Research Progress on the Posterior Midline Lumbar Spinous Process-Splitting Approach

Abstract

The traditional posterior median approach laminectomy is widely used for lumbar decompression. However, the bilateral dissection of paraspinal muscles during this procedure often leads to postoperative muscle atrophy, chronic low back pain, and other complications. The posterior midline spinous process-splitting approach (SPSA) offers a significant advantage over the traditional approach by minimizing damage to the paraspinal muscles. SPSA reduces the incidence of muscle atrophy and chronic low back pain while maintaining the integrity of the posterior spinal structures. The technique involves longitudinal splitting of the spinous process, which allows for adequate access to the lamina for decompression without detaching the paraspinal muscles. As a result, it provides a clearer surgical field and facilitates muscle preservation, which reduces the risk of postoperative complications. Additionally, SPSA requires only standard surgical instruments, making it accessible in most surgical settings. This paper reviews the anatomical considerations, surgical techniques, and clinical applications of the SPSA, highlighting its effectiveness in reducing muscle atrophy and improving recovery outcomes. The paper also discusses its potential in treating conditions such as lumbar spinal stenosis, disc herniation, and spondylolisthesis. Furthermore, it emphasizes the need for future research to establish the long-term benefits of SPSA and refine surgical techniques. The results suggest that SPSA is a promising alternative to traditional approaches, with better outcomes in terms of muscle preservation and overall recovery.

Keywords

decompression / lumbar spine / posterior midline approach / spinous process

References

[1] R. A. Deyo and S. K. Mirza, “Trends and Variations in the Use of Spine Surgery,” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 443 (2006): 139-146.

[2] J. N. Weinstein, J. D. Lurie, P. R. Olson, K. K. Bronner, and E. S. Fisher, “United States' Trends and Regional Variations in Lumbar Spine Surgery: 1992-2003,” Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31 (2006): 2707-2714.

[3] J. N. Katz and M. B. Harris, “Clinical Practice. Lumbar Spinal Stenosis,” New England Journal of Medicine 358 (2008): 818-825.

[4] L. Kalichman, R. Cole, D. H. Kim, et al., “Spinal Stenosis Prevalence and Association With Symptoms: The Framingham Study,” Spine Journal 9 (2009): 545-550.

[5] J. A. Turner, M. Ersek, L. Herron, and R. Deyo, “Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis. Attempted Meta-Analysis of the Literature,” Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 17 (1992): 1-8.

[6] J. N. Katz, G. Stucki, S. J. Lipson, A. H. Fossel, L. J. Grobler, and J. N. Weinstein, “Predictors of Surgical Outcome in Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis,” Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 24 (1999): 2229-2233.

[7] D. H. See and G. H. Kraft, “Electromyography in Paraspinal Muscles Following Surgery for Root Compression,” Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 56 (1975): 80-83.

[8] T. G. Mayer, H. Vanharanta, R. J. Gatchel, et al., “Comparison of CT Scan Muscle Measurements and Isokinetic Trunk Strength in Postoperative Patients,” Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 14 (1989): 33-36.

[9] T. Sihvonen, A. Herno, L. Paljärvi, O. Airaksinen, J. Partanen, and A. Tapaninaho, “Local Denervation Atrophy of Paraspinal Muscles in Postoperative Failed Back Syndrome,” Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 18 (1993): 575-581.

[10] Y. Kawaguchi, H. Matsui, and H. Tsuji, “Back Muscle Injury After Posterior Lumbar Spine Surgery. Part 1: Histologic and Histochemical Analyses in Rats,” Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 19, no. 22 (1994): 2590-2597, https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199411001-00017.

[11] Y. Kawaguchi, H. Matsui, and H. Tsuji, “Back Muscle Injury After Posterior Lumbar Spine Surgery. A Histologic and Enzymatic Analysis,” Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 21, no. 8 (1996): 941-944, https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199604150-00007.

[12] Y. Kawaguchi, S. Yabuki, J. Styf, et al., “Back Muscle Injury After Posterior Lumbar Spine Surgery. Topographic Evaluation of Intramuscular Pressure and Blood Flow in the Porcine Back Muscle During Surgery,” Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 21, no. 22 (1996): 2683-2688.

[13] B. Jönsson, M. Annertz, C. Sjöberg, and B. Strömqvist, “A Prospective and Consecutive Study of Surgically Treated Lumbar Spinal Stenosis. Part II: Five-Year Follow-Up by an Independent Observer,” Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 22, no. 24 (1997): 2938-2944.

[14] Y. Kawaguchi, H. Matsui, R. Gejo, and H. Tsuji, “Preventive Measures of Back Muscle Injury After Posterior Lumbar Spine Surgery in Rats,” Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 23 (1998): 2282-2287. Discussion 2288.

[15] B. K. Weiner, M. Walker, R. S. Brower, and J. A. McCulloch, “Microdecompression for Lumbar Spinal Canal Stenosis,” Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 24, no. 21 (1999): 2268-2272.

[16] S. J. Hyun, Y. B. Kim, Y. S. Kim, et al., “Postoperative Changes in Paraspinal Muscle Volume: Comparison Between Paramedian Interfascial and Midline Approaches for Lumbar Fusion,” Journal of Korean Medical Science 22 (2007): 646-651.

[17] S. Fan, Z. Hu, F. Zhao, X. Zhao, Y. Huang, and X. Fang, “Multifidus Muscle Changes and Clinical Effects of One-Level Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Minimally Invasive Procedure Versus Conventional Open Approach,” European Spine Journal 19 (2010): 316-324.

[18] C. W. Kim, “Scientific Basis of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery: Prevention of Multifidus Muscle Injury During Posterior Lumbar Surgery,” Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35 (2010): S281-S286.

[19] B. K. Weiner, R. D. Fraser, and M. Peterson, “Spinous Process Osteotomies to Facilitate Lumbar Decompressive Surgery,” Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 24, no. 1 (1999): 62-66.

[20] K. El-Abed, M. Barakat, and D. Ainscow, “Multilevel Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Decompression: Midterm Outcome Using a Modified Hinge Osteotomy Technique,” Journal of Spinal Disorders & Techniques 24 (2011): 376-380.

[21] C. E. Poletti, “Central Lumbar Stenosis Caused by Ligamentum Flavum: Unilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Ligamentectomy: Preliminary Report of Two Cases,” Neurosurgery 37 (1995): 343-347.

[22] N. M. Orpen, J. A. Corner, R. R. Shetty, and R. Marshall, “Micro-Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: The Early Outcome Using a Modified Surgical Technique,” Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British Volume (London) 92 (2010): 550-554.

[23] S. Palmer, R. Turner, and R. Palmer, “Bilateral Decompression of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Involving a Unilateral Approach With Microscope and Tubular Retractor System,” Journal of Neurosurgery 97 (2002): 213-217.

[24] Y. Mikami, M. Nagae, T. Ikeda, H. Tonomura, H. Fujiwara, and T. Kubo, “Tubular Surgery With the Assistance of Endoscopic Surgery via Midline Approach for Lumbar Spinal Canal Stenosis: A Technical Note,” European Spine Journal 22 (2013): 2105-2112.

[25] S. M. Lin, S. H. Tseng, J. C. Yang, and C. C. Tu, “Chimney Sublaminar Decompression For Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis,” Journal of Neurosurgery. Spine 4 (2006): 359-364.

[26] D. Y. Cho, H. L. Lin, W. Y. Lee, and H. C. Lee, “Split-Spinous Process Laminotomy and Discectomy for Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Preliminary Report,” Journal of Neurosurgery. Spine 6 (2007): 229-239.

[27] K. Kim, T. Isu, A. Sugawara, R. Matsumoto, and M. Isobe, “Comparison of the Effect of 3 Different Approaches to the Lumbar Spinal Canal on Postoperative Paraspinal Muscle Damage,” Surgical Neurology 69 (2008): 109-113. Discussion 113.

[28] Y. Hatta, T. Shiraishi, A. Sakamoto, et al., “Muscle-Preserving Interlaminar Decompression for the Lumbar Spine,” Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34 (2009): E276-E280.

[29] X. Liu, Y. Wang, X. Wu, et al., “Impact of Surgical Approaches on the Lumbar Multifidus Muscle: An Experimental Study Using Sheep as Models,” Journal of Neurosurgery. Spine 12 (2010): 570-576.

[30] K. Watanabe, T. Hosoya, T. Shiraishi, M. Matsumoto, K. Chiba, and Y. Toyama, “Lumbar Spinous Process-Splitting Laminectomy for Lumbar Canal Stenosis: Technical Note,” Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine 3 (2005): 405-408.

[31] K. Watanabe, M. Matsumoto, T. Ikegami, et al., “Reduced Postoperative Wound Pain After Lumbar Spinous Process-Splitting Laminectomy for Lumbar Canal Stenosis: A Randomized Controlled Study,” Journal of Neurosurgery. Spine 14 (2011): 51-58.

[32] K. Chatani, “A Novel Surgical Approach to the Lumbar Spine Involving Hemilateral Split-Off of the Spinous Process to Preserve the Multifidus Muscle: Technical Note,” Journal of Neurosurgery. Spine 24 (2016): 694-699.

[33] S. Kanbara, Y. Yukawa, K. Ito, M. Machino, and F. Kato, “Surgical Outcomes of Modified Lumbar Spinous Process-Splitting Laminectomy for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis,” Journal of Neurosurgery. Spine 22 (2015): 353-357.

[34] M. Kawakami, S. Nakao, D. Fukui, Y. Kadosaka, T. Matsuoka, and H. Yamada, “Modified Marmot Operation Versus Spinous Process Transverse Cutting Laminectomy for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis,” Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38 (2013): E1461-E1468.

[35] D. Kurogochi, M. Uehara, M. Yui, et al., “Comparison of Spinous Process-Splitting Laminectomy Versus Posterolateral Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis,” European Spine Journal 32 (2023): 447-454.

[36] H. Nomura, Y. Yanagisawa, J. Arima, and M. Oga, “Clinical Outcome of Microscopic Lumbar Spinous Process-Splitting Laminectomy: Clinical Article,” Journal of Neurosurgery. Spine 21 (2014): 187-194.

[37] S. Tanaka, K. Wada, G. Kumagai, et al., “Comparison of Short-Term Clinical Results and Radiologic Changes Between Two Different Minimally Invasive Decompressive Surgical Methods for Lumbar Canal Stenosis: Lumbar Spinous Process Splitting Laminectomy and Trans-Interspinous Lumbar Decompression,” Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 46, no. 21 (2021): E1136-E1145.

[38] C. E. Aylott, R. Puna, P. A. Robertson, and C. Walker, “Spinous Process Morphology: The Effect of Ageing Through Adulthood on Spinous Process Size and Relationship to Sagittal Alignment,” European Spine Journal 21 (2012): 1007-1012.

[39] G. X. Lin, T. K. Suen, J. Quillo-Olvera, et al., “Dimensions of the Spinous Process and Interspinous Space: A Morphometric Study,” Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy 40 (2018): 1383-1390.

[40] L. N. Leng, H. J. Ma, and D. W. Si, “A Morphometric Study of the Thoracolumbar Spine Spinous Process and Lamina Space in the Chinese,” Folia Morphologica 80 (2021): 665-674.

[41] D. Kaya Ayvaz, P. Kervancıoğlu, A. Bahşi, and İ. Bahşi, “A Radiological Evaluation of Lumbar Spinous Processes and Interspinous Spaces Including Clinical Implications,” Cureus 13 (2021): e19454.

[42] R. Sobottke, T. Koy, M. Röllinghoff, et al., “Computed Tomography Measurements of the Lumbar Spinous Processes and Interspinous Space,” Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy 32, no. 8 (2010): 731-738, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-010-0686-5.

[43] J. Xu, R. Wang, X. Wang, et al., “Quantitative Anatomic Analysis and Clinical Application of Lumbar Spinous Process Split Laminotomy,” Turkish Neurosurgery 34 (2024): 235-242.

[44] G. Liu, L. Hu, F. Shen, Y. Hu, and W. Ma, “Clinical Outcomes of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using a Modified Posterior Spinous Process-Splitting Approach for Lumbar Degenerative or Isthmic Spondylolisthesis: A Prospective Cohort Study,” Journal of Neurosurgery. Spine 39, no. 3 (2023): 387-393, https://doi.org/10.3171/2023.4.SPINE2322.

[45] E. Mori, S. Okada, T. Ueta, et al., “Spinous Process-Splitting Open Pedicle Screw Fusion Provides Favorable Results in Patients With Low Back Discomfort and Pain Compared to Conventional Open Pedicle Screw Fixation Over 1 Year After Surgery,” European Spine Journal 21, no. 4 (2012): 745-753, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-011-2146-2.

[46] P. Banczerowski, J. Vajda, and R. Veres, “Exploration and Decompression of the Spinal Canal Using Split Laminotomy and Its Modification, the ‘Archbone’ Technique,” Neurosurgery 62, no. 5 Suppl 2 (2008): ONS432-ONS440, https://doi.org/10.1227/01.neu.0000326031.31843.99.

[47] T. Okubo, N. Nagoshi, O. Tsuji, et al., “Spinous Process-Splitting Laminectomy Approach for Tumor Excision at Conus Medullaris or Cauda Equina Level Results in Satisfactory Clinical Outcomes Without Affecting Global Spinal Sagittal Alignment,” Global Spine Journal 13 (2023): 1745-1753.

[48] X. Liu, S. Yuan, and Y. Tian, “Modified Unilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Technical Note,” Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38 (2013): E732-E737.

[49] S. Rajasekaran, A. Thomas, R. M. Kanna, and A. Prasad Shetty, “Lumbar Spinous Process Splitting Decompression Provides Equivalent Outcomes to Conventional Midline Decompression in Degenerative Lumbar Canal Stenosis: A Prospective, Randomized Controlled Study of 51 Patients,” Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38, no. 20 (2013): 1737-1743, https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182a056c1.

[50] M. Uehara, J. Takahashi, H. Hashidate, et al., “Comparison of Spinous Process-Splitting Laminectomy Versus Conventional Laminectomy for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis,” Asian Spine Journal 8, no. 6 (2014): 768-776, https://doi.org/10.4184/asj.2014.8.6.768.

[51] S. Voglis, L. Tosic, L. M. Höbner, et al., “Spinous-Process-Splitting Versus Conventional Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Comparative Study With Respect to Short-Term Postoperative Pain and Analgesics Use,” World Neurosurgery 160 (2022): e80-e87, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2021.12.094.

[52] S. M. Wi, H. J. Lee, S. Y. Chang, et al., “Restoration of the Spinous Process Following Muscle-Preserving Posterior Lumbar Decompression via Sagittal Splitting of the Spinous Process,” Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery 11, no. 1 (2019): 95-102, https://doi.org/10.4055/cios.2019.11.1.95.

[53] H. R. Silvers, P. J. Lewis, and H. L. Asch, “Decompressive Lumbar Laminectomy for Spinal Stenosis,” Journal of Neurosurgery 78, no. 5 (1993): 695-701, https://doi.org/10.3171/jns.1993.78.5.0695.

[54] J. C. Wang, H. H. Bohlman, and K. D. Riew, “Dural Tears Secondary to Operations on the Lumbar Spine. Management and Results After a Two-Year-Minimum Follow-Up of Eighty-Eight Patients,” Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American Volume) 80, no. 12 (1998): 1728-1732, https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-199812000-00002.

[55] F. P. Cammisa, F. P. Girardi, P. K. Sangani, H. K. Parvataneni, S. Cadag, and H. S. Sandhu, “Incidental Durotomy in Spine Surgery,” Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25, no. 20 (2000): 2663-2667, https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200010150-00019.

[56] Y. M. Baghdadi, C. D. Moussallem, M. A. Shuaib, M. J. Clarke, M. B. Dekutoski, and A. N. Nassr, “Lumbar Spinous Process-Splitting Laminoplasty: A Novel Technique for Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression,” Orthopedics 39 (2016): e950-e956.

[57] K. Masuda, H. Shigematsu, M. Tanaka, et al., “Comparison of Modified Marmot Surgery and Lumbar Spinous Process Splitting Laminectomy in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Two-Year Outcomes,” Spine Surgery and Related Research 5 (2021): 165-170.

[58] T. C. Ovalioglu, A. O. Ovalioglu, G. Canaz, M. Gunes, M. Babur, and E. Emel, “Efficacy of Spinous Process Splitting Decompression Compared With Conventional Laminectomy for Degenerative Lumbar Stenosis,” World Neurosurgery 164 (2022): e1233-e1242.

[59] G. Liu, X. Zou, Y. Dong, et al., “Unilateral Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Through a Modified Hemilateral Spinous Process-Splitting Approach,” Frontiers in Neurology 14 (2023): 1274384.

[60] H. J. Son, B. S. Chang, S. Y. Chang, G. Gimm, and H. Kim, “Midterm Outcomes of Muscle-Preserving Posterior Lumbar Decompression via Sagittal Splitting of the Spinous Process: Minimum 5-Year Follow-Up,” Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery 15 (2023): 800-808.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2025 The Author(s). Orthopaedic Surgery published by Tianjin Hospital and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.