Cargando…

Outcomes after minimally invasive lumbar decompression: a biomechanical comparison of unilateral and bilateral laminotomies

BACKGROUND: The unilateral approach for bilateral decompression was developed as an alternative to laminectomy. Unilateral laminotomy has been rated technically considerably more demanding and associated with more perioperative complications than bilateral laminotomy. Several studies have indicated...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ho, Yi-Hung, Tu, Yuan-Kun, Hsiao, Chih-Kun, Chang, Chih-Han
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4545783/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26285817
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-015-0659-2
_version_ 1782386783486476288
author Ho, Yi-Hung
Tu, Yuan-Kun
Hsiao, Chih-Kun
Chang, Chih-Han
author_facet Ho, Yi-Hung
Tu, Yuan-Kun
Hsiao, Chih-Kun
Chang, Chih-Han
author_sort Ho, Yi-Hung
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The unilateral approach for bilateral decompression was developed as an alternative to laminectomy. Unilateral laminotomy has been rated technically considerably more demanding and associated with more perioperative complications than bilateral laminotomy. Several studies have indicated that bilateral laminotomy are associated with a substantial benefit in most outcome parameters and thus constituted a promising treatment alternative. However, no complete kinematic data and relative biomechanical analysis for evaluating spinal instability treated with unilateral and bilateral laminotomy are available. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare the stability of various decompression methods. METHODS: Ten porcine lumbar spines were biomechanically evaluated regarding their strain and range of motion, and the results were compared following unilateral or bilateral laminotomies and laminectomy. The experimental protocol included flexion and extension in the following procedures: intact, unilateral or bilateral laminotomies (L2–L5), and full laminectomy (L2–L5). The spinal segment kinematics was captured using a motion tracking system, and the strain was measured using a strain gauge. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed during flexion and extension between the unilateral and bilateral laminotomies, whereas laminectomy yielded statistically significant findings. Regarding strain, significant differences were observed between the laminectomy and other groups. These results suggest that laminotomy entails higher spinal stability than laminectomy, with no significant differences between bilateral and unilateral laminotomies. CONCLUSIONS: The laminectomy group exhibited more instability, including the index of the range of motion and strain. However, bilateral laminotomy seems to have led to stability similar to that of unilateral laminotomy according to our short-term follow-up. In addition, performing bilateral laminotomies is easier for surgeons than adopting a unilateral approach for bilateral decompression. The results provide recommendations for surgeons regarding final decision making. Future studies conducting long-term evaluation are required.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4545783
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-45457832015-08-23 Outcomes after minimally invasive lumbar decompression: a biomechanical comparison of unilateral and bilateral laminotomies Ho, Yi-Hung Tu, Yuan-Kun Hsiao, Chih-Kun Chang, Chih-Han BMC Musculoskelet Disord Research Article BACKGROUND: The unilateral approach for bilateral decompression was developed as an alternative to laminectomy. Unilateral laminotomy has been rated technically considerably more demanding and associated with more perioperative complications than bilateral laminotomy. Several studies have indicated that bilateral laminotomy are associated with a substantial benefit in most outcome parameters and thus constituted a promising treatment alternative. However, no complete kinematic data and relative biomechanical analysis for evaluating spinal instability treated with unilateral and bilateral laminotomy are available. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare the stability of various decompression methods. METHODS: Ten porcine lumbar spines were biomechanically evaluated regarding their strain and range of motion, and the results were compared following unilateral or bilateral laminotomies and laminectomy. The experimental protocol included flexion and extension in the following procedures: intact, unilateral or bilateral laminotomies (L2–L5), and full laminectomy (L2–L5). The spinal segment kinematics was captured using a motion tracking system, and the strain was measured using a strain gauge. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed during flexion and extension between the unilateral and bilateral laminotomies, whereas laminectomy yielded statistically significant findings. Regarding strain, significant differences were observed between the laminectomy and other groups. These results suggest that laminotomy entails higher spinal stability than laminectomy, with no significant differences between bilateral and unilateral laminotomies. CONCLUSIONS: The laminectomy group exhibited more instability, including the index of the range of motion and strain. However, bilateral laminotomy seems to have led to stability similar to that of unilateral laminotomy according to our short-term follow-up. In addition, performing bilateral laminotomies is easier for surgeons than adopting a unilateral approach for bilateral decompression. The results provide recommendations for surgeons regarding final decision making. Future studies conducting long-term evaluation are required. BioMed Central 2015-08-19 /pmc/articles/PMC4545783/ /pubmed/26285817 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-015-0659-2 Text en © Ho et al. 2015 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Ho, Yi-Hung
Tu, Yuan-Kun
Hsiao, Chih-Kun
Chang, Chih-Han
Outcomes after minimally invasive lumbar decompression: a biomechanical comparison of unilateral and bilateral laminotomies
title Outcomes after minimally invasive lumbar decompression: a biomechanical comparison of unilateral and bilateral laminotomies
title_full Outcomes after minimally invasive lumbar decompression: a biomechanical comparison of unilateral and bilateral laminotomies
title_fullStr Outcomes after minimally invasive lumbar decompression: a biomechanical comparison of unilateral and bilateral laminotomies
title_full_unstemmed Outcomes after minimally invasive lumbar decompression: a biomechanical comparison of unilateral and bilateral laminotomies
title_short Outcomes after minimally invasive lumbar decompression: a biomechanical comparison of unilateral and bilateral laminotomies
title_sort outcomes after minimally invasive lumbar decompression: a biomechanical comparison of unilateral and bilateral laminotomies
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4545783/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26285817
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-015-0659-2
work_keys_str_mv AT hoyihung outcomesafterminimallyinvasivelumbardecompressionabiomechanicalcomparisonofunilateralandbilaterallaminotomies
AT tuyuankun outcomesafterminimallyinvasivelumbardecompressionabiomechanicalcomparisonofunilateralandbilaterallaminotomies
AT hsiaochihkun outcomesafterminimallyinvasivelumbardecompressionabiomechanicalcomparisonofunilateralandbilaterallaminotomies
AT changchihhan outcomesafterminimallyinvasivelumbardecompressionabiomechanicalcomparisonofunilateralandbilaterallaminotomies