Abstract:Objective:To assess the clinical application value of tranforaminal unilateral approach for bilateral decompression by comparing the short-term effectiveness of bilateral decompression via unilateral approach of intervertebral foramen with via small surgical incision of bilateral spinous process in lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis.Methods:Between July 2014 and June 2015, 48 patients with lumbar spinal stenosis underwent decompression and internal fixation by unilateral approach in 24 cases (trial group) and by bilateral small incision approach in 24 cases (control group). There was no significant difference in gender, age, disease duration, disease type, involved segment, combined medical diseases, preoperative level of creatine phosphokinase (CPK), the visual analogue scale (VAS), and Oswestry disability index (ODI) between 2 groups ( P>0.05). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage, hospitalization time, and the incidence of complications were recorded. The CPK levels were evaluated at 1, 3, and 7 days after operation. VAS score and ODI were used to evaluate the effectiveness, and lumbar X-ray film or CT scanning to determine the intervertebral bony fusion.Results:There was no significant difference in operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and hospitalization time between 2 groups ( P>0.05), but significant difference was found in postoperative drainage ( t=5.547, P=0.000). At 1 day after operation, the level of CPK in the trial group was significantly lower than that in the control group ( t=3.129, P=0.005), but there was no significant difference at 3 and 7 days after operation between 2 groups ( P>0.05). The patients were followed up 12-24 months (mean, 17 months). All the wounds healed primarily. Heart failure occurred in 1 case of the trial group, and cerebrospinal fluid leakage and pulmonary infection, and nerve root injury occurred in 1 case of the control group respectively. There was no significant difference in the incidence of complications between 2 groups ( χ2=0.273, P=0.602). The interbody fusion rate was 95.8% (23/24) in the trial group and was 91.7% (22/24) in the control group, showing no significant difference ( χ2=0.356, P=0.551). No cage sink, dislocation or plate and screw loosening and breakage was found in 2 groups. No adjacent segment degeneration occurred during the follow-up, and there was no change of scoliosis and lumbar sagittal curvature. At 3, 6, and 12 months after operation, the VAS score and ODI were significantly improved when compared with the preoperative scores in 2 groups ( P<0.05), and the VAS score and ODI of the trial group were significantly better than those of control group ( P<0.05).Conclusion:The bilateral decompression via unilateral approach of intervertebral foramen and small surgical incision of bilateral spinous process in lumbar interbody fusion have satisfactory efficacy for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis, but the tranforaminal unilateral approach has the advantages of less trauma, avoidance of bilateral muscle stripping and soft paraspinal muscle injury, retention of posterior spinal structure, faster postoperative recovery, shorter hospital stay and good short-term effectiveness.

Decompression Alone Can Improve The Symptoms Of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis. A Large Sample Meta-Analysis

Decompression with fusion is not in superiority to decompression alone in lumbar stenosis based on randomized controlled trials: A PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis.

Short-term Effectiveness of Transforaminal Unilateral Approach for Bilateral Decompression in Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

Decompression with Fusion is Not Superior to Decompression Alone in Lumbar Short-Segment Stenosis Based on Randomized Controlled Trials: Meta-Analysis

Decompression alone or fusion in single-level lumbar spinal stenosis with spondylolisthesis? A systematic review and meta analysis

Decompression plus fusion versus decompression alone for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Decompression alone or decompression with fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis: five-year clinical results from a randomized clinical trial

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion for severe lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized controlled trial with 1-year follow-up

Does Simultaneous Fusion of Preexisting Spinal Canal Stenosis Adjacent to Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis Achieve a Better Clinical Outcome? A Retrospective Study with More than 5-year Follow-Up

Is Indirect Decompression and Fusion More Effective than Direct Decompression and Fusion for Treating Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis With Instability? A Systematic Review and meta-Analysis

The Indirect Decompression Effect of Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion in the Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Stenosis

Evaluation of Effectiveness of Treatment Strategies for Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Clinical Studies

Individualized Decompression Strategy for Lumbar Spinal Canal Stenosis

The role of tumor necrosis factor (cachectin) in cachexia

Full-endoscopic versus microscopic spinal decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review & meta-analysis

Long-term outcome and associated factors of lumbar decompression, internal fixation and fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis

Does the Number of Levels of Decompression Have an Impact on the Clinical Outcomes of Patients With Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: A Retrospective Study in Single-Level Fused Patients

Lumbar Decompression with and without Fusion for Lumbar Stenosis with Spondylolisthesis

Which is the most effective treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis: Decompression, fusion, or interspinous process device? A Bayesian network meta-analysis

Splenic influence of T cell function: the immunobiology of the inbred hereditarily asplenic mouse.

Selected Decompression and Fusion for Lumbar Canal Stenosis Associated with Degenerative Scoliosis