J. S. Vieira, R. Tisot, Matheus Backes Sallet, Diego da Silva Collares, Augusto Wawginiak, Gustavo Valente, João Otávio Polese Marcelli
{"title":"ANALYSIS OF THE DECOMPRESSIVE TREATMENT OF THE VERTEBRAL CANAL THROUGH THE TRANS-SPINAL APPROACH","authors":"J. S. Vieira, R. Tisot, Matheus Backes Sallet, Diego da Silva Collares, Augusto Wawginiak, Gustavo Valente, João Otávio Polese Marcelli","doi":"10.1590/s1808-185120222202269638","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Objective: The spinous process separation technique is a less invasive surgical technique for treating lumbar canal stenosis. The objective is to evaluate this technique’s results in treating lumbar canal stenosis. Method: Thirty patients with lumbar spinal canal stenosis underwent surgical treatment using the spinous process separation technique and were evaluated in the 3-year postoperative period using the Denis Pain and Work Scale and by the SF-36 questionnaire and radiographic evaluation of the operated segment. Results: In the evaluation of the Denis pain scale, 21 (70%) patients had no pain (P1), and nine (30%) patients reported minimal low back pain, not needing medication (P2). Denis’ work schedule showed that nine (30%) patients had restrictions on returning to their previous work activity (W2), and 21 (70%) patients were classified as W1. The SF-36 questionnaire showed results of 81.25 for physical aspects (PA), 81.9 for functional capacity (FC), 81.3 for emotional aspects (EA), 64.3 for vitality (V), 65.9 for mental health (MH), 81.98 for social aspects (SA), 75.6 for pain (P) and 68.1 for general health status (GHS). In addition, there were no radiographic signs of instability of the operated vertebral segment in the radiographic evaluation. Conclusion: The decompression of the lumbar spinal canal using the spinous process separation technique showed good results in the evaluated patients three years after the operation. Level of Evidence II, Retrospective Comparative Study.","PeriodicalId":40025,"journal":{"name":"Coluna/ Columna","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Coluna/ Columna","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/s1808-185120222202269638","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
ABSTRACT Objective: The spinous process separation technique is a less invasive surgical technique for treating lumbar canal stenosis. The objective is to evaluate this technique’s results in treating lumbar canal stenosis. Method: Thirty patients with lumbar spinal canal stenosis underwent surgical treatment using the spinous process separation technique and were evaluated in the 3-year postoperative period using the Denis Pain and Work Scale and by the SF-36 questionnaire and radiographic evaluation of the operated segment. Results: In the evaluation of the Denis pain scale, 21 (70%) patients had no pain (P1), and nine (30%) patients reported minimal low back pain, not needing medication (P2). Denis’ work schedule showed that nine (30%) patients had restrictions on returning to their previous work activity (W2), and 21 (70%) patients were classified as W1. The SF-36 questionnaire showed results of 81.25 for physical aspects (PA), 81.9 for functional capacity (FC), 81.3 for emotional aspects (EA), 64.3 for vitality (V), 65.9 for mental health (MH), 81.98 for social aspects (SA), 75.6 for pain (P) and 68.1 for general health status (GHS). In addition, there were no radiographic signs of instability of the operated vertebral segment in the radiographic evaluation. Conclusion: The decompression of the lumbar spinal canal using the spinous process separation technique showed good results in the evaluated patients three years after the operation. Level of Evidence II, Retrospective Comparative Study.