Cargando…

Comparison of Modified Marmot Surgery and Lumbar Spinous Process Splitting Laminectomy in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Two-Year Outcomes

INTRODUCTION: Compared with the conventional posterior lumbar decompression surgery, the spinous process splitting approach for lumbar spinal stenosis is less invasive. There are currently two types of the spinous process splitting approach that are performed. First is the lumbar spinous process spl...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Masuda, Keisuke, Shigematsu, Hideki, Tanaka, Masato, Kawasaki, Sachiko, Suga, Yuma, Yamamoto, Yusuke, Iwata, Eiichiro, Okuda, Akinori, Tanaka, Yasuhito
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Japanese Society for Spine Surgery and Related Research 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8208948/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34179553
http://dx.doi.org/10.22603/ssrr.2020-0149
Descripción
Sumario:INTRODUCTION: Compared with the conventional posterior lumbar decompression surgery, the spinous process splitting approach for lumbar spinal stenosis is less invasive. There are currently two types of the spinous process splitting approach that are performed. First is the lumbar spinous process splitting laminectomy (LSPSL), which involves the detachment of the spinous process from the lamina. Second is the modified Marmot method, which involves leaning of the spinous process without detachment from the lamina. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study comparing the 2-year surgical outcomes of the modified Marmot method and LSPSL in cases of lumbar spinal canal stenosis. METHODS: We recruited 69 patients who underwent decompression surgery. A total of 32 patients underwent the modified Marmot method (M group), and 37 patients underwent LSPSL (S group). We compared the clinical results, laboratory data of surgical invasion, wound pain, and safety. RESULTS: No significant difference was observed in terms of the demographic data and operative time between the two groups. The number of decompressed segments and intraoperative and postoperative blood loss volume in the M group were greater than that in the S group. In the S group, the postoperative Japanese Orthopedic Association scores and recovery rates were significantly greater compared with those in the M group. Perioperative complications did not significantly differ between the two groups. On postoperative day 1, the Postoperative Visual Analog Scale scores at rest in the M group were lower than those in the S group. CONCLUSIONS: In clinical practice, we believe that posterior lumbar decompression surgery is safe, effective, and minimally invasive. Although the modified Marmot method may be less invasive and result in the reduction of wound pain during early postoperative periods, the clinical results did not exhibit greater long-term improvements with regard to surgical complications and neurological improvement, when compared with LSPSL.