SCIRP Mobile Website
Paper Submission

Why Us? >>

  • - Open Access
  • - Peer-reviewed
  • - Rapid publication
  • - Lifetime hosting
  • - Free indexing service
  • - Free promotion service
  • - More citations
  • - Search engine friendly

Free SCIRP Newsletters>>

Add your e-mail address to receive free newsletters from SCIRP.

 

Contact Us >>

WhatsApp  +86 18163351462(WhatsApp)
   
Paper Publishing WeChat
Book Publishing WeChat
(or Email:book@scirp.org)

Article citations

More>>

Thomé, C., Zevgaridis, D., Leheta, O., Bäzner, H., Pöckler-Schöniger, C., Wöhrle, J. and Schmiedek, P. (2005) Outcome after Less-Invasive Decompression of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Randomized Comparison of Unilateral Laminotomy, Bilateral Laminotomy, and Laminectomy. Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine, 3, 129-141.
https://doi.org/10.3171/spi.2005.3.2.0129

has been cited by the following article:

  • TITLE: Techniques of Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Comparative Study

    AUTHORS: Abdul Salam Abdul Rahman Hawis, Iacob Gabriel

    KEYWORDS: Invasive, Microscopic, Techniques, Surgery, Lumbar Spinal, Stenosis

    JOURNAL NAME: Open Journal of Modern Neurosurgery, Vol.9 No.1, January 30, 2019

    ABSTRACT: Aim: To compare between classic open surgeries and minimally invasive surgeries in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis. Methods: A comparative descriptive study, involved 117 patients suffering from lumbar canal stenosis, aged between 40 - 70 years; admitted to department of Neurosurgery from March 2011 till august 2016 in King Fahad Hospital in Saudi Arabia. Study groups are consisted of group A as patients managed with classical laminectomy, group B as patients managed with endoscopic spinal procedures and group C as patients managed with microscopic decompression facilitated by the Metrex Tubular System. SPSS was used in data entry and analysis, and ethical considerations taken into consideration and participants filled the required inform consents. Results: Age of particaoncet ranged from 45 - 63 years, Mean +/‒ 50. The degenerative canal stenosis with acute disc single level (cauda equina syndrome) was the most common type of lumbar canal stenosis encountered in group A; the unilateral foraminal and lateral recess stenosis without disc prolapse was the most common type of lumbar canal stenosis encountered in group B; while the unilateral foraminal and lateral recess stenosis without disc prolapse was the most common type of lumbar canal stenosis encountered in group C. Classic laminectomy and disectomy used mostly in group A; endoscopic unilateral decompression lamino-foraminotomy without discectomy used mostly in group B and bilateral microscopic laminectomy without discectomy followed by unilateral microscopic laminoforaminotomy without discectomy used mostly in group C. Mean of operation duration was the highest in both gender of group A, followed by group B, then group C. Unintended durotomy was the most common intra operative complications occurred in the whole study especially in group A. Mean of blood lost was the highest in both gender of group A, followed by group B, then group C. Postop complications in the patients of study groups were the highest in group A (33.3%), followed by group B (8.5%) and then group C (2%). Conclusion: Microscopic decompression facilitated by the Metrex Tubular System is the most effective technique of Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis and the least intra-operative and post-operative complications.