A Comparative Analysis of Laminectomy and Laminotomy for Lumbar Disc Prolapse Patients
Authors/Creators
- 1. Assistant Professor, Department of Orthopaedics, K.I.M.S. & P.B.M. Hospital, Odisha, India
- 2. Assistant Professor, Department of Orthopaedics, K.I.M.S Medical College, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India
- 3. Assistant Professor, Department of Orthopaedics, S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack, Odisha, India
- 4. Assistant Professor, Department of Orthopaedics, K.I.M.S., Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India
- 5. Associate Professor, Department of Orthopaedics, S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack, Odisha, India
- 6. Assistant Professor, Department of Physiology, K.I.M.S Medical College, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India
Description
Background: Lumbar disc prolapse is a common spinal condition that often requires surgical intervention for symptom relief. Two primary surgical approaches, laminectomy and laminotomy, are employed to address this condition. This study aims to comprehensively evaluate and compare the clinical outcomes, postoperative complications, and long-term benefits associated with these two surgical procedures, providing valuable insights into the optimal choice of surgical intervention. Methods: A retrospective comparative analysis design was utilized in this study. A total of 70 participants meeting strict inclusion criteria were included. Various variables were considered, including the surgical approach (laminectomy or laminotomy), clinical outcomes, complications, length of hospital stay, and long-term follow-up data. The surgical procedures were meticulously documented, encompassing patient positioning, anaesthesia, disc prolapse removal, and any additional interventions. Postoperative care was administered, and statistical analysis involved both descriptive and inferential statistics. Result: Analysis of the seventy patients revealed that both laminectomy and laminotomy yielded significant improvements in pain relief, functional recovery, and neurological outcomes. Importantly, there were no statistically significant differences between the two surgical approaches in terms of clinical outcomes and complication rates. The demographic analysis demonstrated well-matched patient populations. Postoperative complications were comparable, and hospital stay durations did not significantly differ between the groups. Conclusion: This study provides robust evidence that both laminectomy and laminotomy are effective surgical options for managing lumbar disc prolapse, offering comparable clinical outcomes and postoperative complication rates. The choice between these procedures should consider individual patient characteristics and surgeon expertise. Recommendations: Based on the findings, it is recommended that clinicians and surgeons carefully assess patient-specific factors and preferences when selecting the surgical approach for lumbar disc prolapse management. Additionally, further prospective studies with larger sample sizes should be conducted to validate and expand upon these results.
Abstract (English)
Background: Lumbar disc prolapse is a common spinal condition that often requires surgical intervention for symptom relief. Two primary surgical approaches, laminectomy and laminotomy, are employed to address this condition. This study aims to comprehensively evaluate and compare the clinical outcomes, postoperative complications, and long-term benefits associated with these two surgical procedures, providing valuable insights into the optimal choice of surgical intervention. Methods: A retrospective comparative analysis design was utilized in this study. A total of 70 participants meeting strict inclusion criteria were included. Various variables were considered, including the surgical approach (laminectomy or laminotomy), clinical outcomes, complications, length of hospital stay, and long-term follow-up data. The surgical procedures were meticulously documented, encompassing patient positioning, anaesthesia, disc prolapse removal, and any additional interventions. Postoperative care was administered, and statistical analysis involved both descriptive and inferential statistics. Result: Analysis of the seventy patients revealed that both laminectomy and laminotomy yielded significant improvements in pain relief, functional recovery, and neurological outcomes. Importantly, there were no statistically significant differences between the two surgical approaches in terms of clinical outcomes and complication rates. The demographic analysis demonstrated well-matched patient populations. Postoperative complications were comparable, and hospital stay durations did not significantly differ between the groups. Conclusion: This study provides robust evidence that both laminectomy and laminotomy are effective surgical options for managing lumbar disc prolapse, offering comparable clinical outcomes and postoperative complication rates. The choice between these procedures should consider individual patient characteristics and surgeon expertise. Recommendations: Based on the findings, it is recommended that clinicians and surgeons carefully assess patient-specific factors and preferences when selecting the surgical approach for lumbar disc prolapse management. Additionally, further prospective studies with larger sample sizes should be conducted to validate and expand upon these results.
Files
IJPCR,Vol16,Issue2,Article25.pdf
Files
(290.8 kB)
| Name | Size | Download all |
|---|---|---|
|
md5:6e8fc2e45054ba2c03f615a952adfe46
|
290.8 kB | Preview Download |
Additional details
Dates
- Accepted
-
2024-01-18
Software
- Repository URL
- https://impactfactor.org/PDF/IJPCR/16/IJPCR,Vol16,Issue2,Article25.pdf
- Development Status
- Active
References
- 1. Schroeder GD, Guyre CA, Vaccaro AR. The epidemiology and pathophysiology of lumbar disc herniations. InSeminars in Spine Surgery 2016 Mar 1; 28(1): 2-7. WB Saunders. 2. Phan K, Mobbs RJ. Minimally invasive versus open laminectomy for lumbar stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine. 2016 Jan 1;41(2): E91-100. 3. Lurie JD, Tosteson TD, Tosteson A, Abdu WA, Zhao W, Morgan TS, Weinstein JN.Long-term outcomes of lumbar spinal stenosis: eight-year results of the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT). Spine. 2015 Jan 1;40(2):63. 4. Thomé C, Zevgaridis D, Leheta O, Bäzner H, Pöckler-Schöniger C, Wöhrle J, Schmiedek P. Outcome after less-invasive decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized comparison of unilateral laminotomy, bilateral laminotomy, and laminectomy. Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine. 2005 Aug 1;3(2):129-41. 5. Alimi M, Hofstetter CP, Pyo SY, Paulo D, Härtl R. Minimally invasive laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis in patients with and without preoperative spondylolisthesis: clinical outcome and reoperation rates. Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine. 2015 Apr 1;22(4):339-52. 6. Pietrantonio A, Trungu S, Famà I, Forcato S, Miscusi M, Raco A. Long-term clinical outcomes after bilateral laminotomy or total laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis: a singleinstitution experience. Neurosurg Focus. 2019 May 1;46(5): E2. 7. Kim JH, Kwon YJ. Long-term Clinical and Radiological Outcomes after Central Decompressive Laminoplasty for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis. Korean J Spine. 2017 Sep;14(3):71-76. 8. MK A, SI K, SR J, MZH K, MH H. Limited Discectomy for single level lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective study in a tertiary level hospital. Bangladesh Journal of Medical Science. 2022 Jan 1;21(1). 9. Ahmad S, Shaan ZH, Jilani L, Faizan M, Asif N, Abbas M. Treatment of lumbar disc prolapse by Interlaminar Fenestration Technique. J Bone Joint Dis. 2019; 34:3-7. 10. Nie H, Hao J, Peng C, Ou Y, Quan Z, An H. Clinical outcomes of discectomy in octogenarian patients with lumbar disc herniation. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2013 Apr;26(2):74-8.