Restoration of the Spinous Process Following Muscle-Preserving Posterior Lumbar Decompression via Sagittal Splitting of the Spinous Process

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Background: In lumbar spinal stenosis, spinous process-splitting decompression has demonstrated good clinical outcomes with preservation of the posterior ligamentous complex and paraspinal muscles in comparison to conventional laminectomy, but the radiological consequence and clinical impact of the split spinous processes have not been fully understood.
Methods: Seventy-three patients who underwent spinous process-splitting decompression were included. The bone union rate and pattern were evaluated by computed tomography performed 6–18 months after surgery and compared among subgroups divided according to the number of levels decompressed and the extent of spinous process splitting. The bone union pattern was classified into three categories: complete union, partial union, and nonunion. The visual analog scale (VAS) score, Oswestry disability index (ODI), and walking distance assessed both before and 24–36 months after surgery were compared among subgroups divided according to the union pattern of the split spinous process.
Results: Overall, the rates of complete union, partial union, and nonunion were 51.7%, 43.2%, and 5.1%, respectively. In the subgroup with partial splitting of the spinous process, the rates were 85.7%, 14.3%, and 0%, respectively; those of the subgroup with total splitting of the spinous process were 32.9%, 59.2%, and 7.9%, respectively. With single-level decompression, a higher rate of union was observed compared with multilevel decompression. The VAS, ODI, and walking distance were significantly improved after surgery and did not differ according to the degree of union of the split spinous process.
Conclusions: We found that the single-level operation and partial splitting of the spinous process were favourable factors for obtaining complete restoration of the posterior bony structure of the lumbar spine in spinous process-splitting decompression.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 Hu X, "Use of an ultrasonic osteotome device in spine surgery : experience from the first 128 patients" 22 (22): 2845-2849, 2013

2 Radu AS, "Update on lumbar spinal stenosis : retrospective study of 62 patients and review of the literature" 65 (65): 337-345, 1998

3 Kanbara S, "Surgical outcomes of modified lumbar spinous process-splitting laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis" 22 (22): 353-357, 2015

4 Cho DY, "Split-spinous process laminotomy and discectomy for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis : a preliminary report" 6 (6): 229-239, 2007

5 Lee DY, "Spinous process splitting laminectomy for lumbar canal stenosis : a critical appraisal" 51 (51): 204-207, 2008

6 Lee S, "Spinous process splitting laminectomy : clinical outcome and radiological analysis of extent of decompression" 9 : 20-, 2015

7 Sanborn MR, "Safety and efficacy of a novel ultrasonic osteotome device in an ovine model" 18 (18): 1528-1533, 2011

8 Watanabe K, "Reduced post-operative wound pain after lumbar spinous process-splitting laminectomy for lumbar canal stenosis : a randomized controlled study" 14 (14): 51-58, 2011

9 Keishi Maruo, "Prognostic Factors of Surgical Outcome after Spinous Process-Splitting Laminectomy for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis" 대한척추외과학회 9 (9): 705-712, 2015

10 Kawaguchi Y, "Preventive measures of back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery in rats" 23 (23): 2282-2287, 1998

11 Hatta Y, "Muscle-preserving interlaminar decompression for the lumbar spine: a minimally invasive new procedure for lumbar spinal canal stenosis" 34 (34): E276-E280, 2009

12 Baghdadi YM, "Lumbar spinous process-splitting laminoplasty : a novel technique for minimally invasive lumbar decompression" 39 (39): e950-e956, 2016

13 Watanabe K, "Lumbar spinous process-splitting laminectomy for lumbar canal stenosis : technical note" 3 (3): 405-408, 2005

14 Rajasekaran S, "Lumbar spinous process splitting decompression provides equivalent outcomes to conventional midline decompression in degenerative lumbar canal stenosis: a prospective, randomized controlled study of 51 patients" 38 (38): 1737-1743, 2013

15 Sihvonen T, "Local denervation atrophy of paraspinal muscles in postoperative failed back syndrome" 18 (18): 575-581, 1993

16 Cammisa FP, Jr, "Incidental durotomy in spine surgery" 25 (25): 2663-2667, 2000

17 Kakiuchi M, "Impact of spinous process integrity on ten to twelve-year outcomes after posterior decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis : study of open-door laminoplasty using a spinous process-splitting approach" 97 (97): 1667-1677, 2015

18 Mariconda M, "Factors influencing the outcome of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis" 13 (13): 131-137, 2000

19 See DH, "Electromyography in paraspinal muscles following surgery for root compression" 56 (56): 80-83, 1975

20 Wang JC, "Dural tears secondary to operations on the lumbar spine : management and results after a two-year-minimum follow-up of eighty-eight patients" 80 (80): 1728-1732, 1998

21 Silvers HR, "Decompressive lumbar laminectomy for spinal stenosis" 78 (78): 695-701, 1993

22 Kim K, "Comparison of the effect of 3 different approaches to the lumbar spinal canal on postoperative paraspinal muscle damage" 69 (69): 109-113, 2008

23 Masashi Uehara, "Comparison of Spinous Process-Splitting Laminectomy versus Conventional Laminectomy for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis" 대한척추외과학회 8 (8): 768-776, 2014

24 Nomura H, "Clinical outcome of microscopic lumbar spinous process-splitting laminectomy : clinical article" 21 (21): 187-194, 2014

25 Kawaguchi Y, "Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery: topographic evaluation of intramuscular pressure and blood flow in the porcine back muscle during surgery" 21 (21): 2683-2688, 1996

26 Kawaguchi Y, "Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery. Part 1: histologic and histochemical analyses in rats" 19 (19): 2590-2597, 1994

27 Verbiest H, "A radicular syndrome from developmental narrowing of the lumbar vertebral canal" 36 (36): 230-237, 1954