Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2015 Mar 11;2015(3):CD010036.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010036.pub2.

Effectiveness of posterior decompression techniques compared with conventional laminectomy for lumbar stenosis

Gijsbert M Overdevest  1 , Wilco Jacobs, Carmen Vleggeert-Lankamp, Claudius Thomé, Robert Gunzburg, Wilco Peul
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Effectiveness of posterior decompression techniques compared with conventional laminectomy for lumbar stenosis

Gijsbert M Overdevest et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: The gold standard treatment for symptomatic lumbar stenosis refractory to conservative management is a facet-preserving laminectomy. New techniques of posterior decompression have been developed to preserve spinal integrity and to minimise tissue damage by limiting bony decompression and avoiding removal of the midline structures (i.e. spinous process, vertebral arch and interspinous and supraspinous ligaments).

Objectives: To compare the effectiveness of techniques of posterior decompression that limit the extent of bony decompression or avoid removal of posterior midline structures of the lumbar spine versus conventional facet-preserving laminectomy for the treatment of patients with degenerative lumbar stenosis.

Search methods: An experienced librarian conducted a comprehensive electronic search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the clinical trials registries ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) for relevant literature up to June 2014.

Selection criteria: We included prospective controlled studies comparing conventional facet-preserving laminectomy versus a posterior decompressive technique that avoids removal of posterior midline structures or a technique involving only partial resection of the vertebral arch. We excluded studies describing techniques of decompression by means of interspinous process devices or concomitant (instrumented) fusion procedures. Participants included individuals with symptomatic degenerative lumbar stenosis only.

Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Back Review Group criteria for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for non-randomised studies. We extracted data regarding demographics, intervention details and outcome measures.

Main results: A total of four high-quality RCTs and six low-quality RCTs met the search criteria of this review. These studies included a total of 733 participants. Investigators compared three different posterior decompression techniques versus conventional laminectomy. Three studies (173 participants) compared unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression versus conventional laminectomy. Four studies (382 participants) compared bilateral laminotomy versus conventional laminectomy (one study included three treatment groups and compared unilateral and bilateral laminotomy vs conventional laminectomy). Finally, four studies (218 participants) compared a split-spinous process laminotomy versus conventional laminectomy.Evidence of low or very low quality suggests that different techniques of posterior decompression and conventional laminectomy have similar effects on functional disability and leg pain. Only perceived recovery at final follow-up was better in people who underwent bilateral laminotomy compared with conventional laminectomy (two RCTs, 223 participants, odds ratio 5.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.55 to 12.71).Among the secondary outcome measures, unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression and bilateral laminotomy resulted in numerically fewer cases of iatrogenic instability, although in both cases, the incidence of instability was low (three RCTs, 166 participants, odds ratio 0.28, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.15; three RCTs, 294 participants, odds ratio 0.10, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.55, respectively). The difference in severity of postoperative low back pain following bilateral laminotomy (two RCTs, 223 participants, mean difference -0.51, 95% CI -0.80 to -0.23) and split-spinous process laminotomy compared with conventional laminectomy (two RCTs, 97 participants, mean difference -1.07, 95% CI -2.15 to -0.00) was significantly less, but was too small to be clinically important. A quantitative comparison between unilateral laminotomy and conventional laminectomy was not possible because of different reporting of outcome measures. We found no evidence to show that the incidence of complications, length of the procedure, length of hospital stay and postoperative walking distance differed between techniques of posterior decompression.

Authors' conclusions: The evidence provided by this systematic review for the effects of unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression, bilateral laminotomy and split-spinous process laminotomy compared with conventional laminectomy on functional disability, perceived recovery and leg pain is of low or very low quality. Therefore, further research is necessary to establish whether these techniques provide a safe and effective alternative for conventional laminectomy. Proposed advantages of these techniques regarding the incidence of iatrogenic instability and postoperative back pain are plausible, but definitive conclusions are limited by poor methodology and poor reporting of outcome measures among included studies. Future research is necessary to establish the incidence of iatrogenic instability using standardised definitions of radiological and clinical instability at comparable follow-up intervals. Long-term results with these techniques are currently lacking.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The review authors declare that they have no competing interests and received no external funding to perform this systematic review.

Figures

1
1
Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
2
2
Forest plot of comparison: unilateral and bilateral laminotomy compared with conventional laminectomy, outcome: 1.1 Standardised Disability Index (0 to 100).
3
3
Forest plot of comparison: unilateral and bilateral laminotomy compared with conventional laminectomy, outcome: 1.2 Recovery (good + excellent).
4
4
Forest plot of comparison: unilateral and bilateral laminotomy compared with conventional laminectomy, outcome: 1.3 Leg pain (VAS 0 to 10).
5
5
Forest plot of comparison: unilateral and bilateral laminotomy compared with conventional laminectomy, outcome: 1.4 Duration of stay in hospital (days).
6
6
Forest plot of comparison: unilateral and bilateral laminotomy compared with conventional laminectomy, outcome: 1.5 Complications.
7
7
Forest plot of comparison: unilateral and bilateral laminotomy compared with conventional laminectomy, outcome: 1.6 Instability.
8
8
Forest plot of comparison: unilateral and bilateral laminotomy compared with conventional laminectomy, outcome: 1.7 Muscle atrophy ratio of paravertebral muscle.
9
9
Forest plot of comparison: unilateral and bilateral laminotomy compared with conventional laminectomy, outcome: 1.8 Muscle cell injury (creatine kinase level IU/L).
10
10
Forest plot of comparison: unilateral and bilateral laminotomy compared with conventional laminectomy, outcome: 1.10 Back pain (VAS 0 to 10).
11
11
Forest plot of comparison: unilateral and bilateral laminotomy compared with conventional laminectomy, outcome: 1.11 Length of surgical procedure (minutes).
12
12
Forest plot of comparison: unilateral and bilateral laminotomy compared with conventional laminectomy, outcome: 1.12 Blood loss (mL/level).
13
13
Forest plot of comparison: unilateral and bilateral laminotomy compared with conventional laminectomy, outcome: 1.13 Postoperative use of analgesics (pethidine; mg).
1.1
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1 Unilateral, bilateral and split‐spinous process laminotomy compared with conventional laminectomy, Outcome 1 Standardised Disability Index (0 to 100).
1.2
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1 Unilateral, bilateral and split‐spinous process laminotomy compared with conventional laminectomy, Outcome 2 Recovery (good + excellent).
1.3
1.3. Analysis
Comparison 1 Unilateral, bilateral and split‐spinous process laminotomy compared with conventional laminectomy, Outcome 3 VAS leg.
1.4
1.4. Analysis
Comparison 1 Unilateral, bilateral and split‐spinous process laminotomy compared with conventional laminectomy, Outcome 4 Duration of stay in hospital (days).
1.5
1.5. Analysis
Comparison 1 Unilateral, bilateral and split‐spinous process laminotomy compared with conventional laminectomy, Outcome 5 Complications.
1.6
1.6. Analysis
Comparison 1 Unilateral, bilateral and split‐spinous process laminotomy compared with conventional laminectomy, Outcome 6 Instability.
1.7
1.7. Analysis
Comparison 1 Unilateral, bilateral and split‐spinous process laminotomy compared with conventional laminectomy, Outcome 7 Muscle atrophy ratio of paravertebral muscle (%).
1.8
1.8. Analysis
Comparison 1 Unilateral, bilateral and split‐spinous process laminotomy compared with conventional laminectomy, Outcome 8 Muscle cell injury (creatine kinase level IU/L).
1.9
1.9. Analysis
Comparison 1 Unilateral, bilateral and split‐spinous process laminotomy compared with conventional laminectomy, Outcome 9 Back pain (VAS 0 to 100).
1.10
1.10. Analysis
Comparison 1 Unilateral, bilateral and split‐spinous process laminotomy compared with conventional laminectomy, Outcome 10 Length of surgical procedure.
1.11
1.11. Analysis
Comparison 1 Unilateral, bilateral and split‐spinous process laminotomy compared with conventional laminectomy, Outcome 11 Blood loss (mL).
1.12
1.12. Analysis
Comparison 1 Unilateral, bilateral and split‐spinous process laminotomy compared with conventional laminectomy, Outcome 12 Postoperative analgesic use.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

  • doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010036

References

References to studies included in this review

Celik 2010 {published data only}
    1. Celik SE, Celik S, Goksu K, Kara A, Ince I. Microdecompressive laminotomy with a 5‐year follow‐up period for severe lumbar spinal stenosis. Journal of Spinal Disorders & Techniques 2010;23:229‐35. - PubMed
Cho 2007 {published data only}
    1. Cho DY, Lin HL, Lee WY, Lee HC. Split‐spinous process laminotomy and discectomy for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a preliminary report. Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine 2007;6(3):229‐39. - PubMed
Fu 2008 {published data only}
    1. Fu YS, Zeng BF, Xu JG. Long‐term outcomes of two different decompressive techniques for lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 2008;33(5):514‐8. - PubMed
Gurelik 2012 {published data only}
    1. Gurelik M, Bozkina C, Kars Z, Karadag O, Ozum U, Bayrakli F. Unilateral laminotomy for decompression of lumbar stenosis is effective and safe: a prospective randomized comparative study. Journal of Neurological Sciences 2012;29(4):744‐53.
Liu 2013 {published data only}
    1. Liu X, Yuan S, Tian Y. Modified unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: technical note. Spine 2013;38(12):732‐7. - PubMed
Postacchini 1993 {published data only}
    1. Postacchini F, Cinotti G, Perugia D, Gumina S. The surgical treatment of central lumbar stenosis. Multiple laminotomy compared with total laminectomy. Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery (British Volume) 1993;75(3):386‐92. - PubMed
Rajasekaran 2013 {published data only}
    1. Rajasekaran S, Thomas A, Kanna RM, Prasad Shetty A. Lumbar spinous process splitting decompression provides equivalent outcomes to conventional midline decompression in degenerative lumbar canal stenosis: a prospective, randomized controlled study of 51 patients. Spine 2013;38(20):1737‐43. - PubMed
Thome 2005 {published data only}
    1. Thomé C, Zevgaridis D, Leheta O, Bäzner H, Pöckler‐Schöniger C, Wöhrle J, et al. Outcome after less‐invasive decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized comparison of unilateral laminotomy, bilateral laminotomy, and laminectomy. Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine 2005;3:129‐41. - PubMed
Watanabe 2011 {published data only}
    1. Watanabe K, Matsumoto M, Ikegami T, Nishiwaki Y, Tsuji T, Ishii K, et al. Reduced postoperative wound pain after lumbar spinous process‐splitting laminectomy for lumbar canal stenosis: a randomized controlled study. Journal of Neurosurgery Spine 2011;14(1):51‐8. - PubMed
Yagi 2009 {published data only}
    1. Yagi M, Okada E, Ninomiya K, Kihara M. Postoperative outcome after modified unilateral‐approach microendoscopic midline decompression for degenerative spinal stenosis. Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine 2009;10(4):293‐9. - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

Aleem 2014 {published data only}
    1. Aleem IS, Rampersaud YR. Elderly patients have similar outcomes compared to younger patients after minimally invasive surgery for spinal stenosis. Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research 2014;472(6):1824‐30. - PMC - PubMed
Arai 2014 {published data only}
    1. Arai Y, Hirai T, Yoshii T, Sakai K, Kato T, Enomoto M, et al. A prospective comparative study of 2 minimally invasive decompression procedures for lumbar spinal canal stenosis: unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) versus muscle‐preserving interlaminar decompression. Spine 2014;39(4):332‐40. - PubMed
Cavusoglu 2007 {published data only}
    1. Cavusoglu H, Kaya RA, Turkmenoglu ON, Tuncer C, Colak I, Aydin Y. Midterm outcome after unilateral approach for bilateral decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis: 5‐year prospective study. European Spine Journal 16;12:2133‐42. - PMC - PubMed
Dalgic 2010 {published data only}
    1. Dalgic A, Uckun O, Ergungor MF, Okay O, Daglioglu E, Hatipoglu G, et al. Comparison of unilateral hemilaminotomy and bilateral hemilaminotomy according to dural sac area in lumbar spinal stenosis. Minimally Invasive Neurosurgery 2010;53(2):60‐4. - PubMed
Delank 2002 {published data only}
    1. Delank KS, Eysel P, Zöllner J, Drees P, Nafe B, Rompe JD. Undercutting decompression versus laminectomy. Clinical and radiological results of a prospective controlled trial. Orthopade 2002;31(11):1048‐57. - PubMed
Jones 2014 {published data only}
    1. Jones AD, Wafai AM, Easterbrook AL. Improvement in low back pain following spinal decompression: observational study of 119 patients. European Spine Journal 2014;23(1):135‐41. - PMC - PubMed
Khoo 2002 {published data only}
    1. Khoo LT, Fessler RG. Microendoscopic decompressive laminotomy for the treatment of lumbar stenosis. Neurosurgery 2002;51(5 Suppl):S146‐54. - PubMed
Kim 2007 {published data only}
    1. Kim SW, Ju CI, Kim CG, Lee SM, Shin H. Minimally invasive lumbar spinal decompression: a comparative study between bilateral laminotomy and unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression. Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society 2007;42(3):195‐9.
Kim 2008 {published data only}
    1. Kim K, Isu T, Sugawara A, Matsumoto R, Isobe M. Comparison of the effect of 3 different approaches to the lumbar spinal canal on postoperative paraspinal muscle damage. Surgical Neurology 2008;69(2):109‐13. - PubMed
Krut'ko 2012 {published data only}
    1. Krut'ko AV. Results of decompressive‐stabilizing procedures via unilateral approach in lumbar spinal stenosis. Zhurnal Voprosy Neirokhirurgii Imeni N ‐ N ‐ Burdenko 2012;76(2):33‐40. - PubMed
Leonardi 2013 {published data only}
    1. Leonardi MA, Zanetti M, Min K. Extent of decompression and incidence of postoperative epidural hematoma among different techniques of spinal decompression in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Journal of Spinal Disorders & Techniques 2013;26(8):407‐14. - PubMed
Morgalla 2011 {published data only}
    1. Morgalla MH, Noak N, Merkle M, Tatagiba MS. Lumbar spinal stenosis in elderly patients: is a unilateral microsurgical approach sufficient for decompression?. J Neurosurg Spine 2011;14(3):305‐12. - PubMed
Munting 2014 {published data only}
    1. Munting E, Röder C, Sobottke R, Dietrich D, Aghayev E. Patient outcomes after laminotomy, hemilaminectomy, laminectomy and laminectomy with instrumented fusion for spinal canal stenosis: a propensity score‐based study from the Spine Tango registry. European Spine Journal 2014;epub ahead of print. - PubMed
Osman 2009 {published data only}
    1. Osman T, Moran C, Kelleher M, McEvoy L, Bolger C. Intersegmental decompression versus laminectomy in the surgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. British Journal of Neurosurgery 2009;23(5):489‐90.
Rahman 2008 {published data only}
    1. Rahman M, Summers LE, Richter B, Mimran RI, Jacob RP. Comparison of techniques for decompressive lumbar laminectomy: the minimally invasive versus the "classic" open approach. Minimally Invasive Neurosurgery 2008;51(2):100‐5. - PubMed
Rompe 1999 {published data only}
    1. Rompe JD, Eysel P, Zöllner J, Nafe B, Heine J. Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Long‐term results after undercutting decompression compared with decompressive laminectomy alone or with instrumented fusion. Neurosurgery Review 1999;22(2‐3):102‐6. - PubMed
Ruetten 2009 {published data only}
    1. Ruetten S, Komp M, Merk H, Godolias G. Surgical treatment for lumbar lateral recess stenosis with the full‐endoscopic interlaminar approach versus conventional microsurgical technique: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Journal of Neurosurgery Spine 2009;10(5):476‐85. - PubMed
Shih 2011 {published data only}
    1. Shih P, Wong AP, Smith TR, Lee AI, Fessler RG. Complications of open compared to minimally invasive lumbar spine decompression. Journal of Clinical Neuroscience 2011;18(10):1360‐4. - PubMed
Thomas 1997 {published data only}
    1. Thomas NW, Rea GL, Pikul BK, Mervis LJ, Irsik R, McGregor JM. Quantitative outcome and radiographic comparisons between laminectomy and laminotomy in the treatment of acquired lumbar stenosis. Neurosurgery 1997;41(3):567‐74. - PubMed
Usman 2013 {published data only}
    1. Usman M, Ali M, Khanzada K, Ishaq M, Naeem ul Haq, Aman R, Ali M. Unilateral approach for bilateral decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis: a minimal invasive surgery. Journal of the College of Physicians & Surgeons ‐ Pakistan 2013;23(12):852‐6. - PubMed
Watanabe 2005 {published data only}
    1. Watanabe K, Hosoya T, Shiraishi T, Matsumoto M, Chiba K, Toyama Y. Lumbar spinous process‐splitting laminectomy for lumbar canal stenosis. Technical note. Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine 2005;3(5):405‐8. - PubMed
Yu 1992 {published data only}
    1. Yu CS, Tay BK. Wide versus selective decompression in the operative treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. Singapore Medical Journal 1992;33(4):378‐9. - PubMed
Zhang 2013 {published data only}
    1. Zhang C, Zhou HX, Feng SQ, Ning GZ, Wu Q, Li FY, et al. The efficacy analysis of selective decompression of lumbar root canal of elderly lumbar spinal stenosis. Chung‐Hua Wai Ko Tsa Chih [Chinese Journal of Surgery] 51;9:816‐20. - PubMed

References to ongoing studies

Nerland 2014 {published data only}
    1. Nerland US, Jakola AS, Solheim O, Weber C, Rao V, Lonne G, et al. Comparative effectiveness of microdecompression and laminectomy for central lumbar spinal stenosis: study protocol for an observational study. BMJ Open 2014;4(3):e004651. - PMC - PubMed

Additional references

Adams 1980
    1. Adams MA, Hutton WC, Stott JR. The resistance to flexion of the lumbar intervertebral joint. Spine 1980;5(3):245‐53. - PubMed
Adams 1983
    1. Adams MA, Hutton WC. The mechanical function of the lumbar apophyseal joints. Spine 1983;8(3):327‐30. - PubMed
Amundsen 1995
    1. Amundsen T, Weber H, Lilleas F, Nordal HJ, Abdelnoor M, Magnaes B. Lumbar spinal stenosis. Clinical and radiologic features. Spine 1995;20(10):1178‐86. - PubMed
Amundsen 2010
    1. Amundsen T, Weber H, Nordal HJ, Magnaes B, Abdelnoor M, Lilleâs F. Lumbar spinal stenosis: conservative or surgical management?: A prospective 10‐year study. Spine 2000;25(11):1424‐1436. - PubMed
Arnoldi 1976
    1. Arnoldi CC, Brodsky AE, Cauchoix J, et al. Lumbar spinal stenosis and nerve root entrapment syndromes. Definition and classification. Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research 1976;115:4‐5. - PubMed
Arts 2009
    1. Arts MP, Brand R, Akker ME, Koes BW, Bartels RH, Peul WC, Leiden‐The Hague Spine Intervention Prognostic Study Group (SIPS). Tubular diskectomy vs conventional microdiskectomy for sciatica: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2009;302(2):149‐58. - PubMed
Atkins 2004
    1. Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, Eccles M, Falck‐Ytter Y, Flottorp S, et al. GRADE Working Group. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2004;328:1490. - PMC - PubMed
Boutron 2005
    1. Boutron I, Moher D, Tugwell P, Giraudeau B, Poiraudeau S, Nizard R, et al. A checklist to evaluate a report of a non pharmacological trial (CLEAR NPT) was developed using consensus. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2005;58:1233‐40. - PubMed
Bresnahan 2009
    1. Bresnahan L, Ogden AT, Natarajan RN, Fessler RG. A biomechanical evaluation of graded posterior element removal for treatment of lumbar stenosis: comparison of a minimally invasive approach with two standard laminectomy techniques. Spine 2009;34:17‐23. - PubMed
de Schepper 2013
    1. Schepper EI, Overdevest GM, Suri P, Peul WC, Oei EH, Koes BW, et al. Diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis: an updated systematic review of the accuracy of diagnostic tests. Spine 2013;38(8):469‐81. - PubMed
Deyo 2010
    1. Deyo RA, Mirza SK, Martin BI, Kreuter W, Goodman DC, Jarvik JG. Trends, major medical complications, and charges associated with surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis in older adults. JAMA 2010;303(13):1259‐65. - PMC - PubMed
Evans 1964
    1. Evans JG. Neurogenic intermittent claudication. British Medical Journal 1964;2(5415):985‐7. - PMC - PubMed
Furlan 2009
    1. Furlan AD, Pennick V, Bombardier C, Tulder M, Editorial Board, Cochrane Back Review Group. 2009 updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Back Review Group. Spine 2009;34(18):1929‐41. - PubMed
Gibson 2005
    1. Gibson JNA, Waddell G. Surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylosis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2005, Issue 4. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001352.pub3] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Gillespie 2004
    1. Gillespie KA, Dickey JP. Biomechanical role of lumbar spine ligaments in flexion and extension: determination using a parallel linkage robot and a porcine model. Spine 2004;29:1208‐16. - PubMed
Goel 1993
    1. Goel VK, Kong W, Han JS, Weinstein JN, Gilbertson LG. A combined finite element and optimization investigation of lumbar spine mechanics with and without muscles. Spine 1993;18:1531‐41. - PubMed
Guiot 2002
    1. Guiot BH, Khoo LT, Fessler RG. A minimally invasive technique for decompression of the lumbar spine. Spine 2002;27(4):432‐8. - PubMed
Hamasaki 2009
    1. Hamasaki T, Tanaka N, Kim J, Okada M, Ochi M, Hutton WC. Biomechanical assessment of minimally invasive decompression for lumbar spinal canal stenosis: a cadaver study. Journal of Spinal Disorders & Techniques 2009;22:486‐91. - PubMed
Hanley 1995
    1. Hanley EN. The indications for lumbar spinal fusion with and without instrumentation. Spine 1995;20(24 Suppl):143S‐153S. - PubMed
Higgins 2011
    1. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC (editors). Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. www.cochrane‐handbook.org.
Hindle 1990
    1. Hindle RJ, Pearcy MJ, Cross A. Mechanical function of the human lumbar interspinous and supraspinous ligaments. Journal of Biomedical Engineering 1990;12(4):340‐4. - PubMed
Hopp 1988
    1. Hopp E, Tsou PM. Postdecompression lumbar instability. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 1988;227:143‐51. - PubMed
Iida 1990
    1. Iida Y, Kataoka O, Sho T, Sumi M, Hirose T, Bessho Y, Kobayashi D. Postoperative lumbar spinal instability occurring or progressing secondary to laminectomy. Spine 1990;15(11):1186‐9. - PubMed
Johnsson 1986
    1. Johnsson KE, Willner S, Johnsson K. Postoperative instability after decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 1986;11(2):107‐10. - PubMed
Katz 1991
    1. Katz JN, Lipson SJ, Larson MG, McInnes JM, Fossel AH, Liang MH. The outcome of decompressive laminectomy for degenerative lumbar stenosis. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 1991;73:809‐16. - PubMed
Leone 2013
    1. Leone A, Guglielmi G, Cassar‐Pullicino VN, Bonomo L. Lumbar intervertebral instability: a review. Radiology 2007;245(1):62‐77. - PubMed
Malmivaara 2007
    1. Malmivaara A, Slätis P, Heliövaara M, Sainio P, Kinnunen H, Kankare J, et al. Finnish Lumbar Spinal Research Group. Surgical or nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis? A randomized controlled trial. Spine 2007;32(1):1‐8. - PubMed
Mayer 1989
    1. Mayer TG, Vanharanta H, Gatchel RJ, Mooney V, Barnes D, Judge L, et al. Comparison of CT scan muscle measurements and isokinetic trunk strength in postoperative patients. Spine 1989;14(1):33‐6. - PubMed
Ostelo 2008
    1. Ostelo RW, Deyo RA, Stratford P, Waddell G, Croft P, Korff M, et al. Interpreting change scores for pain and functional status in low back pain: towards international consensus regarding minimal important change. Spine 2008;33:90‐4. - PubMed
Panjabi 1992
    1. Panjabi MM. The stabilizing system of the spine. Part I. Function, dysfunction, adaptation, and enhancement. Journal of Spinal Disorders & Techniques 1992;5:383‐9. - PubMed
Park 2010
    1. Park DK, An HS, Lurie JD, Zhao W, Tosteson A, Tosteson TD, et al. Does multilevel lumbar stenosis lead to poorer outcomes? A subanalysis of the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) lumbar stenosis study. Spine 2010;35(4):439‐46. - PMC - PubMed
Reeves 2011
    1. Reeves BC, Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, Wells GA. Chapter 13: Including non‐randomized studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. www.cochrane‐handbook.org.
Review Manager 2011 [Computer program]
    1. The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan). Version 5.1. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011.
Sihvonen 1993
    1. Sihvonen T, Herno A, Paljarvi L, Airaksinen O, Partanen J, Tapaninaho A. Local denervation atrophy of paraspinal muscles in postoperative failed back syndrome. Spine 1993;18(5):575‐81. - PubMed
Sonntag 1995
    1. Sonntag VK, Marciano FF. Is fusion indicated for lumbar spinal disorders?. Spine 1995;20(24 Suppl):138S‐142S. - PubMed
Spetzger 1997
    1. Spetzger U, Bertalanffy H, Naujokat C, Keyserlingk DG, Gilsbach JM. Unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis. Part I: Anatomical and surgical considerations. Acta Neurochirurgica 1997;139:392‐6. - PubMed
Stevens 2006
    1. Stevens KJ, Spenciner DB, Griffiths KL. Comparison of minimally invasive and conventional open posterolateral lumbar fusion using magnetic resonance imaging and retraction pressure studies. Journal of Spinal Disorders & Techniques 2006;19:77‐86. - PubMed
Tai 2008
    1. Tai CL, Hsieh PH, Chen WP, Chen LH, Chen WJ, Lai PL. Biomechanical comparison of lumbar spine instability between laminectomy and bilateral laminotomy for spinal stenosis syndrome ‐ an experimental study in porcine model. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2008;9:84. - PMC - PubMed
van Tulder 2003
    1. Tulder M, Furlan A, Bombardier C, Bouter L, Editorial Board Cochrane Back Review Group. Updated method guidelines for systemic reviews in the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group. Spine 2003;28(12):1290‐9. - PubMed
Weiner 1999
    1. Weiner BK, Fraser RD, Peterson M. Spinous process osteotomies to facilitate lumbar decompressive surgery. Spine 1999;24:62‐6. - PubMed
Weinstein 2006
    1. Weinstein JN, Lurie JD, Olson PR, Bronner KK, Fisher ES. United States' trends and regional variations in lumbar spine surgery: 1992‐2003. Spine 2006;31:2707‐14. - PMC - PubMed
Wells 2008
    1. Wells GA, Shea B, O'Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, et al. The Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta‐analyses. http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp (accessed 7 October 2012).

Publication types

MeSH terms