Objective: Lumbar fusion surgery is a significant surgical approach for degenerative lumbar spine diseases. However, lumbar fusion can cause adjacent vertebral diseases, about 50% of which is spinal stenosis. Unilateral laminectomy is an effective treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis. Therefore, this study aims to assess whether concurrent unilateral laminotomy decompression of the proximal adjacent vertebrae during primary lumbar fusion reduces long-term adjacent spinal stenosis incidence.
Methods: Patients (n = 179) who underwent lumbar fusion surgery between January 2021 and June 2023 were included in this retrospective analysis. A total of 110 patients underwent single-segment lumbar fusion surgery, including 28 (A1) in the adjacent vertebral decompression group and 82 (B1) in the non-decompression group. The mean follow-up duration was 11.74 ± 4.64 months for group A1 and 12.01 ± 4.83 months for group B1. 69 patients underwent two-segment lumbar fusion surgery, including 28 (A2) in the adjacent vertebral decompression group and 41 (B2) in the non-decompression group. The mean follow-up duration was 12.49 ± 4.57 months for group A2 and 12.12 ± 5.97 months for group B2. The visual analog scale (VAS) score, Oswestry disability index (ODI), and dural sac cross-sectional area (DSCA) were used to evaluate clinical outcomes. Operation time, blood loss, and complications were recorded. All continuous variables with normal distribution were analyzed using the t-test, while count data were compared using the chi-square test or Fisher's exact test.
Results: After surgery, the DSCA of the adjacent vertebral canal in the adjacent vertebral decompression group was significantly increased (A1: 111.64 ± 24.45 vs. 135.69 ± 35.46 mm2, p < 0.001; A2: 99.95 mm2 ± 16.81 vs. 115.29 ± 21.19 mm2, p < 0.001). The DSCA of the adjacent vertebral canal in the non-decompression group was significantly decreased (B1: 114.38 ± 28.83 vs. 111.41 ± 30.73 mm2, p = 0.032; B2: 109.28 ± 23.39 mm2vs. 102.04 ± 25.52 mm2, p = 0.001). There was no significant difference between the decompression and non-decompression group in preoperative pain scores (A1 vs. B1: 5.29 ± 1.41 vs. 5.42 ± 1.31, p = 0.661; A2 vs. B2: 6.07 ± 1.78 vs. 5.88 ± 1.81, p = 0.662), ODI (A1 vs. B1: 57.07 ± 15.73 vs. 55.44 ± 12.49, p = 0.578; A2 vs. B2: 62.07 ± 14.86 vs. 59.46 ± 16.69, p = 0.508) and postoperative pain scores (A1 vs. B1:0.93 ± 0.94 vs. 1.22 ± 0.96, p = 0.166; A2 vs. B2: 1.21 ± 1.07 vs. 1.46 ± 0.95, p = 0.313), ODI (A1 vs. B1: 7.14 ± 4.40 vs. 8.05 ± 5.03, p = 0.398; A2 vs. B2:7.71 ± 5.62 vs. 9.12 ± 6.28, p = 0.344). The difference in complication incidence was not significant.
Conclusions: These results showed that decompression of adjacent spine would maintain the spinal canal after lumbar fusion surgery.
| [1] |
Global Burden of 369 Diseases and Injuries in 204 Countries and Territories, 1990-2019: A Systematic Analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019,” Lancet 396, no. 10258 (2020): 1204–1222.
|
| [2] |
T. Lan, S. Y. Hu, Y. T. Zhang, et al., “Comparison Between Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” World Neurosurgery 112 (2018): 86–93.
|
| [3] |
M. J. Reisener, M. Pumberger, J. Shue, et al., “Trends in Lumbar Spinal Fusion-A Literature Review,” Journal of Spine Surgery 6, no. 4 (2020): 752–761.
|
| [4] |
M. Senteler, B. Weisse, D. A. Rothenfluh, M. T. Farshad, and J. G. Snedeker, “Fusion Angle Affects Intervertebral Adjacent Spinal Segment Joint Forces-Model-Based Analysis of Patient Specific Alignment,” Journal of Orthopaedic Research 35, no. 1 (2017): 131–139.
|
| [5] |
C. K. Lee and N. A. Langrana, “Lumbosacral Spinal Fusion. A Biomechanical Study,” Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 9, no. 6 (1984): 574–581.
|
| [6] |
A. Pan, Y. Hai, J. Yang, et al., “Adjacent Segment Degeneration After Lumbar Spinal Fusion Compared With Motion-Preservation Procedures: A Meta-Analysis,” European Spine Journal 25, no. 5 (2016): 1522–1532.
|
| [7] |
W. R. Sears, I. G. Sergides, N. Kazemi, et al., “Incidence and Prevalence of Surgery at Segments Adjacent to a Previous Posterior Lumbar Arthrodesis,” Spine Journal 11, no. 1 (2011): 11–20.
|
| [8] |
T. R. Lehmann, K. F. Spratt, J. E. Tozzi, et al., “Long-Term Follow-Up of Lower Lumbar Fusion Patients,” Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 12, no. 2 (1987): 97–104.
|
| [9] |
S. Okuda, Y. Nagamoto, T. Matsumoto, et al., “Adjacent Segment Disease After Single Segment Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: Minimum 10 Years Follow-Up,” Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 43, no. 23 (2018): E1384–E1388.
|
| [10] |
J. N. Katz, Z. E. Zimmerman, H. Mass, et al., “Diagnosis and Management of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Review,” JAMA 327, no. 17 (2022): 1688–1699.
|
| [11] |
A. Fruh, P. Leissa, D. Tkatschenko, et al., “Decompression With or Without Fusion in Degenerative Adjacent Segment Stenosis After Lumbar Fusions,” Neurosurgery Review 45, no. 6 (2022): 3739–3748.
|
| [12] |
Y. S. Fu, B. F. Zeng, and J. G. Xu, “Long-Term Outcomes of Two Different Decompressive Techniques for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis,” Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33, no. 5 (2008): 514–518.
|
| [13] |
E. Hermansen, I. M. Austevoll, C. Hellum, et al., “Comparison of 3 Different Minimally Invasive Surgical Techniques for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Randomized Clinical Trial,” JAMA Network Open 5, no. 3 (2022): e224291.
|
| [14] |
E. Hermansen, U. K. Romild, I. M. Austevoll, et al., “Does Surgical Technique Influence Clinical Outcome After Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Decompression? A Comparative Effectiveness Study From the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery,” European Spine Journal 26, no. 2 (2017): 420–427.
|
| [15] |
H. Habibi, H. Toyoda, H. Terai, et al., “Incidence of Postoperative Progressive Segment Degeneration at Decompression and Adjacent Segments After Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression Surgery: A 5-Year Follow-Up Study,” Journal of Neurosurgery. Spine 37, no. 1 (2022): 1–8.
|
| [16] |
H. L. Wang, J. Y. Jiang, F. Z. Lv, et al., “Magnetic Resonance Neurography in Analysis of Operative Safety of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Chinese Subjects,” Orthopedic Surgery 6, no. 3 (2014): 203–209.
|
| [17] |
J. Y. Jiang, X. Ma, F. Z. Lu, et al., “The Anatomic Study and Clinical Significance of the Modified Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion,” Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi 47, no. 14 (2009): 1100–1103.
|
| [18] |
M. B. Burch, N. W. Wiegers, S. Patil, et al., “Incidence and Risk Factors of Reoperation in Patients With Adjacent Segment Disease: A Meta-Analysis,” Journal of Craniovertebral Junction & Spine 11, no. 1 (2020): 9–16.
|
| [19] |
C. Wipplinger, C. Melcher, R. N. Hernandez, et al., ““One and a Half” Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Single Level Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Adjacent Segment Unilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Decompression for Spondylolisthesis With Bisegmental Stenosis,” Journal of Spine Surgery 4, no. 4 (2018): 780–786.
|
| [20] |
G. D. Schroeder, M. F. Kurd, and A. R. Vaccaro, “Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: How Is It Classified?,” Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons 24, no. 12 (2016): 843–852.
|
| [21] |
G. Y. Lee, J. W. Lee, H. S. Choi, K. J. Oh, and H. S. Kang, “A New Grading System of Lumbar Central Canal Stenosis on MRI: An Easy and Reliable Method,” Skeletal Radiology 40, no. 8 (2011): 1033–1039.
|
| [22] |
E. Hermansen, I. M. Austevoll, C. Hellum, et al., “Comparable Increases in Dural Sac Area After Three Different Posterior Decompression Techniques for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Radiological Results From a Randomized Controlled Trial in the NORDSTEN Study,” European Spine Journal 29, no. 9 (2020): 2254–2261.
|
RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS
2026 The Author(s). Orthopaedic Surgery published by Tianjin Hospital and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.
PDF
(712KB)
