Treatment of multilevel degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with spondylolisthesis using a combination of microendoscopic discectomy and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

Wu,Han; Yu,Wei-Dong; Jiang,Rui; Gao,Zhong-Li

doi:10.3892/etm.2012.812

Treatment of multilevel degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with spondylolisthesis using a combination of microendoscopic discectomy and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

Authors:
- Han Wu
- Wei-Dong Yu
- Rui Jiang
- Zhong-Li Gao
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Orthopaedics, China-Japan Union Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, Jilin 130033, P.R. China, Department of Neurosurgery, China-Japan Union Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, Jilin 130033, P.R. China
Published online on: November 14, 2012 https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2012.812
Pages: 567-571

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS) has become increasingly common and is characterized by multilevel disc herniation and lumbar spondylolisthesis, which are difficult to treat. The current study aimed to evaluate the short-term clinical outcomes and value of the combined use of microendoscopic discectomy (MED) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) for the treatment of multilevel DLSS with spondylolisthesis, and to compare the combination with traditional posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). A total of 26 patients with multilevel DLSS and spondylolisthesis underwent combined MED and MI-TLIF surgery using a single cage and pedicle rod-screw system. These cases were compared with 27 patients who underwent traditional PLIF surgery during the same period. Data concerning incision length, surgery time, blood loss, time of bed rest and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score prior to and following surgery were analyzed statistically. Statistical significance was reached in terms of incision length, blood loss and the time of bed rest following surgery (P<0.05), but there was no significant difference between the surgery time and ODI scores of the two groups. The combined use of MED and MI-TLIF has the advantages of reduced blood loss, less damage to the paraspinal soft tissue, shorter length of incision, shorter bed rest time, improved outcomes and shorter recovery times and has similar short-term clinical outcomes to traditional PLIF.

View Figures

View References

1.	Jia LS and Yang L: The modern surgery concept of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Chin Orthop J. 29:509–512. 2002.(In Chinese).
2.	Spivak JM: Current concepts review - degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 80:1053–1066. 1998.
3.	Lee CK, Rauschning W and Glenn W: Lateral lumbar spinal canal stenosis: classification, pathologic anatomy and surgical decompression. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 13:313–320. 1988. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
4.	Park DK, An HS, Lurie JD, et al: Does multilevel lumbar stenosis lead to poorer outcomes?: a subanalysis of the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) lumbar stenosis study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 35:439–446. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
5.	Katz JN, Lipson SJ and Chang LC: Seven- to 10-year outcome of decompressive surgery for degenerative lumbarspinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 21:92–98. 1996.PubMed/NCBI
6.	Hackenberg L, Halm H, Bullmann V, Vieth V, Schneider M and Liljenqvist U: Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a safe technique with satisfactory three to five year results. Eur Spine J. 14:551–558. 2005.PubMed/NCBI
7.	Zouboulis P, Karageorgos A, Dimakopoulos P, Tyllianakis M, Matzaroglou C and Lambiris E: Functional outcome of surgical treatment for multilevel lumbar spinal stenosis. Acta Orthop. 77:670–676. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
8.	Pons T and Shipton EA: Multilevel lumbar fusion and postoperative physiotherapy rehabilitation in a patient with persistent pain. Physiother Theory Pract. 27:238–45. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
9.	Zhong Y, Wei M, Xu J, et al: Clinical short-term efficacy of selective laminectomy decompression for the treatment of multilevel lumbar spinal stenosis. Chin Orthop Surg J. 16:1670–1672. 2008.(In Chinese).
10.	Sasai K, Umeda M, Maruyama T, Wakabayashi E and Iida H: Microsurgical bilateral decompression via a unilateral approach for lumbar spinal canal stenosis including degenerative spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine. 9:554–559. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar
11.	Vaccaro A: Unilateral approach for microsurgical decompression. J Neurosurg Spine. 9:552–553. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar
12.	Haba K, Ikeda M, Soma M and Yamashima T: Bilateral decompression of multilevel lumbar spinal stenosis through a unilateral approach. J Clin Neurosci. 12:169–171. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
13.	Kim YS, Park SJ, Oh IS and Kwan JY: The clinical effect of gait load test in two level lumbar spinal stenosis. Asia Spine J. 3:96–100. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
14.	Zhong Y, Ning Y, Li Z, et al: Correlation analysis of surgical effect, gait load test and radiologic examination in more than 140 patients. Chin Orthop J. 19:357–360. 2011.(In Chinese).
15.	Zhong Y, Ning Y and Wu Z: Research progress in determination of the responsible level of multilevel degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. J Guangxi College Trad Chin Med. 13:69–71. 2010.(In Chinese).
16.	Ikuta K, Tono O and Oga M: Clinical outcome of microendoscopic posterior decompression for spinal stenosis associated with degenerative spondylolisthesis - minimum 2-year outcome of 37 patients. Minim Invas Neurosurg. 51:267–271. 2008.
17.	Pao JL, Chen WC and Chen PQ: Clinical outcomes of microendoscopic decompressive laminotomy for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Eur Spine J. 18:672–8. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
18.	Lu X, Peng H and Ling SZ: The prospective study for the microscopic treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. Chin Orthop J. 17:1358–1360. 2009.(In Chinese).
19.	Ozgur BM, Yoo K, Rodriguez G and Taylor WR: Minimally-invasive technique for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Eur Spine J. 14:887–894. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
20.	Wu RH, Fraser JF and Härtl R: Minimal access versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: meta-analysis of fusion rates. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 35:2273–2281. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
21.	Schizas C, Tzinieris N and Tsiridis E: Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: evaluating initial experience. Int Orthop. 33:1683–1688. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
22.	Schizas C, Tzinieris N, Tsiridis E and Kosmopoulos V: Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: evaluating initial experience. Int Orthop. 33:1683–1688. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI