Evaluation of Indirect Decompression of the Lumbar Spinal Canal Following Minimally Invasive Lateral Transpsoas Interbody Fusion: Radiographic and Outcome Analysis

Abstract

Background:

The surgical treatment of lumbar stenosis traditionally includes laminectomy for direct decompression of the spinal canal. Selected patients with spinal stenosis may also require lumbar fusion. Minimally invasive lateral transpsoas interbody fusion has the ability of placing a large interbody cage that can increase disc height and distract the spinal level. The purpose of this study was to examine the concept of indirect decompression of the spinal canal in patients with co-existing lumbar spinal stenosis undergoing lateral transpsoas interbody fusion.

Materials and Methods:

We reviewed 25 consecutive spinal stenosis patients with instability undergoing lateral transpsoas interbody fusion without laminectomy. All patients had relevant symptoms of back pain, leg pain, and/or spinal claudication and met standard criteria for lumbar fusion. Patients were evaluated by outcome analysis scales (VAS scores, Oswestry disability index and treatment intensity scale). Postoperative MRI scans, when available, were evaluated for change in canal dimensions. Statistical significance was assessed by paired t-test, which compares the mean change.

Results:

There were 25 patients in the study (mean age 61 years). 15 patients had grade I spondylolisthesis. VAS for back pain intensity improved from 7.74 to 2.07 and for frequency from 7.91 to 2.22. VAS for leg pain intensity improved from 7.24 to 1.87 and frequency from 7.41 to 2.35. All improvements were statistically significant (P<0.0001). The Oswestry disability index improved from 55.1 to 16.4 (P<0.0001), and treatment intensity scale improved from 14.6 to 3.7 (P<0.0001). Radiographic evaluation in 20 treated levels (15 patients) found an increase in dural sac dimension of 54% in the anterior-posterior plane and 48% in the medial-lateral plane (P<0.0001). The calculated area of the dural sac increased an average of 143% (range of − 10.4% to + 495%).

Conclusion:

Indirect decompression of spinal stenosis can be achieved with lateral transpsoas interbody fusion with improved clinical outcomes. Pre-op and post-op MRI scans showed a significant increase in dural sac dimensions. The mechanism for this indirect decompression may relate to stretching and unbuckling of the spinal ligaments and a decrease in intervertebral disc bulging. Further studies are needed to determine which stenosis patients undergoing this surgery are most appropriate for indirect decompression alone over laminectomy.

Key words

minimally invasive spine surgery - spinal stenosis - lateral transpsoas interbody fusion - indirect decompression - spinal fusion - outcome

• References

• 1 Schmid MR, Stucki G, Duewell S et al. Changes in cross-sectional measurements of the spinal canal and intervertebral foramina as a function of body position: in vivo studies on an open-configuration MR system. Am J Roentgenol 1999; 172: 1095-1102
• 2 Richards JC, Majumdar S, Lindsey DP et al. The treatment mechanism of an interspinous process implant for lumbar neurogenic intermittent claudication. Spine 2005; 30: 744-749
• 3 Inufusa A, An H, Lim T et al. Anatomic changes of the spinal canal and intervertebral foramen associated with flexion-extension movement. Spine 1996; 21: 2412-2420
• 4 Chung SS, Lee CS, Kim SH et al. Effect of low back posture on the morphology of the spinal canal. Skeletal Radiol 2000; 29: 217-223
• 5 Zuckerman JF, Hsu KY, Hartjen CA et al. A multi-center, prospective, randomized trial evaluating the X-STOP interspinous process decompression system for the treatment of neurogenic intermittent claudication. Spine 2005; 30: 1351-1358
• 6 Siddiqui M, Karadimas E, Nicol M et al. Influence of X Stop on neural foramina and spinal canal area in spinal stenosis. Spine 2006; 31: 2958-2962
• 7 Lee J, Hida K, Seki T et al. An interspinous process distractor (X STOP) for lumbar spinal stenosis in elderly patients: preliminary experiences in 10 consecutive cases. J Spinal Disord Tech 2004; 17: 72-77
• 8 Szpalski M, Gunzburg R, Rydevik B et al. Indication for Lumbar Spinal Fusion. Heidelberg: Springer; 2010
• 9 Ozgur BM, Aryan HE, Pimenta L et al. Extreme lateral Interbody Fusion (XLIF): a novel surgical technique for anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine J 2006; 6: 435-443
• 10 Anand N, Baron EM, Thaiyananthan G et al. Minimally invasive multilevel percutaneous correction and fusion for adult lumbar degenerative scoliosis: a technique and feasibility study. J Spinal Disord Tech 2008; 21: 459-467
• 11 Wang MY, Mummaneni PV. Minimally invasive surgery for thoracolumbar spinal deformity: initial clinical experience with clinical and radiographic outcomes. Neurosurg Focus 2010; 28: E9
• 12 Zheng F, Farmer JC, Sandhu HS et al. A novel method for the quantitative evaluation of lumbar spinal stenosis. HSS J 2006; 2: 136-140
• 13 Schonstrom NS, Bolender NF, Spengler DM. The pathomorphology of spinal stenosis as seen on CT scans of the lumbar spine. Spine 1985; 10: 806-811
• 14 Rahman M, Summers LE, Richter B et al. Comparison of techniques for decompressive lumbar laminectomy: the minimally invasive versus the “classic” open approach. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 2008; 51: 100-105
• 15 Anderson PA, Tribus CB, Kitchel SH. Treatment of neurogenic claudication by interspinous decompression: application of the X STOP device in patients with lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine 2006; 4: 464-447