Interlaminar decompression for patients with degenerative lumbar stenosis. Literature review and results of a prospective study

The study objective is to assess the effectiveness of interlaminar decompression in patients with degenerative lumbar stenosis.

Materials and methods. A prospective study was conducted among 100 patients with degenerative lumbar stenosis. All patients were operated, interlaminar decompression of the symptomatic side was made. Outcomes were assessed by using a visual analogue scale and Oswestry questionnaire 1 and 2 years after surgery. Among patients with an unsatisfactory result, the cause of the unsatisfactory outcome was studied.

Results. One year after surgery a satisfactory result was noted in 71 patients, and 2 years after surgery a satisfactory result was noted in 67 patients. The following causes of unsatisfactory outcome were found in 33 patients: 9 – spinal canal restenosis, 2 – herniated disc at the operation level, 4 – the facet syndrome, 4 – development of clinical instability, 3 – pain in the opposite leg (there was no pain before the operation), 2 – development of delayed radiculopathy, 9 – decompensation of concomitant diseases (4 – coxarthrosis, 3 – gonarthrosis, 2 – chronic ischemia of the lower extremities). Among the risk factors for restenosis, statistically significant relationship was found only with the presence of spondylolisthesis.

Conclusion. Interlaminar decompression is an effective surgical option in patients with degenerative lumbar stenosis. The presence of spondylolisthesis is a risk factor for the inefficiency of this operation.

Conflict of interest. The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Informed consent. All patients gave written informed consent to participate in the study

1. Otani K., Kikuchi S., Yabuki S. et al. Lumbar spinal stenosis has a negative impact on quality of life compared with other comorbidities: an epidemiological cross-sectional study of 1862 communitydwelling individuals. Scientific World Journal 2013;2013:590652. DOI: 10.1155/2013/590652.

2. Zarghooni K., Beyer F., Papadaki J. et al. [Quality of life and functional outcome after microsurgical decompression in lumbar spinal stenosis: a register study (In German)]. Z Orthop Unfall 2017;155(4):429–34. DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-103958.

3. Nikitin A.S., Asratyan S.A., Kamchatnov P.R. Stenosis of the vertebral canal in the lower spine. Zhurnal nevrologii i psikhiatrii im. S.S. Korsakova = S.S. Korsakov Journal of Neurology and Psychiatry 2015;115(7):130–40. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.17116/jnevro201511571130-140.

4. McGregor A.H., Probyn K., Cro S. et al. Rehabilitation following surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. A Cochrane review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2014;39(13):1044–54. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000355.

5. Slätis P., Malmivaara A., Heliövaara M. et al. Long-term results of surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomised controlled trial. Eur Spine J 2011;20(7):1174–81. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-010-1652-y.

6. Weinstein J.N., Tosteson T.D., Lurie J.D. et al. Surgical versus nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis four-year results of the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010;35(14):1329–38. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181e0f04d.

7. Nikitin A.S., Kamchatnov P.R. The conservative treatment of patients with degenerative lumbar stenosis. Zhurnal nevrologii i psikhiatrii im. S.S. Korsakova = S.S. Korsakov Journal of Neurology and Psychiatry 2019;119(6):32–41. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.17116/jnevro201911906132.

8. Weinstein J.N., Lurie J.D., Tosteson T.D. et al. Surgical compared with nonoperative treatment for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. Four-year results in the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) randomized and observational cohorts. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009;91(6):1295–304. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.H.00913.

9. Matsunaga S., Ijiri K., Hayashi K. Nonsurgically managed patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis: a 10- to 18- year follow-up study. J Neurosurg 2000;93(2 Suppl):194–8. DOI: 10.3171/spi.2000.93.2.0194.

10. Guha D., Heary R.F., Shamji M.F. Iatrogenic spondylolisthesis following laminectomy for degenerative lumbar stenosis: systematic review and current concepts. Neurosurg Focus 2015;39(4):E9. DOI: 10.3171/2015.7.FOCUS15259.

11. Mullin B.B., Rea G.L., Irsik R. et al. The effect of postlaminectomy spinal instability on the outcome of lumbar spinal stenosis patients. J Spinal Disord 1996;9(2):107–16.

12. Katz J.N., Lipson S.J., Larson M.G. et al. The outcome of decompressive laminectomy for degenerative lumbar stenosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1991;73(6):809–16.

13. Krämer R., Wild A., Haak H. et al. The effect of limited interlaminar decompression versus complete laminectomy on intrathecal volume in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Biomed Tech (Berl) 2002;47(6):159–63. DOI: 10.1515/bmte.2002.47.6.159.

14. Hong S.W., Choi K., Ahn Y. et al. A comparison of unilateral and bilateral laminotomies for decompression of L4–L5 spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2011;36(3):E172–8. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181db998c.

15. Hermansen E., Romild U.K., Austevoll I.M. et al. Does surgical technique influence clinical outcome after lumbar spinal stenosis decompression? A comparative effectiveness study from the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery. Eur Spine J 2017;26(2):420–7. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-016-4643-9.

16. Overdevest G.M., Jacobs W., VleggeertLankamp C. et al. Effectiveness of posterior decompression techniques compared with conventional laminectomy for lumbar stenosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015;(3):CD010036. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010036.pub2.

17. Den Boogert H.F., Keers J.C., Marinus Oterdoom D.L., Kuijlen J.M. Bilateral versus unilateral interlaminar approach for bilateral decompression in patients with single-level degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a multicenter retrospective study of 175 patients on postoperative pain, functional disability, and patient satisfaction. J Neurosurg Spine 2015;23(3):326–35. DOI: 10.3171/2014.12.SPINE13994.

18. Ang C.L., 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 J 2015;15(8):1705–12. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2013.07.461.

19. Machado G.C., Ferreira P.H., Yoo R.I. et al. Surgical options for lumbar spinal stenosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016;11:CD012421. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012421.

20. Mayer H.M., Heider F. “Slalom”: microsurgical cross-over decompression for multilevel degenerative lumbar stenosis. Biomed Res Int 2016;2016:9074257. DOI: 10.1155/2016/9074257.

21. Schmidt S., Franke J., Rauschmann M. et al. Prospective, randomized, multicenter study with 2-year follow-up to compare the performance of decompression with and without interlaminar stabilization. J Neurosurg Spine 2018;28(4):406–15. DOI: 10.3171/2017.11.SPINE17643.

22. Richter A., Schütz C., Hauck M., Halm H. Does an interspinous device (Coflex) improve the outcome of decompressive surgery in lumbar spinal stenosis? One-year follow up of a prospective case control study of 60 patients. Eur Spine J 2010; 19(2):283–9. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-009-1229-9.

23. Nikitin A.S., Grin A.A. Combination of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis and spinal deformity. Literature review. Neyrokhirurgiya = Russian Journal of Neurosurgery 2018;20(3):91–103. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.17650/1683-3295- 2018-20-3-91-103.

24. Bayerl S., Pöhlmann F., Finger T. et al. The sagittal spinal profile type: a principal precondition for surgical decision making in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. J Neurosurg Spine 2017;27(5):552–9. DOI: 10.3171/2017.3.SPINE161269.

25. Bayerl S., Pöhlmann F., Finger T. et al. The sagittal balance does not influence the 1 year clinical outcome of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis without obvious instability after microsurgical decompression. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2015;40(13):1014–21. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000928.

26. Schär R.T., Kiebach S., Raabe A., Ulrich C.T. Reoperation rate after microsurgical uni- or bilateral laminotomy for lumbar spinal stenosis with and without low-grade spondylolisthesis: what do preoperative radiographic parameters tell us? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2019;44(4):E245–51. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000002798.

27. Kleinstueck F.S., Fekete T.F., Mannion A.F. et al. To fuse or not to fuse in lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis: do baseline symptoms help provide the answer? Eur Spine J 2012;21(2):268–75. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-011-1896-1.

28. Blumenthal C., Curran J., Benzel E.C. et al. Radiographic predictors of delayed instability following decompression without fusion for degenerative grade I lumbar spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine 2013;18(4):340–6. DOI: 10.3171/2013.1.SPINE12537.

29. Sugiura T., Okuda S., Matsumoto T. et al. Surgical outcomes and limitations of decompression surgery for degenerative spondylolisthesis. Global Spine J 2018;8(7):733–8. DOI: 10.1177/2192568218770793.

30. Försth P., Ólafsson G., Carlsson T. et al. A randomized, controlled trial of fusion surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med 2016;374(15):1413–23. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1513721.

31. Sasai K., Umeda M., Maruyama T. et al. Microsurgical bilateral decompression via a unilateral approach for lumbar spinal canal stenosis including degenerative spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine 2008;9(6):554–9. DOI: 10.3171/SPI.2008.8.08122.

32. Ilik M.K., Golen M., Ilik F. et al. Clinical outcomes of patients over 75 years of age with degenerative spondylolisthesis following bilateral decompression via unilateral approach. Turk Neurosurg 2017;27(5):785–9. DOI: 10.5137/1019-5149.JTN.18990-16.0.

33. Inose H., Kato T., Yuasa M. et al. Comparison of decompression, decompression plus fusion, and decompression plus stabilization for degenerative spondylolisthesis: a prospective, randomized study. Clin Spine Surg 2018;31(7):E347–52. DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000659.

34. Chang H.S., Fujisawa N., Tsuchiya T. et al. Degenerative spondylolisthesis does not affect the outcome of unilateral laminotomy with bilateral decompression in patients with lumbar stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2014;39(5):400–8. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000161.

35. Kato M., Namikawa T., Matsumura A. et al. Radiographic risk factors of reoperation following minimally invasive decompression for lumbar canal stenosis associated with degenerative scoliosis and spondylolisthesis. Global Spine J 2017;7(6):498–505. DOI: 10.1177/2192568217699192.

36. Park J.H., Hyun S.J., Roh S.W., Rhim S.C. A comparison of unilateral laminectomy with bilateral decompression and fusion surgery in the treatment of grade I lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2012;154(7):1205–12. DOI: 10.1007/s00701-012-1394-1.

37. Sigmundsson F., Jönsson B., Strömqvist B. Preoperative pain pattern predicts surgical outcome more than type of surgery in patients with central spinal stenosis without concomitant spondylolisthesis: a register study of 9051 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2014;39(3):E199–210. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000101.

38. Sigmundsson F.G., Jönsson B., Strömqvist B. Outcome of decompression with and without fusion in spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis in relation to preoperative pain pattern: a register study of 1,624 patients. Spine J 2015;15(4):638–46. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2014.11.020.

39. Matsudaira K., Yamazaki T., Seichi A. et al. Spinal stenosis in grade I degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a comparative study of outcomes following laminoplasty and laminectomy with instrumented spinal fusion. J Orthop Sci 2005;10(3):270–6. DOI: 10.1007/s00776-005-0887-7.

40. Fairbank J.C., Couper J., Davies J.B., O’Brien J.P. The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy 1980;66(8):271–3.