Unilateral microscopic approach for lumbar spinal stenosis decompression: a scoping review
- PMID: 36437434
- DOI: 10.1007/s00586-022-07461-y
Unilateral microscopic approach for lumbar spinal stenosis decompression: a scoping review
Abstract
Background: Microscopic unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) is a minimally invasive technique used in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis and could limit spinal instability and be associated with better clinical outcomes. However, there is ongoing debate regarding its utility compared to conventional laminectomy (CL). The primary objective was to collate and describe the current evidence base for ULBD, including perioperative parameters, functional outcomes, and complications. The secondary objective was to identify operative techniques.
Methods: A scoping review was conducted between January 1990 and August 2022 according to the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. Major databases were searched for full text English articles reporting on outcomes following microscopic unilateral laminotomy in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.
Results: Seventeen articles met the inclusion criteria. Two studies were randomised controlled trials. Two studies were prospective data collection and the rest were retrospective analysis. Three studies compared ULBD with CL. ULBD preserves the osteoligamentous complex and may be associated with shorter operative time, less blood loss, and similar clinical outcomes when compared to CL.
Conclusion: This review highlights that ULBD aims to minimise disruption to the normal posterior spinal anatomy and may have acceptable clinical outcomes. It also highlights that it is difficult to draw valid conclusions given there are limited data available as most studies identified were retrospective or did not have a comparator group.
Keywords: Laminectomy; Laminotomy; Lumbar spinal stenosis; Microscopic; Outcome; Unilateral.
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
References
-
- Amundsen T, Weber H, Lilleas F, Nordal HJ, Abdelnoor M, Magnaes B (1995) Lumbar spinal stenosis. Clinical and radiologic features. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 20:1178–1186. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199505150-00013 - DOI
-
- Bouknaitir JB, Carreon LY, Brorson S, Pedersen CF, Andersen MO (2021) Wide laminectomy, segmental bilateral laminotomies, or unilateral hemi-laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis: five-year patient-reported outcomes in Propensity-matched cohorts. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 46:1509–1515. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000004043 - DOI
-
- Bresnahan L, Ogden AT, Natarajan RN, Fessler RG (2009) 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 (Phila Pa 1976) 34:17–23. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e318191438b - DOI
-
- Cavusoglu H, Kaya RA, Turkmenoglu ON, Tuncer C, Colak I, Aydin Y (2007) Midterm outcome after unilateral approach for bilateral decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis: 5-year prospective study. Eur Spine J 16:2133–2142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-007-0471-2 - DOI
-
- Costa F, Ottardi C, Volkheimer D, Ortolina A, Bassani T, Wilke HJ, Galbusera F (2018) Bone-preserving decompression procedures have a minor effect on the flexibility of the lumbar spine. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 61:680–688. https://doi.org/10.3340/jkns.2018.0023 - DOI
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous