Minimally invasive lumbar decompression for lumbar stenosis: review of clinical outcomes and cost effectiveness
- PMID: 25370820
Minimally invasive lumbar decompression for lumbar stenosis: review of clinical outcomes and cost effectiveness
Abstract
Lumbar stenosis patients typically present with neurogenic claudication or radiculopathy. Studies have shown the benefit of surgical management of lumbar stenosis for patients who fail medical management. Surgical management traditionally involved an open laminectomy and foramenotomies. The emergence of minimally invasive spinal surgery has allowed for comparable clinical outcomes to open laminectomies, with the potential additional benefits of decreased blood loss, shorter hospital stay, decreased postoperative narcotic requirement, decreased rate of infection, and the potential benefit of decreasing the risk of postoperative instability. A shorter length of stay and faster return to work after minimally invasive lumbar decompression may result in the minimally invasive approach being more cost effective than an open approach. A literature review was performed to evaluate the clinical outcomes and cost effectiveness associated with minimally invasive decompression of lumbar stenosis.
Similar articles
-
Comparing cost-effectiveness of X-Stop with minimally invasive decompression in lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized controlled trial.Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015 Apr 15;40(8):514-20. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000798. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015. PMID: 25608246 Clinical Trial.
-
Minimally invasive lumbar decompression: a treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis.Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2013 Oct;26(5):573-9. doi: 10.1097/01.aco.0000432520.24210.54. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2013. PMID: 23963231 Review.
-
Outcomes after decompressive laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis: comparison between minimally invasive unilateral laminectomy for bilateral decompression and open laminectomy: clinical article.J Neurosurg Spine. 2014 Aug;21(2):179-86. doi: 10.3171/2014.4.SPINE13420. Epub 2014 May 30. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014. PMID: 24878273 Clinical Trial.
-
Comparison of techniques for decompressive lumbar laminectomy: the minimally invasive versus the "classic" open approach.Minim Invasive Neurosurg. 2008 Apr;51(2):100-5. doi: 10.1055/s-2007-1022542. Minim Invasive Neurosurg. 2008. PMID: 18401823
-
Minimally invasive decompression for lumbar stenosis and disc herniation.Neurosurg Focus. 2008;25(2):E11. doi: 10.3171/FOC/2008/25/8/E11. Neurosurg Focus. 2008. PMID: 18673040 Review.
Cited by
-
Minimally invasive lumbar decompression in an ambulatory surgery center.J Spine Surg. 2019 Sep;5(Suppl 2):S166-S173. doi: 10.21037/jss.2019.04.05. J Spine Surg. 2019. PMID: 31656871 Free PMC article.
-
Rates of achieving meaningful outcomes after undergoing minimally-invasive far lateral tubular decompression.BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2025 Apr 15;26(1):362. doi: 10.1186/s12891-025-08446-w. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2025. PMID: 40234899 Free PMC article.
-
Mobility-Preserving Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: WFNS Spine Committee Recommendations.World Neurosurg X. 2020 Mar 19;7:100078. doi: 10.1016/j.wnsx.2020.100078. eCollection 2020 Jul. World Neurosurg X. 2020. PMID: 32613191 Free PMC article.
-
Neurosurgical Management of Interspinous Device Complications: A Case Series.Front Surg. 2022 Mar 16;9:841134. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.841134. eCollection 2022. Front Surg. 2022. PMID: 35372480 Free PMC article.
-
American Society of Anesthesiologists Score is Not Predictive of Complication Incidence After Minimally Invasive Posterior Lumbar Spine Procedures.Int J Spine Surg. 2020 Feb 29;14(1):32-37. doi: 10.14444/7004. eCollection 2020 Feb. Int J Spine Surg. 2020. PMID: 32128300 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
