Study design:

Observational cohort study.

Objective:

To investigate whether preservation of the midline structures is associated with a better clinical outcome compared to classic central decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).

Summary of background data:

The classic surgical procedure for LSS is a central, facet joint sparing decompressive laminectomy (LE). Alternative approaches have been developed to preserve the midline structures. The effect of the alternative techniques compared to LE remains unclear.

Methods:

All patients > 50 years of age who underwent decompression surgery for LSS without concomitant fusion in the National Swedish Spine Registry (Swespine) from December 31, 2015 until October 6, 2017 were included in this study based on surgeon-reported data and patient questionnaires before and 2 years postoperatively. Propensity score matching was used to compare decompression with preservation of midline structures with patients who underwent LE. The primary outcome was the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and secondary outcomes were the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) for leg and back pain, EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), Global Assessment (GA), patient satisfaction and rate of subsequent surgery.

Results:

Some 3,339 patients completed a 2-year follow-up. Of these, 2,974 (89%) had decompression with LE and 365 underwent midline preserving surgery. Baseline scores were comparable between the groups. Mean ODI improvement at follow-up was 16.6 (SD=20.0) in the LE group and 16.9 (SD = 20.2) in the midline preserving surgery group. In the propensity score-matched analysis the difference in improved ODI was 0.53 (95% confidence interval, CI -1.71 to 2.76; p = 0.64). The proportion of patients who showed a decreased ODI score of at least our defined minimal clinically important difference (=8) was 68.3% after LE and 67.0% after preserving the midline structures (p = 0.73). No significant differences were found in the improvement of NRS for leg and back pain, EQ-5D, GA or patient satisfaction. The rate of subsequent surgery was 5.5% after LE and 4.9% after midline preserving surgery without a significant difference in the propensity score-matched analysis (hazard ratio, HR 0.87; 95% CI 0.49 to 1.54; p = 0.64).

Conclusion:

In this study on decompression techniques for LSS there was no benefit in preserving the midline structures compared to LE 2 years after decompression. The conclusion is that the surgeon is free to choose the surgical method that is thought most suitable for the patient and the condition with which the patient presents.Level of Evidence: 3.