Spine · 1999
Microdecompression for lumbar spinal canal stenosis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Weiner B K, Walker M, Brower R S, McCulloch J A
Аннотация
STUDY DESIGN: A description of the technique for lumbar microdecompression and a prospective study of the outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: To describe and analyze a technique that affords an excellent decompression while minimizing damage to surrounding tissues.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Commonly used techniques of lumbar decompression that include bilateral takedown of paraspinal musculature and aggressive bony resection can result in significant iatrogenic sequelae. A less destructive alternative is needed.
METHODS: Unilateral limited takedown of multifidus was undertaken, and ipsilateral decompression performed. The contralateral side then was addressed under the midline structures with microscopic visualization--thereby preserving the supra-/interspinous ligament complex and the contralateral musculature. Thirty consecutive patients undergoing the procedure were analyzed prospectively and after a follow-up period by independent observers using a modified validated functional outcome score and patient satisfaction measures.
RESULTS: The technique affords an excellent decompression while minimizing destruction to tissues not directly involved in the pathologic process. Functional outcome scores doubled, and 87% of patients reported high satisfaction rates.
CONCLUSIONS: Lumbar microdecompression is a minimally invasive technique that appears to provide excellent functional outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: To describe and analyze a technique that affords an excellent decompression while minimizing damage to surrounding tissues.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Commonly used techniques of lumbar decompression that include bilateral takedown of paraspinal musculature and aggressive bony resection can result in significant iatrogenic sequelae. A less destructive alternative is needed.
METHODS: Unilateral limited takedown of multifidus was undertaken, and ipsilateral decompression performed. The contralateral side then was addressed under the midline structures with microscopic visualization--thereby preserving the supra-/interspinous ligament complex and the contralateral musculature. Thirty consecutive patients undergoing the procedure were analyzed prospectively and after a follow-up period by independent observers using a modified validated functional outcome score and patient satisfaction measures.
RESULTS: The technique affords an excellent decompression while minimizing destruction to tissues not directly involved in the pathologic process. Functional outcome scores doubled, and 87% of patients reported high satisfaction rates.
CONCLUSIONS: Lumbar microdecompression is a minimally invasive technique that appears to provide excellent functional outcomes.