Journals / Turkish Neurosurgery / 2016 / Cilt: 26 - Sayı: 2

A Novel Classification and Minimally Invasive Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

Pages
260–267
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

CONClUSION: Minimally invasive surgical treatment of DLSS has satisfactory outcomes according to the novel classification, but further long-term, prospective, randomized controlled studies involving a larger study group are needed to validate the long-term efficacy.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:AIM: We conducted a novel classification system of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS) based on clinical manifestations and imaging (computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging) features.
📊
Key Findings & Data:MATERIAl and METhODS: A retrospective study was conducted on 96 patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery for DLSS.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:CONClUSION: Minimally invasive surgical treatment of DLSS has satisfactory outcomes according to the novel classification, but further long-term, prospective, randomized controlled studies involving a larger study group are needed to validate the long-term efficacy.
🔬Design:Lab & Field Experiment
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

AIM: We conducted a novel classification system of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS) based on clinical manifestations and imaging (computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging) features. We chose different minimally invasive surgical procedures according to our system. Clinical parameters and radiological findings will be assessed in the article. MATERIAl and METhODS: A retrospective study was conducted on 96 patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery for DLSS. We chose different surgical procedures according to our novel classification system based on clinical manifestations, imaging features, and concurrence with other spinal diseases. Clinical parameters and radiological findings were assessed pre- and postoperatively. RESUlTS: The mean follow up period was 24 months (range, 15~36 months). There was a statistically significant improvement in the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score of low back pain and leg pain after surgery (p<0.05). According to the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores, the operation efficacy was excellent in 57 cases, good in 36 cases, and fair in 3 cases. According to Bridwell's criterion, the fusion rate was 96% (48/50) in patients who underwent fusion surgery. There were no cages or pedicle screws related complications. CONClUSION: Minimally invasive surgical treatment of DLSS has satisfactory outcomes according to the novel classification, but further long-term, prospective, randomized controlled studies involving a larger study group are needed to validate the long-term efficacy.

🔖

Cite This Article

GU, G., ZHANG, H., HE, S., FU, Q., CAI, X., ZHOU, X., SHEN, X., GU, X. (2016). A Novel Classification and Minimally Invasive Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis. Turkish Neurosurgery, Cilt: 26 - Sayı: 2, 260–267. https://ajindex.com/articles/417817

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (1)

  1. Botwin KP, Gruber RD: Lumbar spinal stenosis: Anatomy and pathogenesis. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am 14:1-15, 2003 2. Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, McEnery KW, Baldus C, Blanke K: Anterior fresh frozen structural allografts in the thoracic and lumbar spine. Do they work if combined with posterior fusion and instrumentation in adult patients with kyphosis or anterior column defects? Spine 20:1410-1418, 1995 3. Costa F, Sassi M, Cardia A, et al: Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: Analysis of results in a series of 374 patients treated with unilateral laminotomy for bilateral microdecompression. J Neurosurg Spine 7:579-586, 2007 4. Eck KR, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, Gilula LA, Lashgari CJ, Riew KD: Radiographic assessment of anterior titanium mesh cages. J Spinal Disord 13(6):501-509, 2000 5. Genevay S, Atlas SJ: Lumbar spinal stenosis. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 24(2):253-265, 2010 6. Hanley EN Jr: The indications for lumbar spinal fusion with and without instrumentation. Spine 20:143S-153S, 1995 7. Jenis LG, An HS: Spine update. Lumbar foraminal stenosis. Spine 25(3):389-394, 2000 8. Lau D, Lee JG, Han SJ, Lu DC, Chou D: Complications and perioperative factors associated with learning the technique of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). J Clin Neurosci 18:624-627, 2011 9. Manchikanti L, Cash KA, McManus CD, Pampati V, Abdi S: Preliminary results of a randomized, equivalence trial of fluoroscopic caudal epidural injections in managing chronic low back pain: Part 4--Spinal stenosis. Pain Physician 11:833-848, 2008 10. Park Y, Ha JW, Lee YT, Oh HC, Yoo JH, Kim HB: Surgical outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of spondylolisthesis and degenerative segmental instability. Asian Spine J 5(4):228-236, 2011 11. Peng CW, Yue WM, Poh SY, Yeo W, Tan SB: Clinical and radiological outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 34:1385-1389, 2009 12. Shunwu F, Xing Z, Fengdong Z, Xiangqian F: Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35(17):1615-1620, 2010 13. Simotas AC, Dorey FJ, Hansraj KK, Cammisa F Jr: Nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis. Clinical and outcome results and a 3-year survivorship analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25:197-203, 2000 14. Tribus CB: Degenerative lumbar scoliosis: Evaluation and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 11:174-183, 2003