Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Advance Online Publication
    • Archive
  • About Us
    • About ISASS
    • About the Journal
    • Author Instructions
    • Editorial Board
    • Reviewer Guidelines & Publication Criteria
  • More
    • Advertise
    • Subscribe
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Join Us
  • Reprints & Permissions
  • Sponsored Content
  • Other Publications
    • ijss

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
International Journal of Spine Surgery
  • My alerts
International Journal of Spine Surgery

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Advance Online Publication
    • Archive
  • About Us
    • About ISASS
    • About the Journal
    • Author Instructions
    • Editorial Board
    • Reviewer Guidelines & Publication Criteria
  • More
    • Advertise
    • Subscribe
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Join Us
  • Reprints & Permissions
  • Sponsored Content
  • Follow ijss on Twitter
  • Visit ijss on Facebook
Research ArticleLumbar Spine

Evolving Role of Lumbar Decompression: A Narrative Review

Sagar Telang, Sahil S. Telang, Ryan Palmer, Andy Ton, William J. Karakash, Jonathan Ragheb, Siddharth Patel, Jeffrey C. Wang, Ram K. Alluri and Raymond J. Hah
International Journal of Spine Surgery February 2025, 8702; DOI: https://doi.org/10.14444/8702
Sagar Telang
1 Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
BS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sahil S. Telang
1 Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
BS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ryan Palmer
1 Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
BS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Andy Ton
1 Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
William J. Karakash
1 Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
BS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: wkarakas@usc.edu
Jonathan Ragheb
2 Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Kaiser Permanente Bernard J. Tyson School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, USA
BS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Siddharth Patel
1 Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
BS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jeffrey C. Wang
1 Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ram K. Alluri
1 Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Raymond J. Hah
1 Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Tables

    • View popup
    Table 1

    Summary features of lumbar decompression techniques.19–32

    ProcedureSummary Features
    Laminectomy Indications
    ● Symptomatic spinal canal stenosis that does not respond to conservative treatment
    ● Rapidly progressing neurological deficits or intolerable pain
    ● Cauda equina syndrome
    Contraindications
    ● Patients with multiple medical comorbidities including depression
    ● Scoliosis
    ● Spondylolysthesis
    ● Lateral listhesis
    Approaches
    ● Open
    Advantages
    ● High success rate with significant alleviation of preoperative symptoms
    ● Low rate of postoperative complications that continues to reduce with the implementation of less invasive approaches
    Disadvantages
    ● Potential iatrogenic disruption of posterior structures and anatomy/biomechanics of spine
    ● May require concomitant fusion
    Laminoplasty Indications
    ● Symptomatic stenosis without any signs of significant instability
    Contraindications
    ● Severe osteoporosis or active infection
    ● Significant instability requiring fusion
    Approaches
    ● Open
    Advantages
    ● Posterior spinal structures preserved
    ● Reduced risk of postoperative spinal instability and deformity
    Disadvantages
    ● Limited literature looking at long-term outcomes of lumbar laminoplasty compared to other procedures
    ● Greater risk for nerve root injury intraoperatively
    ● Longer operative time
    Laminotomy Indications
    ● Spinal stenosis with neurological symptoms
    ● Multilevel spondylotic lateral canal stenosis
    ● Lateral recess stenosis secondary to disc herniation
    Contraindications
    ● Severe instability necessitating fusion
    ● Pan-canal or central stenosis
    ● Severe facet joint arthritis or osteoporosis
    Approaches
    ● Open, minimally invasive, endoscopic (includes inside-out, outside-in, contralateral techniques)
    ● Unilateral and bilateral
    Advantages
    ● Reduced risk for iatrogenic mechanical instability and prolonged recovery when compared to laminectomy
    ● Superior preservation of posterior spinal structures
    Disadvantages
    ● Limited extent of decompression when compared to laminectomy
    ● May not fully alleviate central canal stenosis
    Foraminotomy Indications
    ● Foraminal stenosis with compression of neural structures
    Contraindications
    ● Severe spinal instability (e.g., scoliosis, spondylolisthesis, kyphosis) necessitating fusion
    ● Significant neurological deficits requiring more extensive decompression
    ● Active infection or severe osteoporosis
    Approaches
    ● Open, minimally invasive, endoscopic (includes transforaminal and laser assisted endoscopic foraminotomies)
    Advantages
    ● Preserves lamina integrity
    ● Potential postoperative improvement of both foraminal diameter and height
    Disadvantages
    ● Risk of nerve injury
    ● Reduced access to central canal leading to potential risk for incomplete decompression and symptom recurrence
    Percutaneous Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression (MILD) Indications
    ● Stenosis secondary to ligamentum flavum hypertrophy ≥2.5 mm
    ● Typically reserved for patients with multiple medical comorbidities making them high-risk candidates for traditional procedures
    Contraindications
    ● Previous spinal surgery
    ● Infection at the site of potential surgery
    Approaches
    ● Percutaneous approach through a small incision
    ● Performed utilizing local anesthesia with the assistance of fluoroscopic guidance
    Advantages
    ● Is safe for patients with comorbidities that make it challenging to tolerate traditional spinal surgery such as laminectomy and laminotomy
    ● Does not require general anesthesia
    ● Minimally invasive, avoiding large incisions and lamina removal
    Disadvantages
    ● Limited decompression compared to traditional surgical method
    ● Limited evidence and literature available showing long-term efficacy
    • View popup
    Table 2

    Summary features of endoscopic lumbar decompression.22,24,64,76–92

    ProcedureSummary Features
    Endoscopic Microdiscectomy Indications
    ● Lumbar disc herniation resulting in neurological deficits and radiculopathy not responding to conservative management
    Contraindications
    ● Severe facet joint arthritis or active infection
    ● Severe central canal stenosis requiring extensive decompression than provided by microdiscectomy
    Approaches
    ● Interlaminar or Transforaminal
    Advantages
    ● Reduced soft tissue and bony trauma
    ● Smaller incision and improved visualization of the surgical site
    ● Shorter LOS in hospital and faster recovery
    Disadvantages
    ● Steep learning curve
    ● Potential for limited access to complex herniations or multi-level diseases increasing risk of incomplete decompression
    Transforaminal Endoscopic Lumbar Foraminotomies (TELF) Indications
    ● Foraminal stenosis with nerve root compression
    ● Lateral recess stenosis caused by disc herniation
    Contraindications
    ● Necessity for more extensive decompression due to severe central canal stenosis
    ● Severe facet joint arthritis or active infection
    Approaches
    ● Transforaminal
    Advantages
    ● Improved visualization of neural structures along with smaller incisions resulting in reduced soft tissue trauma
    ● Enhanced preservation of structures around surgical site and improved postoperative spinal stability
    Disadvantages
    ● Reduced access to central canal
    ● Challenging to achieve full decompression in severe cases of foraminal stenosis
    Endoscopic Unilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Decompression (ULBD) Indications
    ● Symptomatic disc herniation not responding to conservative management
    ● Lumbar spinal stenosis resulting in bilateral neural compression
    Contraindications
    ● Severe central canal stenosis requiring more invasive approaches to achieve adequate decompression
    ● Significant spinal instability such as vertebral fractures or severe spondylolisthesis
    ● Severe facet joint arthritis or active infection
    Approaches
    ● Typically interlaminar
    Advantages
    ● Preservation of contralateral structures due to unilateral approach for bilateral decompression
    ● Smaller incisions, reduced soft tissue trauma, quicker recovery, and shorter in hospital LOS
    Disadvantages
    ● Steep learning curve
    ● Limited access to central canal
    • Abbreviations: LOS, length of stay; TELF, transforaminal endoscopic lumbar foraminotomies; ULBD, unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

International Journal of Spine Surgery: 19 (S2)
International Journal of Spine Surgery
Vol. 19, Issue S2
1 Apr 2025
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on International Journal of Spine Surgery.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Evolving Role of Lumbar Decompression: A Narrative Review
(Your Name) has sent you a message from International Journal of Spine Surgery
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the International Journal of Spine Surgery web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Evolving Role of Lumbar Decompression: A Narrative Review
Sagar Telang, Sahil S. Telang, Ryan Palmer, Andy Ton, William J. Karakash, Jonathan Ragheb, Siddharth Patel, Jeffrey C. Wang, Ram K. Alluri, Raymond J. Hah
International Journal of Spine Surgery Feb 2025, 8702; DOI: 10.14444/8702

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Evolving Role of Lumbar Decompression: A Narrative Review
Sagar Telang, Sahil S. Telang, Ryan Palmer, Andy Ton, William J. Karakash, Jonathan Ragheb, Siddharth Patel, Jeffrey C. Wang, Ram K. Alluri, Raymond J. Hah
International Journal of Spine Surgery Feb 2025, 8702; DOI: 10.14444/8702
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Open Lumbar Decompression
    • Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression
    • Endoscopic Lumbar Decompression
    • Future of Lumbar Decompression
    • Conclusion
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Comparison of Stand-Alone Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion, 360° Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion, and Arthroplasty for Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation: Focus on Nerve Decompression and Painful Spinal Instability Resolution
  • Segmental Lordosis and Disc Height Discrepancies in Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Expandable Cages
  • Recovery Trajectories After Lumbar Fusion Stratified by Baseline Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function Disability Levels
Show more Lumbar Spine

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • endoscopic spine surgery
  • lumbar decompression
  • minimally invasive surgery
  • spinal stenosis
  • surgical techniques

Content

  • Current Issue
  • Latest Content
  • Archive

More Information

  • About IJSS
  • About ISASS
  • Privacy Policy

More

  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Feedback

Other Services

  • Author Instructions
  • Join ISASS
  • Reprints & Permissions

© 2025 International Journal of Spine Surgery

International Journal of Spine Surgery Online ISSN: 2211-4599

Powered by HighWire