Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Associated With Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Secondary Fusion Rates Following Open vs Minimally Invasive Decompression.
Schöller, Karsten; Alimi, Marjan; Cong, Guang-Ting; Christos, Paul; Härtl, Roger.
Afiliação
  • Schöller K; Weill Cornell Brain and Spine Center, Department of Neurological Surgery, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, USA.
  • Alimi M; Department of Neurosurgery, Justus-Liebig University, Giessen, Germany.
  • Cong GT; Weill Cornell Brain and Spine Center, Department of Neurological Surgery, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, USA.
  • Christos P; Weill Cornell Brain and Spine Center, Department of Neurological Surgery, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, USA.
  • Härtl R; Division of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Department of Healthcare Policy and Research, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York, USA.
Neurosurgery ; 80(3): 355-367, 2017 03 01.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28362963
Background: Decompression without fusion is a treatment option in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) associated with stable low-grade degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS). A minimally invasive unilateral laminotomy (MIL) for "over the top" decompression might be a less destabilizing alternative to traditional open laminectomy (OL). Objective: To review secondary fusion rates after open vs minimally invasive decompression surgery. Methods: We performed a literature search in Pubmed/MEDLINE using the keywords "lumbar spondylolisthesis" and "decompression surgery." All studies that separately reported the outcome of patients with LSS+DS that were treated by OL or MIL (transmuscular or subperiosteal route) were included in our systematic review and meta-analysis. The primary end point was secondary fusion rate. Secondary end points were total reoperation rate, postoperative progression of listhetic slip, and patient satisfaction. Results: We identified 37 studies (19 with OL, 18 with MIL), with a total of 1156 patients, that were published between 1983 and 2015. The studies' evidence was mostly level 3 or 4. Secondary fusion rates were 12.8% after OL and 3.3% after MIL; the total reoperation rates were 16.3% after OL and 5.8% after MIL. In the OL cohort, 72% of the studies reported a slip progression compared to 0% in the MIL cohort, respectively. After OL, satisfactory outcome was 62.7% compared to 76% after MIL. Conclusion: In patients with LSS and DS, minimally invasive decompression is associated with lower reoperation and fusion rates, less slip progression, and greater patient satisfaction than open surgery.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Fusão Vertebral / Estenose Espinal / Espondilolistese / Descompressão Cirúrgica / Vértebras Lombares Tipo de estudo: Risk_factors_studies / Systematic_reviews Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Neurosurgery Ano de publicação: 2017 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Estados Unidos País de publicação: Estados Unidos

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Fusão Vertebral / Estenose Espinal / Espondilolistese / Descompressão Cirúrgica / Vértebras Lombares Tipo de estudo: Risk_factors_studies / Systematic_reviews Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Neurosurgery Ano de publicação: 2017 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Estados Unidos País de publicação: Estados Unidos