Advertisement
Letter to the Editor| Volume 14, ISSUE 6, P1081-1082, June 01, 2014

Download started.

Ok

Minimally invasive versus open laminotomy

      We read with great interest the recent article by Ang et al. [
      • Ang C.L.
      • Phak-Boon Tow B.
      • Fook S.
      • et al.
      Minimally invasive compared with open lumbar laminotomy: no functional benefits at 6 or 24 months after surgery.
      ], titled “Minimally invasive compared with open lumbar laminotomy: no functional benefits at 6 or 24 months after surgery.” The authors compared the functional and pain outcomes of 30 patients with open laminotomies against 83 patients with minimally invasive surgery (MIS) laminotomies at 6 and 24 months. They concluded that “MIS lumbar laminotomy gave no clear advantages in long-term functional or pain scores. The MIS group also had patients with inadvertent durotomies and reoperation within 2 years. In any lumbar decompressive surgery, the purported advantages of an MIS approach should be carefully weighed against potential complications.”
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to The Spine Journal
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Ang C.L.
        • Phak-Boon Tow B.
        • Fook S.
        • et al.
        Minimally invasive compared with open lumbar laminotomy: no functional benefits at 6 or 24 months after surgery.
        Spine J. 2013;
        http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2013.07.461
        • Ruban D.
        • O'Toole J.E.
        Management of incidental durotomy in minimally invasive spine surgery.
        Neurosurg Focus. 2011; 31: E15
        • Williams B.J.
        • Sansur C.A.
        • Smith J.S.
        • et al.
        Incidence of unintended durotomy in spine surgery based on 108,478 cases.
        Neurosurgery. 2011; 68: 117-123
        • Ikuta K.
        • Tono O.
        • Oga M.
        Clinical outcome of microendoscopic posterior decompression for spinal stenosis associated with degenerative spondylolisthesis—minimum 2-year outcome of 37 patients.
        Minim Invasive Neurosurg. 2008; 51: 267-271
        • Jang J.W.
        • Park J.H.
        • Hyun S.J.
        • et al.
        Clinical outcomes and radiologic changes following microsurgical bilateral decompression via a unilateral approach in patients with lumbar canal stenosis and grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis with a minimum 3-year follow-up.
        J Spinal Disord Tech. 2012;
        http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0b013e31827566a8
        • Oertel M.F.
        • Ryang Y.M.
        • Korinth M.C.
        • et al.
        Long-term results of microsurgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis by unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression.
        Neurosurgery. 2006; 59: 1264-1269
        • Djurasovic M.
        • Bratcher K.R.
        • Glassman S.D.
        • et al.
        The effect of obesity on clinical outcomes after lumbar fusion.
        Spine. 2008; 33: 1789-1792
        • O'Toole J.E.
        The future of minimally invasive spine surgery.
        Neurosurgery. 2013; 60: 13-19
        • Rosen D.S.
        • Ferguson S.D.
        • Ogden A.T.
        • et al.
        Obesity and self-reported outcome after minimally invasive lumbar spinal fusion surgery.
        Neurosurgery. 2008; 63: 956-960
        • Rosen D.S.
        • O'Toole J.E.
        • Eichholz K.M.
        • et al.
        Minimally invasive lumbar spinal decompression in the elderly: outcomes of 50 patients aged 75 years and older.
        Neurosurgery. 2007; 60: 503-509
        • Smith Z.A.
        • Fessler R.G.
        Paradigm changes in spine surgery: evolution of minimally invasive techniques.
        Nat Rev Neurol. 2012; 8: 443-450