Search

Introduction: Long-term clinical outcomes of microendoscopic laminotomy (MEL) for patients with multilevel radiographic lumbar spinal canal stenosis (LSS) have not been widely explored. The clinical significance and natural progression of additional untreated levels (e.g., remaining radiographic (RR)-LSS not addressed by selective MEL) remain unknown. This retrospective study aimed to investigate the long-term clinical outcomes of selective MEL in LSS patients and compare outcomes between patients with and without remaining RR-LSS to determine the efficacy of this procedure. Methods: Forty-nine patients at a single center underwent posterior spinal microendoscopic decompression surgery for neurogenic claudication or radicular leg pain in moderate-to-severe spinal stenosis. The patients were categorized into the RR-LSS-positive and RR-LSS-negative cohorts based on unaddressed levels of stenosis. Pre-operative and 10-year follow-up evaluations, including the Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score, visual analog scale (VAS) score for low back pain and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and satisfaction, were compared between the groups. Additionally, the need for reoperation was determined. Results: MEL significantly improved JOA scores, lumbar VAS, and ODI over the 10-year postoperative period. Pre-operative characteristics and postoperative outcomes were not significantly different between the cohorts. Overall, 18.4% (9/49) of patients required reoperation during the follow-up period. The reoperation rate in the RR-LSS-positive (13.8%; 4/29) group was similar to that in the RR-LL-negative (15.0%; 3/20) group. Conclusions: MEL is effective for lumbar stenosis, with improved clinical outcomes up to 10 years following surgery. Selective MEL, addressing only symptomatic levels in multilevel stenosis, with residual remaining lumbar stenosis, is similarly effective without increased reoperation rates. Surgeons may consider more limited selective decompression in patients with multilevel stenosis, avoiding the risk and invasiveness of extensive procedures. Level of Evidence: Level III.

Study Design: Retrospective case series.Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate the outcome of multilevel posterior decompression surgery for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis compared with single-level surgery.Summary Of Background Data: The clinical outcomes of multilevel decompression surgery are still controversial because previous studies have not been designed to randomize or adjust the patient background.Materials and Methods: A retrospective review of prospectively collected data from 659 surgically treated lumbar spinal stenosis patients with a minimum 2-year follow-up was performed. Among them, we compared baseline and 2-year postoperative patient-reported outcomes (PROs) including the Visual Analog Scale and Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire scores of 122 patients who underwent three or more levels of surgery (M group) and 304 patients who underwent single-level surgery (S group). Further analyses were performed of 116 paired patients from both groups who were propensity score matched by age and baseline PROs.Results: The number of perioperative complications including extradural hematoma, surgical site infection, and spinal fluid leakage [M vs. S: 10 (8%) vs. 19 (6%), P =0.47], and frequency of revision surgery [5 (4%) vs. 23 (8%), P =0.10] were similar between the two groups. In the analysis of propensity score-matched patients, there were comparable improvements in the Visual Analog Scale score for lower back pain (2.6 vs. 2.4, P =0.55), buttock-leg pain (3.1 vs. 3.4, P =0.48), and buttock-leg numbness (2.9 vs. 2.9, P =0.77) in both groups. There were also similar improvements in the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire scores including lower back pain, lumbar function, walking ability, and mental health domains, except for the social life function domain (20.7±26.5 vs. 28.0±27.5, P =0.04).Conclusions: Despite the longer surgical time and a larger volume of estimated blood loss, multilevel decompression surgery showed similar improvement to that of single-level surgery in terms of recovery of PROs and frequency of revision surgery. Multilevel decompression surgery provides good clinical outcomes with acceptable complication and revision rates when selecting appropriate patient and spinal levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]