro F (2001) EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med 33:337–343

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Radcliff K, Curry P, Hilibrand A, Kepler C, Lurie J, Zhao W, Albert TJ, Weinstein J (2013) Risk for adjacent segment and same segment reoperation after surgery for lumbar stenosis: a subgroup analysis of the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT). Spine 38:531–539

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Rahman M, Summers LE, Richter B, Mimran RI, Jacob RP (2008) Comparison of techniques for decompressive lumbar laminectomy: the minimally invasive versus the “classic” open approach. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 51:100–105

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Rompe JD, Eysel P, Zöllner J, Nafe B, Heine J (1999) Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Long-term results after undercutting decompression compared with decompressive laminectomy alone or with instrumented fusion. Neurosurg Rev 22:102–106

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Sandén B, Försth P, Michaëlsson K (2011) Smokers show less improvement than nonsmokers two years after surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: a study of 4555 patients from the Swedish spine register. Spine 36:1059–1064

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Schizas C, Schmit A, Schizas A, Becce F, Kulik G, Pierzchała K (2014) Secular changes of spinal canal dimensions in Western Switzerland: a narrowing epidemic? Spine 39:1339–1344

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Sigmundsson FG, Kang XP, Jönsson B, Strömqvist B (2012) Prognostic factors in lumbar spinal stenosis surgery. Acta Orthop 83:536–542

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Son S, Kim WK, Lee SG, Park CW, Lee K (2013) A comparison of the clinical outcomes of decompression alone and fusion in elderly patients with two-level or more lumbar spinal stenosis. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 53:19–25

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Spetzger U, Bertalanffy H, Naujokat C, von Keyserlingk DG, Gilsbach JM (1997) Unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis. Part I: Anatomical and surgical considerations. Acta Neurochir 139:392–396

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Spetzger U, Bertalanffy H, Reinges MH, Gilsbach JM (1997) Unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis. Part II: Clinical experiences. Acta Neurochir 139:397–403

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Thomas NW, Rea GL, Pikul BK, Mervis LJ, Irsik R, McGregor JM (1997) Quantitative outcome and radiographic comparisons between laminectomy and laminotomy in the treatment of acquired lumbar stenosis. Neurosurgery 41:567–574

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Thomé C, Zevgaridis D, Leheta O, Bäzner H, Pöckler-Schöniger C, Wöhrle J, Schmiedek P (2005) Outcome after less-invasive decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized comparison of unilateral laminotomy, bilateral laminotomy, and laminectomy. J Neurosurg Spine 3:129–141

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Toyoda H, Nakamura H, Konishi S, Dohzono S, Kato M, Matsuda H (2011) Clinical outcome of microsurgical bilateral decompression via unilateral approach for lumbar canal stenosis: minimum five-year follow-up. Spine 36:410–415

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Tuite GF, Doran SE, Stern JD, McGillicuddy JE, Papadopoulos SM, Ca L, Oyedijo DI, Grube SV, Gilmer HS, Schork MA, Swanson SE, Hoff JT (1994) Outcome after laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis. J Neurosurg 81:707–715

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Tuite GF, Stern JD, Doran SE, Papadopoulos SM, McGillicuddy JE, Oyedijo DI, Grube SV, Lundquist C, Gilmer HS, Ma S (1994) Outcome after laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis. Part I: Clinical correlations. J Neurosurg 81:699–706

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Vanti C, Prosperi D, Boschi M (2013) The Prolo Scale: History, evolution and psychometric properties. J Orthop Traumatol 14:235–245

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Weiner BK, Walker M, Brower RS, McCulloch JA (1999) Microdecompression for lumbar spinal canal stenosis. Spine 24:2268–2272

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, Tosteson AN, Blood E, Hanscom B, Herkowitz H, Cammisa F, Albert T, Boden SD, Hilibrand A, Goldberg H, Berven S, An H (2008) Surgical versus nonsurgical therapy for lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med 358:794–810

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurosurgery, Justus-Liebig-University Giessen, Klinikstr. 33, 35392, Giessen, Germany

    Karsten Schöller, Thomas Steingrüber, Marco Stein, Nina Vogt, Tilman Müller & Eberhard Uhl

  2. Institute for Medical Informatics, Medical Statistics Study Group, Justus-Liebig-University, Giessen, Germany

    Jörn Pons-Kühnemann

Authors
  1. Karsten Schöller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thomas Steingrüber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marco Stein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nina Vogt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tilman Müller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jörn Pons-Kühnemann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Eberhard Uhl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karsten Schöller.

Ethics declarations

Funding

No funding was received for this research.

Conflict of interest

None.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schöller, K., Steingrüber, T., Stein, M. et al. Microsurgical unilateral laminotomy for decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis: long-term results and predictive factors. Acta Neurochir 158, 1103–1113 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-016-2804-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-016-2804-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation