Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Less invasive and less technically demanding decompressive procedure for lumbar spinal stenosis—appropriate for general orthopaedic surgeons?

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article presents the clinical and radiological results of the modified spinous process osteotomy decompressive procedure (MSPO), which affords excellent visualisation and provides wide access for Kerrison rongeur use and angulation while minimising destruction of tissues not directly involved in the pathological process. A total of 50 patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis underwent MSPO between 2002 and 2005. The minimum follow-up period was five years. Patient’s walking distance ability was 85.4 m (5–180 m) preoperatively and 2,560 m (1500–8000 m) at the last follow-up. Leg pain improved in 100% of the patients and back pain improved in 89% at the last follow-up. The overall results were good to excellent in 90% of the patients, fair in 16% and all patients were satisfied with the outcome at the last follow-up. The osteotomised spinous process eventually united with the retained laminar bridge in all patients within nine months after surgery. Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis can be adequately decompressed with less violation of the integrity of the posterior elements using MSPO. The described technique of MSPO yielded promising results with few complications. The authors believe MSPO is less technically demanding and appropriate for general orthopaedic surgeons, occasional spine surgeons and chief residents.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Arai Y, Shinomiya K, Okawa A, Takahashi M, Kawabata S, Haro H et al (2007) Comparison between endoscopic and microscopic lumbar decompression using tubular retractor to perform minimally invasive surgery. J Jpn Soc Spine Surg Rel Res 18:654–657

    Google Scholar 

  2. Benz RJ, Ibrahim ZG, Afshar P, Garfin SR (2001) Predicting complications in elderly patients undergoing lumbar decompression. Clin Orthop Relat Res 384:116–121

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Loeser JD, Bigos SJ, Ciol MA (1992) Morbidity and mortality in association with operations on the lumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 74:536–543

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Deyo RA, Ciol MA, Cherkin DC, Loeser JD, Bigos SJ (1993) Lumbar spinal fusion: a cohort study of complications, reoperations, and resource use in the medicare population. Spine 18:1463–1470

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Foley KT, Smith MM (1997) Microendoscopic discectomy technique. J Neurosurg 3:301–307

    Google Scholar 

  6. Garfin SR, Herkowitz HN, Mirkovic S (1999) Spinal stenosis. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 81:572–586

    Google Scholar 

  7. Gejo R, Kawaguchi Y, Kondoh T, Tabuchi E, Matsui H, Torii K, Ono T, Kimura T (2000) Magnetic resonance imaging and histologic evidence of postoperative back muscle injury in rats. Spine 25:941–946

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Gelalis ID, Stafilas KS, Korompilias AV, Zacharis KC, Beris AE, Xenakis TA (2006) Decompressive surgery for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: long-term results. Int Orthop 30:59–63

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hanley EN Jr (1995) The indications for lumbar spinal fusion with and without instrumentation. Spine 20(suppl):S143–S153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Herron LD, Trippi AC, 8 Herron LD, Trippi AC (1989) L4–L5 degenerative spondylolisthesis (decompression laminectomy without fusion). Spine 14:534–538

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Ikuta K, Arima J, Tanaka T (2005) Short-term result of microendoscopic posterior decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis. J Neurosurg 40:624–633

    Google Scholar 

  12. Katz JN, Lipson SJ, Larson MG (1991) The outcome decompressive laminectomy for degenerative lumbar stenosis. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 73:809–816

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Katz JN (1995) Lumbar spinal fusions: surgical rates, costs, complications. Spine 20(Suppl):S78–S83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Katz JN, Lipson SJ, Lew RA (1997) Lumbar laminectomy alone or with instrumented or noninstrumented arthrodesis in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: patient selection, costs, and surgical outcomes. Spine 22:1123–1131

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Mikami Y, Ngasase M, Hase H, Hatta Y, Yanagisawa K, Harada T (2007) Microendoscopic decompression via interspinous midline approach. J Jpn Soc Spine Surg Rel Res 18:658–661

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ragab AA, Fye MA, Bohlman HH (2003) Surgery of the lumbar spine for spinal stenosis in 118 patients 70 years of age or older. Spine 28:348–353

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Sanderson PL, Wood P (1993) Surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis in old people. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 75:393–397

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Stucki G, Daltory LH, Liang MH, Lipson SJ, Fossel AH, Katz JN (1996) Measurement properties of a self-administered outcome measure in lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 21:796–803

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Tsai RYC, Yang RS, Bray RS (1998) Microscopic laminotomies for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. J Spinal Disorder 11:389–394

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Turner JA, Ersck M, Herron L, Deyo R (1992) Surgery for lumbar stenosis: attempted meta-analysis of the literature. Spine 17:1–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Weiner BK, Fraser RD, Peterson M (1992) Spinous process osteotomy to facilitate lumbar decompressive surgery. Spine 24:62–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Yong-Hing K, Kirkaldy-Willis H (1978) Osteotomy of the lumbar spinous process to increase surgical exposure. Clin Orthop 134:218–220

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Young S, Veerapen O’Laire SA (1988) Relief of lumbar canal stenosis using multilevel subarticular fenestrations as an alternative to wide laminectomy: preliminary report. Neurosurgery 23:628–633

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest statement

No funds were received in support of this study.

The author(s) of this manuscript has/have chosen not to furnish International Orthopaedics and its readers with information regarding any relationship that might exist between a commercial party and material contained in this manuscript that might represent a potential conflict of interest.

No benefits in any form have been or will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this manuscript.

Informed consent was obtained from the all patients before entering the study.

Institutional review board approval of Kitasato University was obtained for this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kitasato University, School of Medicine, Kitasato1-15-1, Sagamihara, Kanagawa, Japan

    Masashi Takaso, Toshiyuki Nakazawa, Takayuki Imura, Takamitsu Okada, Kensuke Fukushima, Masaki Ueno, Wataru Saito & Ryousuke Shintani

  2. Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology, Kitasato University, School of Medicine, Kitasato1-15-1, Sagamihara, Kanagawa, Japan

    Hiroyuki Sakagami

  3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Chiba University, School of Medicine, Inohana 1-8-1, Chiba, Chiba, Japan

    Kazuhisa Takahashi, Masashi Yamazaki, Seiji Ohtori & Toshiaki Kotani

Authors
  1. Masashi Takaso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Toshiyuki Nakazawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Takayuki Imura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Takamitsu Okada
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kensuke Fukushima
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Masaki Ueno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Wataru Saito
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Ryousuke Shintani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Hiroyuki Sakagami
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Kazuhisa Takahashi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Masashi Yamazaki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Seiji Ohtori
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Toshiaki Kotani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Masashi Takaso.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Takaso, M., Nakazawa, T., Imura, T. et al. Less invasive and less technically demanding decompressive procedure for lumbar spinal stenosis—appropriate for general orthopaedic surgeons?. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 35, 67–73 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-010-0986-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-010-0986-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation