Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Associated With Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Secondary Fusion Rates Following Open vs Minimally Invasive Decompression.
Publication Type | Review |
Authors | Schöller K, Alimi M, Cong G, Christos P, Härtl R |
Journal | Neurosurgery |
Volume | 80 |
Issue | 3 |
Pagination | 355-367 |
Date Published | 03/01/2017 |
ISSN | 1524-4040 |
Keywords | Decompression, Surgical, Lumbar Vertebrae, Spinal Fusion, Spinal Stenosis, Spondylolisthesis |
Abstract | BACKGROUND: Decompression without fusion is a treatment option in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) associated with stable low-grade degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS). A minimally invasive unilateral laminotomy (MIL) for "over the top" decompression might be a less destabilizing alternative to traditional open laminectomy (OL). OBJECTIVE: To review secondary fusion rates after open vs minimally invasive decompression surgery. METHODS: We performed a literature search in Pubmed/MEDLINE using the keywords "lumbar spondylolisthesis" and "decompression surgery." All studies that separately reported the outcome of patients with LSS+DS that were treated by OL or MIL (transmuscular or subperiosteal route) were included in our systematic review and meta-analysis. The primary end point was secondary fusion rate. Secondary end points were total reoperation rate, postoperative progression of listhetic slip, and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: We identified 37 studies (19 with OL, 18 with MIL), with a total of 1156 patients, that were published between 1983 and 2015. The studies' evidence was mostly level 3 or 4. Secondary fusion rates were 12.8% after OL and 3.3% after MIL; the total reoperation rates were 16.3% after OL and 5.8% after MIL. In the OL cohort, 72% of the studies reported a slip progression compared to 0% in the MIL cohort, respectively. After OL, satisfactory outcome was 62.7% compared to 76% after MIL. CONCLUSION: In patients with LSS and DS, minimally invasive decompression is associated with lower reoperation and fusion rates, less slip progression, and greater patient satisfaction than open surgery. |
DOI | 10.1093/neuros/nyw091 |
PubMed ID | 28362963 |