Comparative study between functional outcome of lumbar canal stenosis treated with surgical decompression by laminectomy and unilateral partial hemi laminectomy approaches


  • K. Ramesh Department of Orthopaedics, Government Dharmapuri Medical College, Dharmapuri, Tamil Nadu
  • G. Vimalan Department of Orthopaedics, Government Dharmapuri Medical College, Dharmapuri, Tamil Nadu



Lumbar canal stenosis, CMD, Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis


Background: Lumbar spinal canal stenosis may eventually cause signs of intermittent neurogenic claudication. The surgical options include procedures such as midline decompression by laminectomy and different kinds of unilateral and bilateral fenestrations and partial or full hemi laminectomies. The aim of the study is to unilateral decompressive approach provides the sufficient decompression; less invasive unilateral procedure, which preserves posterior musculoligamentous complex and bony structures reduce associated morbidity.

Methods: 41 patients underwent preoperative assessment of Japanese orthopaedic association score (JOA Score), Neurogenic claudication outcome scores (NCOS), visual analogy scale for back pain and neurogenic claudication. Patients were randomized to undergo either unilateral decompression by partial hemi laminectomy or CMD (CMD) by laminectomy. 20 patients was randomized into unilateral decompression by partial hemi laminectomy group and 21 patients into CMD (CMD) by laminectomy group.

Results: The mean JOA recovery rate was 50.61% for the unilateral decompression group and 52.12% for the CMD group. Notably, 62% of CMD group had good or excellent outcome while 70% of unilateral decompression group had a good or excellent outcome.

Conclusions: In our study, unilateral decompression by a partial hemi laminectomy provides minimal exposure for decompression in lumbar canal stenosis while preserving musculoligamentous attachments of the posterior elements of the spine and good postoperative results after one year with favorable outcomes of at least 70%. 

Author Biography

K. Ramesh, Department of Orthopaedics, Government Dharmapuri Medical College, Dharmapuri, Tamil Nadu

assistant professor , annamalaiuniversity, chidambaram


Arnoldi CC, Brodsky AE, Choix J, Crock HV, Dommisse GF, Edgar MA, et al. Lumbar spinal stenosis and nerve root entrapment Syndromes. Definition and classification. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1976;(115):4-5.

Cirak B, Alptekin M, Palaoglu S, Ozcan OE, Ozgen T. Surgical therapy for lumbar spinal stenosis: evaluation of 300 cases. Neurosurg Rev. 2001;24:80–2.

Barr JS, Mixter WJ. Intervertebral disc rupture with the involvement of the spinal canal. N Engl J Med. 1934;211:210–5.

Bolender NF, Schonstrom NR. Role of computed tomography and myelography in the diagnosis of central spinal stenosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1985;67:240-6.

Englund J. Lumbar spinal stenosis. Med Rep. 2007;6(1):50-5.

Galiano K. Long term outcome of decompressive laminectomy for lumbar canal stenosis. Spine. 2005;30:332-5.

Tuite GF, Stern JD, Doran SE, Papadopoulos SM, McGillicuddy JE, Oyedijo DI, et al. Outcome after laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis. Part I: clinical correlations. J Neurosurg. 1994;81:699-706.

Iguchi T, Kurihara A, Yamasaki K. Functional outcome of decompressive laminectomy for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine. 2000;;25(14):1754-9.

Kalbarczyk A, Lukes A, Seiler RW. Surgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis in the elderly. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 1998;140:637–41.

Katz IN, Lipson SJ, Brick GW, Grobler LJ, Weinstein JN, Fossel AH, et al. Clinical correlates of patient satisfaction after laminectomy for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine. 1995;20:1155-60.

Stucki G, Dalgar M, Stucki G, Katz NP, Bayley J, Fossel AH, et al. Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: Diagnostic value of the history and physical examination. 1995;38(9):1236–41.

Macnab I, Cuthbert H. The incidence of denervation of the sacrospinalis muscles following spinal surgery. Spine. 1977;69(2):109-13.






Original Research Articles