Spinous Process-Splitting Laminectomy Approach for Tumor Excision at Conus Medullaris or Cauda Equina Level Results in Satisfactory Clinical Outcomes Without Affecting Global Spinal Sagittal Alignment.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective comparative study. OBJECTIVES: The present study investigated radiographical changes in global spinal sagittal alignment (GSSA) and clinical outcomes following tumor resection using spinous process-splitting laminectomy (SPSL) approach without fixation in patients with conus medullaris (CM) or cauda equina (CE) tumor. METHODS: Forty-one patients with CM or CE tumor (19 males, 22 females, mean age at surgery of 52.9 ± 13.0 years) were included in this study. The variations of outcome variables were analyzed in various GSSA profiles using radiographic outcomes. The clinical outcomes were assessed using Japan Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score and JOA back pain evaluation questionnaire (JOABPEQ). RESULTS: In all cases, the various GSSA parameters (sagittal vertical axis, C2-7 lordosis, T1 slope, thoracic kyphosis, T10-L2 kyphosis, lumbar lordosis [LL; upper, middle, and lower], sacral slope, pelvic incidence, and pelvic tilt) did not significantly change in the 2-years postoperative period. Moreover, age at surgery, the number of resected laminae, preoperative T12-L2 kyphosis, or LL did not affect the postoperative changes in T12-L2 kyphosis or LL, and had no statistically significant correlation among them. The scores of each postoperative JOA domain and the Visual Analogue Scale included in the JOABPEQ were significantly improved. There was no statistical significant group difference in each sagittal profile or clinical outcomes between CM and CE groups postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: Tumor resection using SPSL approach did not affected the various GSSA parameters examined and resulted in satisfactory clinical outcomes, indicating that SPSL approach is a suitable surgical technique for patients with CM or CE tumor.

Comparison of spinous process-splitting laminectomy versus posterolateral fusion for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis.

BACKGROUND: Although several studies have recently shown that spinous process-splitting laminectomy (SPSL) maintains lumbar spinal stability by preserving posterior ligament components and paraspinal muscles as compared with conventional laminectomy, evidence is scarce on the treatment outcomes of SPSL limited to lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. We herein compare the surgical results and global alignment changes for SPSL versus posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF) without instrumentation for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. METHODS: A total of 110 patients with Grade 1 lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis who had undergone SPSL (47 patients) or PLF (63 patients) with minimum 1-year follow-up were retrospectively enrolled from a single institutional database. RESULTS: Mean operating time per intervertebral level and intraoperative blood loss per intervertebral level were comparable between the SPSL group and PLF group. Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores, Oswestry disability index, and visual analog scale scores were significantly and comparably improved at 1 year postoperatively in both groups as compared with preoperative levels. The numbers of vertebrae with slip progression to Grade 2 and slip progression of 5% or more at 1 year postoperatively were similar between the groups. In the SPSL group, mean pelvic tilt (PT) was significantly decreased at 1 year postoperatively. In the PLF group, mean lumbar lordosis (LL) was significantly increased, while mean sagittal vertical axis, PT, and pelvic incidence-LL were significantly decreased at 1 year after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with PLF without instrumentation, SPSL for Grade 1 lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis displayed comparable results for slip progression and clinical outcomes at 1 year postoperatively.

Radiological Analysis of Minimally Invasive Microscopic Laminectomy for Lumbar Canal Stenosis with a Focus on Multilevel Stenosis and Spondylolisthesis.

OBJECTIVE: We retrospectively compared the radiological and clinical outcomes of two different surgical techniques (lumbar spinous process splitting laminectomy [LSPSL] and unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression [ULBD]) to treat lumbar spinal canal stenosis (LCS). METHODS: We performed a retrospective comparative study of 141 consecutive patients with an average age of 70.8 ± 9.4 years who had undergone LSPSL or ULBD for LCS between April 2015 and April 2019. None of the patients had developed remote fractures of the spinous processes using either technique. These cases were divided into 2 groups: group L, 73 patients who had undergone LSPSL from April 2015 to April 2017; and group U, 68 patients who had undergone ULBD from May 2017 to April 2019. The clinical and radiological outcomes and surgical complications at the 1-year postoperative follow-up period were evaluated. RESULTS: We found no significant differences in the operative time between the 2 groups. However, group U had had significantly less blood loss than group L. The facet joints were significantly well preserved in group U. We examined the multilevel and spondylolisthesis cases separately and found that both surgical procedures were equally effective and that the visual analog scale scores for back or leg pain and Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores had significantly improved postoperatively in each group. Group U showed better outcomes in terms of LCS recurrence, with 3 patients in the group L requiring repeat surgery. CONCLUSIONS: We found both ULBD and LSPSL to be safe and effective techniques for LCS, even for patients with spondylolisthesis and multilevel disease. ULBD was superior in terms of recurrence prevention, preservation of the facet joints, and less blood loss.

Spinous Process Splitting Laminectomy for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: 2D Operative Video.

Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis involves an acquired reduction in the spinal canal diameter due to osteoarthritic changes on the disk, facet joints, and ligaments and may result in spinal cord or cauda equina compression.1 This process may lead to pain radiating to the legs, neurogenic claudication, and neurologic deficit. First-line treatment includes conservative care such as physical therapy, spinal injections, and lifestyle changes. If this strategy is insufficient to achieve symptom relief, surgical management is recommended.1,2 Surgery generally encompasses a decompression procedure through a posterior approach. There are several techniques to accomplish this in the context of severe bilateral stenosis including standard open laminectomy, unilateral laminectomy with bilateral decompression, and a tubular approach with bilateral decompression (e.g., "over-the-top technique").2 Among these, the spinous process splitting laminectomy has emerged as a strategy that allows decompressing the spinal canal through a familiar anatomy to the surgeon while respecting paravertebral muscles.3,4 This technique involves exposure of the laminae by cutting through the spinous process and then separating both halves and muscles attached at the sides. The main advantage is that the insertion of these paravertebral soft tissues is preserved, the required retraction is reduced and postoperative pain is decreased.4 Moreover, the learning curve to achieve a successful decompression employing the splitting laminectomy is substantially shorter than with other minimally invasive approaches, such as tubular. This video aims to show the steps to perform this technique (Video 1). We report the case of a 74-year-old male who presented with left sciatica and neurogenic claudication. The images showed multilevel degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis, with severe bilateral compression at L4-5, without signs of instability. Surgical alternatives were discussed with the patient, and it was decided to perform an L4-5 spinous process splitting laminectomy. The patient had a good evolution with an unremarkable postoperative course.

Comparison of Modified Marmot Surgery and Lumbar Spinous Process Splitting Laminectomy in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Two-Year Outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Compared with the conventional posterior lumbar decompression surgery, the spinous process splitting approach for lumbar spinal stenosis is less invasive. There are currently two types of the spinous process splitting approach that are performed. First is the lumbar spinous process splitting laminectomy (LSPSL), which involves the detachment of the spinous process from the lamina. Second is the modified Marmot method, which involves leaning of the spinous process without detachment from the lamina. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study comparing the 2-year surgical outcomes of the modified Marmot method and LSPSL in cases of lumbar spinal canal stenosis. METHODS: We recruited 69 patients who underwent decompression surgery. A total of 32 patients underwent the modified Marmot method (M group), and 37 patients underwent LSPSL (S group). We compared the clinical results, laboratory data of surgical invasion, wound pain, and safety. RESULTS: No significant difference was observed in terms of the demographic data and operative time between the two groups. The number of decompressed segments and intraoperative and postoperative blood loss volume in the M group were greater than that in the S group. In the S group, the postoperative Japanese Orthopedic Association scores and recovery rates were significantly greater compared with those in the M group. Perioperative complications did not significantly differ between the two groups. On postoperative day 1, the Postoperative Visual Analog Scale scores at rest in the M group were lower than those in the S group. CONCLUSIONS: In clinical practice, we believe that posterior lumbar decompression surgery is safe, effective, and minimally invasive. Although the modified Marmot method may be less invasive and result in the reduction of wound pain during early postoperative periods, the clinical results did not exhibit greater long-term improvements with regard to surgical complications and neurological improvement, when compared with LSPSL.

Post-Operative Spinal Epidural Hematoma after Thoracic and Lumbar Spinous Process-Splitting Laminectomy for Thoracic and Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.

INTRODUCTION: To investigate the risk of epidural hematoma after spinous process-splitting laminectomy (SPSL). METHODS: A total of 137 cases (mean age, 72.4 years; 68 men) of SPSL were included. Of these, there were instances (3.7%; mean age, 70.5 years; all male) of postoperative development of new neurologic deficit due to epidural hematoma requiring reoperation. The 133 subjects (72.5 years; 64 men) with normal postoperative course were used as controls, and comparisons were made between both groups using chi-squared and Student's t-tests. Regarding our investigation of risk factors for epidural hematoma, logistic regression was conducted with presence or absence of hematoma as our primary outcome variable, and age, gender, disease duration, number of laminectomies, which levels were decompressed, blood loss, length of case, drain output, coagulopathy, and whether or not there was an intraoperative dural tear were our explanatory variables. RESULTS: All cases of hematoma were single-level laminectomies; there was one case of T9-10 and 3 cases of L2-3. In our direct comparison of both groups (hematoma versus control), the proportion of men was significantly higher in the hematoma group (100% versus 48%, p < 0.05); levels decompressed were also significantly higher (p < 0.05) in the hematoma group, and drain outputs were significantly lower (113 mL versus 234 mL, p < 0.05). From our logistic regression analysis, the levels were significantly higher (χ2 = 15, p = 0.0001) and the drain outputs were smaller (χ2 = 4.6, p = 0.03) in the hematoma group. CONCLUSIONS: Single-level decompression higher than the L2-3 level and reduced drain output were risk factors for spinal epidural hematoma. With this method of spinous process suturing and reconstruction there is less decompression compared with more conventional methods; therefore, the effect of hematoma may be more pronounced at higher vertebral levels with reduced canal width, and drain failure may also occur with this limited space.

Impact of decompression surgery without fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis on sagittal spinopelvic alignment: minimum 2-year follow-up.

OBJECTIVEThe importance of global sagittal alignment is well known. Patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) generally tend to bend forward to relieve their neurological symptoms, i.e., they have a positive sagittal vertical axis (SVA). We hypothesized that the positive SVA associated with LSS is symptom related and should improve after surgery. However, little is known about the changes in sagittal alignment in LSS patients after decompression surgery. In this study the authors aimed to evaluate midterm radiographical changes in sagittal spinopelvic alignment after decompression surgery for LSS and to determine the factors influencing the improvement in sagittal spinopelvic alignment.METHODSThe authors retrospectively reviewed 89 patients who underwent lumbar decompression without fusion between January 2014 and September 2015 with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Standing whole-spine radiographs at the preoperative stage and at the final follow-up were examined. We analyzed SVA, lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic tilt (PT), pelvic incidence (PI), thoracolumbar kyphosis (TLK), and thoracic kyphosis (TK).RESULTSLL and TK were significantly increased postoperatively. SVA and PI minus LL (PI-LL) were significantly decreased. There were no significant differences between the preoperative and postoperative PT, PI, SS, or TLK. Twenty-nine patients had preoperative sagittal malalignment with SVA > 50 mm. Thirteen of the 29 patients improved to SVA < 50 mm after decompression surgery. Lower ASA grade, preoperative higher LL, and lower PI-LL were related to patient improvement. A receiver operating characteristic curve for the preoperative PI-LL had an area under the curve value of 0.821, indicating moderate accuracy (p = 0.003). A cutoff value for preoperative PI-LL of 19.2° showed a sensitivity of 93.5% and a specificity of 71.4%.CONCLUSIONSLumbar decompression can lead to a reactive improvement in the lumbar and global sagittal alignment. However, some of the sagittal malalignment in LSS was irreversible. Preoperative PI-LL was a useful predictor to distinguish reversible from irreversible sagittal malalignment.

Prognostic Factors of Surgical Outcome after Spinous Process-Splitting Laminectomy for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective case review. PURPOSE: To assess the clinical and radiographic outcomes and identify the predictive factors associated with poor clinical outcomes after lumbar spinous process-splitting laminectomy (LSPSL) for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: LSPSL is an effective surgical treatment for LSS. Special care should be taken in patients with degenerative lumbar scoliosis (DLS). METHODS: A consecutive retrospective case review of patients undergoing LSPSL for LSS with a minimum 2-year follow-up was performed. Mild DLS and mild degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) were included in the study. The Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score and recovery rate were reviewed. Poor clinical outcome was defined as a recovery rate <50% using Hirabayashi's method. RESULTS: A total of 52 patients (mean age, 72 years) met the inclusion criteria and had a mean follow-up of 2.6 years (range, 2-4.5 years). The preoperative diagnosis was LSS in 19, DS in 19, and DLS in 14 cases. The mean JOA score significantly increased from 14.6 to 23.2 at the final follow-up. The overall mean recovery rate was 60.1%. Thirteen patients (25%) were assigned to the poor outcome group. A higher rate of pre-existing DLS was observed in the poor outcome (poor) group (good, 15%; poor, 62%; p=0.003) than in the good outcome (good) group. None of the patient factors examined were associated with a poor outcome. A progression of slippage ≥5 mm was found in 8 of 24 patients (33%) in the DS group. A progression of curvature ≥5° was found in 5 of 14 patients (36%) in the DLS group. The progression of scoliosis and slippage did not influence the clinical outcome. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical and radiographic outcomes of LSPSL for LSS were favorable. Pre-existing DLS was significantly associated with poor clinical outcome.

Surgical outcomes of modified lumbar spinous process-splitting laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis.

The lumbar spinous process-splitting laminectomy (LSPSL) procedure was developed as an alternative to lumbar laminectomy. In the LSPSL procedure, the spinous process is evenly split longitudinally and then divided at its base from the posterior arch, leaving the bilateral paravertebral muscle attached to the lateral aspects. This procedure allows for better exposure of intraspinal nerve tissues, comparable to that achieved by conventional laminectomy while minimizing damage to posterior supporting structures. In this study, the authors make some modifications to the original LSPSL procedure (modified LSPSL), in which laminoplasty is performed instead of laminectomy. The purpose of this study was to compare postoperative outcomes in modified LSPSL with those in conventional laminectomy (CL) and to evaluate bone unions between the split spinous process and residual laminae following modified LSPSL. Forty-seven patients with lumbar spinal stenosis were enrolled in this study. Twenty-six patients underwent modified LSPSL and 21 patients underwent CL. Intraoperative blood loss and surgical duration were evaluated. The Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scale scores were used to assess parameters before surgery and 12 months after surgery. The recovery rates were also evaluated. Postoperative paravertebral muscle atrophy was assessed using MRI. Bone union rates between the split spinous process and residual laminae were also examined. The mean surgical time and intraoperative blood loss were 25.7 minutes and 42.4 ml per 1 level in modified LSPSL, respectively, and 22.7 minutes and 29.5 ml in CL, respectively. The recovery rate of the JOA score was 64.2% in modified LSPSL and 68.7% in CL. The degree of paravertebral muscle atrophy was 7.8% in modified LSPSL and 22.2% in CL at 12 months after surgery (p < 0.05). The fusion rates of the spinous process with the arcus vertebrae at 6 and 12 months in modified LSPSL were 56.3% and 81.3%, respectively. The modified LSPSL procedure was less invasive to the paravertebral muscles and could be a laminoplasty; therefore, the modified LSPSL procedure presents an effective alternative to lumbar laminectomy.

Prognostic Factors of Surgical Outcome after Spinous Process-Splitting Laminectomy for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective case review. PURPOSE: To assess the clinical and radiographic outcomes and identify the predictive factors associated with poor clinical outcomes after lumbar spinous process-splitting laminectomy (LSPSL) for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: LSPSL is an effective surgical treatment for LSS. Special care should be taken in patients with degenerative lumbar scoliosis (DLS). METHODS: A consecutive retrospective case review of patients undergoing LSPSL for LSS with a minimum 2-year follow-up was performed. Mild DLS and mild degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) were included in the study. The Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score and recovery rate were reviewed. Poor clinical outcome was defined as a recovery rate or =5 mm was found in 8 of 24 patients (33%) in the DS group. A progression of curvature > or =5degrees was found in 5 of 14 patients (36%) in the DLS group. The progression of scoliosis and slippage did not influence the clinical outcome. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical and radiographic outcomes of LSPSL for LSS were favorable. Pre-existing DLS was significantly associated with poor clinical outcome.

Clinical outcome of microscopic lumbar spinous process-splitting laminectomy: clinical article.

OBJECT: The authors sought to quantify the clinical outcome of microscopic lumbar spinous process-splitting laminectomy in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). They performed a microscopic laminectomy in which the spinous process is split longitudinally into 2 halves. For single-level decompression, they inserted a tubular retractor between the split process. METHODS: Data obtained in a total of 124 patients were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into 2 groups: the "slip" group, comprising patients with spondylolisthesis-type LSS with vertebral body slippage (Group 1), and the "nonslip" group, comprising patients with spondylosis-type LSS without vertebral body slippage or with LSS due to central protrusion of lumbar disc herniation. Clinical outcome in all patients was evaluated by using the Japanese Orthopaedic Association score. In the slip group, slippage and instability rates were evaluated by using pre- and postoperative dynamic radiographs in the sagittal plane. Postoperative CT images were used to evaluate bony union at 2 sites: a region between the left and right portions of the halved spinous process and a region between the base of the halved process and vertebral arch. Signal intensity of the multifidus muscle at individual decompression levels was evaluated on pre- and postoperative T1- and T2-weighted MR images. RESULTS: Preoperative clinical symptoms improved significantly after surgery in all patients. Slippage and instability rates in the slip group showed no significant differences when pre- and postoperative conditions were compared. Union rates at the region between the left and right portions of the halved process and the region between the base of the halved process and vertebral arch were 97.1% and 82.5%, respectively. Magnetic resonance imaging showed only a small amount of fat infiltration in the multifidus muscle after surgery in 12.2% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: The authors recommend microscopic lumbar spinous process-splitting laminectomy as a promising minimally invasive surgery for the treatment of LSS.

Comparison of Spinous Process-Splitting Laminectomy versus Conventional Laminectomy for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.

STUDY DESIGN: Seventy-five patients who had been treated for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) were reviewed retrospectively. PURPOSE: Invasion into the paravertebral muscle can cause major problems after laminectomy for LSS. To address these problems, we performed spinous process-splitting laminectomy. We present a comparative study of decompression of LSS using 2 approaches. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: There are no other study has investigated the lumbar spinal instability after spinous process-splitting laminectomy. METHODS: This study included 75 patients who underwent laminectomy for the treatment of LSS and who were observed through follow-ups for more than 2 years. Fifty-five patients underwent spinous process-splitting laminectomy (splitting group) and 20 patients underwent conventional laminectomy (conventional group). We evaluated the clinical and radiographic results of each surgical procedure. RESULTS: Japanese Orthopaedic Association score improved significantly in both groups two years postoperatively. The following values were all significantly lower, as shown with p-values, in the splitting group compared to the conventional group: average operating time (p=0.002), postoperative C-reactive protein level (p=0.006), the mean postoperative number of days until returning to normal body temperature (p=0.047), and the mean change in angulation 2 years postoperatively (p=0.007). The adjacent segment degeneration occurred in 6 patients (10.9%) in the splitting group and 11 patients (55.0%) in the conventional group. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the spinous process-splitting laminectomy was shown to be less invasive and more stable for patients with LSS, compared to the conventional laminectomy.

Comparison of Spinous Process-Splitting Laminectomy versus Conventional Laminectomy for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

STUDY DESIGN: Seventy-five patients who had been treated for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) were reviewed retrospectively. PURPOSE: Invasion into the paravertebral muscle can cause major problems after laminectomy for LSS. To address these problems, we performed spinous process-splitting laminectomy. We present a comparative study of decompression of LSS using 2 approaches. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: There are no other study has investigated the lumbar spinal instability after spinous process-splitting laminectomy. METHODS: This study included 75 patients who underwent laminectomy for the treatment of LSS and who were observed through follow-ups for more than 2 years. Fifty-five patients underwent spinous process-splitting laminectomy (splitting group) and 20 patients underwent conventional laminectomy (conventional group). We evaluated the clinical and radiographic results of each surgical procedure. RESULTS: Japanese Orthopaedic Association score improved significantly in both groups two years postoperatively. The following values were all significantly lower, as shown with p-values, in the splitting group compared to the conventional group: average operating time (p=0.002), postoperative C-reactive protein level (p=0.006), the mean postoperative number of days until returning to normal body temperature (p=0.047), and the mean change in angulation 2 years postoperatively (p=0.007). The adjacent segment degeneration occurred in 6 patients (10.9%) in the splitting group and 11 patients (55.0%) in the conventional group. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the spinous process-splitting laminectomy was shown to be less invasive and more stable for patients with LSS, compared to the conventional laminectomy.