”Only fixation” in cases with failed decompression for lumbar canal stenosis – Analysis of outcome in 14 cases

IF 1.4 Q2 OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY Journal of Craniovertebral Junction and Spine Pub Date : 2023-10-01 DOI:10.4103/jcvjs.jcvjs_151_23
Atul Goel, Apurva Prasad, A. Shah, Shradha Maheshwari, Ravikiran Vutha
{"title":"”Only fixation” in cases with failed decompression for lumbar canal stenosis – Analysis of outcome in 14 cases","authors":"Atul Goel, Apurva Prasad, A. Shah, Shradha Maheshwari, Ravikiran Vutha","doi":"10.4103/jcvjs.jcvjs_151_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim: The rationale of “only fixation” of affected spinal segments without any form of bone or soft-tissue decompression in cases with failed decompressive laminectomy for lumbar canal stenosis is discussed on the basis of an experience with 14 cases. Materials and Methods: During the period between 2010 and 2022, 14 patients who symptomatically worsened or did not improve following a long-segment “wide” decompressive laminectomy for multisegmental lumbar canal stenosis were identified. All patients were treated by segmental spinal stabilization aimed at arthrodesis by facetal distraction by Goel's facetal spacers (6 cases) or Camille's transarticular facetal fixation (8 cases). No bone, soft tissue, or disc resection was done for spinal or neural canal “decompression.” Oswestry Disability Index and Visual Analog Scale were used to clinically assess the patients before and after the surgery and at follow-up. In addition, video recordings of patient's self-assessment of clinical outcome were used to monitor the outcome. Results: During the average period of follow-up of 71 months (range 6 months to 16 years), all patients recovered in majority of their major symptoms, the recovery was observed in the immediate postoperative period. During the period of follow-up, none of the patients complained of recurrent symptoms or needed any additional surgery. There was firm stabilization and evidences of bone fusion of the treated spinal segments in all patients. There were no infections or implant failure. No patient worsened after treatment. Conclusions: Instability of the spinal segments is the primary issue in cases with lumbar canal stenosis and stabilization in the treatment.","PeriodicalId":51721,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Craniovertebral Junction and Spine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Craniovertebral Junction and Spine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jcvjs.jcvjs_151_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: The rationale of “only fixation” of affected spinal segments without any form of bone or soft-tissue decompression in cases with failed decompressive laminectomy for lumbar canal stenosis is discussed on the basis of an experience with 14 cases. Materials and Methods: During the period between 2010 and 2022, 14 patients who symptomatically worsened or did not improve following a long-segment “wide” decompressive laminectomy for multisegmental lumbar canal stenosis were identified. All patients were treated by segmental spinal stabilization aimed at arthrodesis by facetal distraction by Goel's facetal spacers (6 cases) or Camille's transarticular facetal fixation (8 cases). No bone, soft tissue, or disc resection was done for spinal or neural canal “decompression.” Oswestry Disability Index and Visual Analog Scale were used to clinically assess the patients before and after the surgery and at follow-up. In addition, video recordings of patient's self-assessment of clinical outcome were used to monitor the outcome. Results: During the average period of follow-up of 71 months (range 6 months to 16 years), all patients recovered in majority of their major symptoms, the recovery was observed in the immediate postoperative period. During the period of follow-up, none of the patients complained of recurrent symptoms or needed any additional surgery. There was firm stabilization and evidences of bone fusion of the treated spinal segments in all patients. There were no infections or implant failure. No patient worsened after treatment. Conclusions: Instability of the spinal segments is the primary issue in cases with lumbar canal stenosis and stabilization in the treatment.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
腰椎管狭窄减压失败病例中的 "唯一固定"--14 个病例的疗效分析
目的:根据 14 例腰椎管狭窄症减压椎板切除术失败病例的经验,讨论 "仅固定 "受影响脊柱节段而不进行任何形式的骨或软组织减压的合理性。材料与方法:在 2010 年至 2022 年期间,确定了 14 例因多节段腰椎管狭窄而接受长节段 "宽 "减压椎板切除术后症状加重或无改善的患者。所有患者都接受了脊柱节段稳定治疗,目的是通过戈尔面骨垫片(6 例)或卡米尔经关节面骨固定术(8 例)进行面骨牵引,从而实现关节固定。没有为脊柱或神经管 "减压 "而进行骨、软组织或椎间盘切除。手术前后和随访时,采用 Oswestry 失能指数和视觉模拟量表对患者进行临床评估。此外,还使用录像记录患者对临床结果的自我评估,以监测结果。结果在平均 71 个月的随访期间(6 个月至 16 年不等),所有患者的主要症状大部分都得到了恢复,术后即刻就能观察到恢复情况。在随访期间,没有一名患者抱怨症状复发或需要再次手术。所有患者接受治疗的脊柱节段都稳固稳定,并有骨融合的迹象。没有发生感染或植入失败。没有患者在治疗后病情恶化。结论腰椎管狭窄症患者的首要问题是脊柱节段的不稳定性,而稳定是治疗的关键。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
9.10%
发文量
57
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Catastrophic spontaneous spinal epidural hematoma following thrombolysis: An intersection of neurosurgical and cardiological challenges - An institutional experience. Chronic muscle pain and spasm hallmarks of spinal instability. Comparison of postoperative complications and outcomes following primary versus revision discectomy: A national database analysis. Correlation between sagittal morphology of lower lumbar end plate and degenerative changes in patients with lumbar disc herniation. Demographics in the context of health-care delivery for C1 and C2 fractures.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1