Journal Article

Minimally invasive decompression versus open laminectomy for central stenosis of the lumbar spine: pragmatic comparative effectiveness study

Nerland, Ulf S, Gulati, Sasha, Jakola, Asgeir S, Solberg, Tore K, Salvesen, Øyvind, Solheim, Ole, Nygaard, Øystein P, Carlsen, Sven M, Weber, Clemens, Lønne, Greger, Rao, Vidar

2015

Overview

Objective To test the equivalence for clinical effectiveness between microdecompression and laminectomy in patients with central lumbar spinal stenosis.Design Multicentre observational study.Setting Prospective data from the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery.Participants 885 patients with central stenosis of the lumbar spine who underwent surgery at 34 Norwegian orthopaedic or neurosurgical departments. Patients were treated from October 2006 to December 2011.Interventions Laminectomy and microdecompression.Main outcome measures The primary outcome was change in Oswestry disability index score one year after surgery. Secondary endpoints were quality of life (EuroQol EQ-5D), perioperative complications, and duration of surgical procedures and hospital stays. A blinded biostatistician performed predefined statistical analyses in unmatched and propensity matched cohorts.Results The study was powered to detect a difference between the groups of eight points on the Oswestry disability index at one year. 721 patients (81%) completed the one year follow-up. Equivalence between microdecompression and laminectomy was shown for the Oswestry disability index (difference 1.3 points, 95% confidence interval −1.36 to 3.92, P<0.001 for equivalence). Equivalence was confirmed in the propensity matched cohort and full information regression analyses. No difference was found between groups in quality of life (EQ-5D) one year after surgery. The number of patients with complications was higher in the laminectomy group (15.0% v 9.8%, P=0.018), but after propensity matching for complications the groups did not differ (P=0.23). The duration of surgery for single level decompression was shorter in the microdecompression group (difference 11.2 minutes, 95% confidence interval 4.9 to 17.5, P<0.001), but after propensity matching the groups did not differ (P=0.15). Patients in the microdecompression group had shorter hospital stays, both for single level decompression (difference 1.5 days, 95% confidence interval 1.7 to 2.6, P<0.001) and two level decompression (0.8 days, 1.0 to 2.2, P=0.003).Conclusion At one year the effectiveness of microdecompression is equivalent to laminectomy in the surgical treatment of central stenosis of the lumbar spine. Favourable outcomes were observed at one year in both treatment groups.Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02006901.

• Publisher: British Medical Journal Publishing Group,BMJ Publishing Group LTD,BMJ Publishing Group Ltd
• Subject: Adult / Aged / Aged, 80 and over / Back surgery / Comparative Effectiveness Research / Decompression, Surgical - methods / Disability Evaluation / Disease / Female / Humans / Laminectomy / Lumbar Vertebrae - surgery / Male / Middle Aged / Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures - methods / Models, Statistical / Older people / Patients / Propensity Score / Prospective Studies / Quality of Life / Quantitative psychology / Questionnaires / Registries / Spinal stenosis / Spinal Stenosis - surgery / Surgeons / Treatment Outcome