Download PDF
J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg 2021; 82(03): 278-284
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1718521
Technical Note

Facet-Sparing Decompression of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: The Minimally Invasive Bilateral Crossover Approach

Jan Helge Klingler
1   Department of Neurosurgery, Faculty of Medicine, Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
,
Ulrich Hubbe
1   Department of Neurosurgery, Faculty of Medicine, Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
,
Christoph Scholz
1   Department of Neurosurgery, Faculty of Medicine, Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
,
Marie T. Krüger
1   Department of Neurosurgery, Faculty of Medicine, Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
2   Department of Neurosurgery, Cantonal Hospital St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background and Study Objective One risk of established decompression techniques for lumbar spinal stenosis is the resection of facet joints, especially if they are steeply configured, promoting destabilization. Minimally invasive bilateral crossover decompression aims to preserve the facet joints and thus stability of the spine. The purpose of this study is to demonstrate the feasibility and early results of this technique.

Methods This retrospective case series includes 10 consecutive patients with lumbar stenosis and steep-angle (<35 degrees) facet joints who were treated with minimally invasive bilateral crossover decompression. Eleven segments were decompressed, most commonly L3/L4 (63.6%), followed by L1/L2 and L2/L3 (18.2% each). The effectiveness of surgical decompression was assessed by self-reporting questionnaires.

Results After a follow-up of 10.5 months, the Symptom Severity Scale and Physical Function Scale of the Swiss Spinal Stenosis Questionnaire improved by 0.9 (p < 0.05) and 0.7 points, respectively. The mean Oswestry Disability Index improved from 53.9 to 34.6 (p < 0.05). Local and radiating pain under strain showed statistically significant improvement on the Visual Analog Scale (8.9 vs. 5.0 and 8.4 vs. 4.6, respectively). Maximum walking distance increased from 190 to 1,029 m. Apart from one patient requiring surgical decompression of an adjacent segment, there were no reoperations, neurological deteriorations, or other complications.

Conclusion The results of this study indicate that minimally invasive bilateral crossover decompression is a promising technique for the treatment of spinal canal stenosis. With its design to spare facet joints, it can potentially reduce the risk of spinal instability, especially in patients with steep facet joints.

Keywords

crossover - facet joint - instability - minimally invasive - spinal stenosis

Presentation at Conferences

Portions of this work were presented in poster form at the Annual Meeting of the Spine Section of the German Society of Neurosurgery (DGNC) September 14–15, 2018, Hamburg, Germany.


Author Contribution

J.-H.K. designed the study and wrote the manuscript with input from all authors. All the authors contributed to the acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of the data. J.-H.K. designed [Figs. 1] and [3], while M.T.K. designed [Fig. 2]. All the authors reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript.




Publication History

Received: 03 January 2020

Accepted: 19 March 2020

Article published online:
21 January 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD. SPORT Investigators. et al. Surgical versus nonsurgical therapy for lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med 2008; 358 (08) 794-810
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Overdevest GM, Jacobs W, Vleggeert-Lankamp C, Thomé C, Gunzburg R, Peul W. Effectiveness of posterior decompression techniques compared with conventional laminectomy for lumbar stenosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; (03) CD010036
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Thomé C, Zevgaridis D, Leheta O. et al. Outcome after less-invasive decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized comparison of unilateral laminotomy, bilateral laminotomy, and laminectomy. J Neurosurg Spine 2005; 3 (02) 129-141
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Park WB, Hong JT, Lee SW, Sung JH, Yang SH, Kim IS. Clinical and radiological comparison between ipsilateral and contralateral side canal decompression using an unilateral laminotomy approach. Korean J Spine 2016; 13 (02) 41-46
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Rahman M, Summers LE, Richter B, Mimran RI, Jacob RP. Comparison of techniques for decompressive lumbar laminectomy: the minimally invasive versus the “classic” open approach. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 2008; 51 (02) 100-105
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Arai Y, Hirai T, Yoshii T. et al. A prospective comparative study of 2 minimally invasive decompression procedures for lumbar spinal canal stenosis: unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) versus muscle-preserving interlaminar decompression (MILD). Spine 2014; 39 (04) 332-340
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Schöller K, Steingrüber T, Stein M. et al. Microsurgical unilateral laminotomy for decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis: long-term results and predictive factors. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2016; 158 (06) 1103-1113
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Alimi M, Njoku Jr I, Cong GT. et al. Minimally invasive foraminotomy through tubular retractors via a contralateral approach in patients with unilateral radiculopathy. Neurosurgery 2014; 10 (03) (Suppl. 03) 436-447 , discussion 446–447
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Celik SE, Celik S, Kara A, Ince I, Göksu K. Lumbar facet joint angle and its importance on joint violation in lumbar microdiscectomy. Neurosurgery 2008; 62 (01) 168-172 , discussion 172–173
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Grogan J, Nowicki BH, Schmidt TA, Haughton VM. Lumbar facet joint tropism does not accelerate degeneration of the facet joints. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1997; 18 (07) 1325-1329
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Stucki G, Daltroy L, Liang MH, Lipson SJ, Fossel AH, Katz JN. Measurement properties of a self-administered outcome measure in lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 1996; 21 (07) 796-803
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Pratt RK, Fairbank JCT, Virr A. The reliability of the Shuttle Walking Test, the Swiss Spinal Stenosis Questionnaire, the Oxford Spinal Stenosis Score, and the Oswestry Disability Index in the assessment of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 2002; 27 (01) 84-91
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Comer CM, Conaghan PG, Tennant A. Internal construct validity of the Swiss Spinal Stenosis questionnaire: Rasch analysis of a disease-specific outcome measure for lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 2011; 36 (23) 1969-1976
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Tomkins-Lane CC, Battié MC. Validity and reproducibility of self-report measures of walking capacity in lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 2010; 35 (23) 2097-2102
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Osthus H, Cziske R, Jacobi E. Cross-cultural adaptation of a German version of the Oswestry Disability Index and evaluation of its measurement properties. Spine 2006; 31 (14) E448-E453
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Klingler JH, Volz F, Krüger MT. et al. Accidental durotomy in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: frequency, risk factors, and management. ScientificWorldJournal 2015; 2015 (15) 532628-7
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Zander T, Rohlmann A, Klöckner C, Bergmann G. Influence of graded facetectomy and laminectomy on spinal biomechanics. Eur Spine J 2003; 12 (04) 427-434
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Trouillier H, Birkenmaier C, Kluzik J, Kauschke T, Refior HJ. Operative treatment for degenerative lumbar spinal canal stenosis. Acta Orthop Belg 2004; 70 (04) 337-343
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Yeom JS, Kim KH, Hong SW. et al. A minimally invasive technique for L5-S1 intraforaminal disc herniations: microdiscectomy with a tubular retractor via a contralateral approach. J Neurosurg Spine 2008; 8 (02) 193-198
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Reinshagen C, Ruess D, Molcanyi M. et al. A novel translaminar crossover approach for pathologies in the lumbar hidden zone. J Clin Neurosci 2015; 22 (06) 1030-1035
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 James A, Laufer I, Parikh K, Nagineni VV, Saleh TO, Härtl R. Lumbar juxtafacet cyst resection: the facet sparing contralateral minimally invasive surgical approach. J Spinal Disord Tech 2012; 25 (02) E13-E17
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Asher AL, Kerezoudis P, Mummaneni PV. et al. Defining the minimum clinically important difference for grade I degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: insights from the Quality Outcomes Database. Neurosurg Focus 2018; 44 (01) E2
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Kim CW, Schwender JD, Foley K. Minimally invasive posterior approaches to the spine. In: Herkowitz HN, Garfin SR, Eismont FJ, Bell GR, Balderston RA. eds. Rothman-Simeone: The Spine. 6th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders/Elsevier; 2011: 1007-1019
    Google Scholar
  • 24 Shin M-H, Kim J-S, Ryu K-S, Hur J-W. Bilateral decompression via microscopic tubularcrossing laminotomy (MTCL) for lumbar spinal stenosis: technique and early surgical result. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo) 2015; 55 (07) 570-577
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar