Clinical and Radiological Results of Microsurgical Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Decompression without Posterior Instrumentation for Lateral Recess Stenosis.
- Author:
Mehmet DEMIRAYAK
1
;
Lokman SISMAN
;
Faik TURKMEN
;
Duran EFE
;
Oguzhan PEKINCE
;
Recep Gani GONCU
;
Cem SEVER
Author Information
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords: Microsurgical; Lateral recess stenosis; Posterior lumbar interbody fusion; Without posterior instrumentation; Cage migration
- MeSH: Constriction, Pathologic*; Decompression*; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Length of Stay; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Male; Microsurgery; Neurologic Manifestations; Operative Time; Pseudarthrosis; Retrospective Studies; Transplants
- From:Asian Spine Journal 2015;9(5):713-720
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
- Abstract: STUDY DESIGN: A single-center, retrospective patient review of clinical and radiological outcomes of microsurgical posterior lumbar interbody fusion and decompression, without posterior instrumentation, for the treatment of lateral recess stenosis. PURPOSE: This study documented the clinical and radiological results of microsurgical posterior lumbar interbody fusion and decompression of the lateral recess using interbody cages without posterior instrumentation for the treatment of lateral recess stenosis. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Although microsurgery has some advantages, various complications have been reported following microsurgical decompression, including cage migration, pseudoarthrosis, neurologic deficits, and persistent pain. METHODS: A total of 34 patients (13 men, 21 women), with a mean age of 56.65+/-9.1 years (range, 40-77 years) confirmed spinal stability, and preoperative radiological findings of lateral recess stenosis, were included in the study. Interbody polyetheretherketone cages and auto grafts were used in all patients. Posterior instrumentation was not used because of limited resection of the posterior lumbar structures. Preoperative and postoperative radiographs, computed tomography scans, and magnetic resonance imaging were assessed and compared to images taken at the final follow-up. Functional recovery was also evaluated according to the Macnab criteria at the final follow-up. RESULTS: The average follow-up time was 35.05+/-8.65 months (range, 24-46 months). The clinical results, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, and duration of hospital stay were similar to previously published results; the fusion rate (85.2%) was decreased and the migration rate (5.8%) was increased, compared with prior reports. CONCLUSIONS: Although microsurgery has some advantages, migration and pseudoarthrosis remain challenges to achieving adequate lumbar interbody fusion.
