39: Lumbar Internal Laminectomy

Published on 21/04/2015 by admin

Filed under Surgery

Last modified 22/04/2025

Print this page

rate 1 star rate 2 star rate 3 star rate 4 star rate 5 star
Your rating: none, Average: 0 (0 votes)

This article have been viewed 1474 times

Procedure 39 Lumbar Internal Laminectomy

image

Procedure

Step 2

image A laminotomy is subsequently performed on the ipsilateral side, with the ipsilateral cephalad lamina partially removed using a high-speed drill and Kerrison rongeurs. The resection of the cephalad lamina should be extended until the insertion of the ligamentum flavum and the dura are visible. This may be performed in a “trumpeted” fashion to preserve as much of the lamina as possible by angling the microscope. The ligamentum flavum is exposed.

image The mesial inferior facet is drilled so that the superior articular facet can be visualized. Figure 39-1 is a postlaminotomy intraoperative photograph that shows removal of the mesial surface of the inferior facet. Note the exposed superior articular facet.

image The ligamentum flavum is then elevated using curettes and dissectors. A curette is used to release the ligamentum flavum, first medially (Figure 39-2, A), then laterally (Figure 39-2, B). Note that the curette stays in the plane between the bone and the ligamentum.

image The ligamentum flavum is subsequently resected. The ligamentum flavum is elevated with a dental tool (Figure 39-3, A) and then resected with a Kerrison rongeur (Figure 39-3, B). The microscope is then angled toward the ipsilateral facet and subarticular zone.

image After entering the spinal canal, the first structure to be identified should be the pedicle. The pedicle serves as a reference point for the decompression and orients the surgeon both in terms of locating the foramen and locating neural structures. Descending nerve roots are always medial to the pedicle.

Step 4

image Attention is then turned toward the contralateral side.

image The microscope is angled toward the opposite side, and the patient can also be tilted contralaterally to allow visualization underneath the deepest portion of the interspinous ligament.

image The base of the spinous process, as well as the deepest portion of the interspinous ligament, is then undercut with the drill, taking care to avoid detaching the spinous process. The base of the spinous process must be adequately undercut to achieve sufficient contralateral visualization. In many cases, the “wishbone” portion of the cephalad and caudal lamina, that is, the junction of the lamina with the spinous process, must be resected. A high-speed burr is used to undercut the spinous process and drill the undersurface of the contralateral lamina (Figure 39-5).

image Once the contralateral ligamentum flavum can be visualized adequately, a dissector is used to confirm that the anterior surface of the ligamentum flavum is free from the underlying dura. A curette is used to separate dura from ligamentum flavum (Figure 39-6).

image The ligamentum flavum can then be removed using Kerrison rongeurs and curettes. Figure 39-7, A is an illustration showing contralateral ligamentum flavum being removed with Kerrison rongeurs. In Figure 39-7, B, the contralateral ligamentum flavum is being resected under the operating microscope.

image A malleable retractor or a Penfield dissector may be placed underneath the spinous process to protect the underlying dura and neural elements during decompression (Figure 39-8).

image Finally, the decompression is completed by undercutting of the contralateral medial facet using Kerrison rongeurs until a probe can be passed freely into the foramen. Figure 39-9 shows decompression of the contralateral lateral recess and foramen with a Kerrison. Figure 39-10 shows use of a dental tool (also known as a hockey stick) dissector to assess adequacy of contralateral and lateral recess decompression.

Evidence

Adams M, Hutton W, Stott J. The resistance to flexion of the lumbar intervertebral joint. Spine. 1980;5:245-253.

Oertel M, Ryang Y, Korinth M, et al. Long-term results of microsurgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis by unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression. Neurosurgery. 2006;59:1264-1269.

This study presented long-term results after unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression. In a series of 102 patients available for long-term follow-up (mean, 5.6 years), 92.2% of the patients remained improved. Repeat surgery for restenosis was necessary in 7 patients and for spinal instability in 2 patients.

Orpen N, Corner J, Shetty R, et al. Micro-decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: the early outcome using a modified surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010;92:550-554.

There was an overall success rate of 87.9% using this technique among 374 patients, with an overall complication rate of 2.41%. The authors experienced five cases of unintentional durotomies. In addition, they observed a 0.8% rate of postoperative instability, as documented on flexion/extension studies.

Spetzger U, Bertalanffy H, Reinges M, et al. Unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis. Part II: clinical experiences. Acta Neurochirugica. 1997;139:397-403.

This series included 29 patients who underwent a bilateral decompression through a unilateral laminotomy. Twenty-five patients were followed up after a mean period of 18 months. Of these patients, 88% reported having excellent or good overall postoperative outcomes, and 80% reported complete resolution or improved low back pain. Neurogenic claudication improved in all patients. An inadvertent dural tear occurred in one patient. Morphometric studies showed an increase in the cross-sectional area of the dural sac, as well as increase in the interfacet diameter after surgery. In those patients with preoperative degenerative spondylolisthesis, no further deterioration occurred during the follow-up period.

Weiner B, Walker M, Brower R, McCulloch JA. Microdecompression for lumbar spinal canal stenosis. Spine. 1999;24:2268-2272.

This is an excellent technical article on this technique. Outcomes were reported on 30 patients, with 26 patients having good to excellent outcomes.