LinkedInXFacebook
Subscribe
Orthopedics This Week
  • My Feed
  • |Posts
  • |Events
  • |MSK Innovations
  • |Power Rankings
  • |Masterclasses
  • |Technology Awards
  • Press Releases
  • |Advertising
  • |Job Board
  • Spine
  • ◆Joints
  • ◆Upper Extremities
  • ◆Foot & Ankle
  • ◆Sports Medicine
  • ◆Pain Mgmt
  • ◆Trauma
  • ◆Biologics
  • ◆Technology
  • ◆People
  • ◆Company News
  • ◆Legal & Regulatory
Home/Spine/Benefit to Preserving Midline Structure in Lumbar Decompression?
Spine

Benefit to Preserving Midline Structure in Lumbar Decompression?

May 4, 2022 2 min read Premium comments

Advertisement

Secondary#lumbarspinalstenosis#decompressiontechniques

A new study has concluded that there is NO benefit to preserving the midline structures for lumbar spinal stenosis—at least as compared to classic central decompression.

The study, “No Benefit with Preservation of Midline Structures in Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis,” was published in the April 2022 issue of the journal Spine.

“The classic surgical procedure for lumbar spinal stenosis is a central, facet joint sparing decompressive laminectomy. Alternative approaches have been developed to preserve the midline structures,” the study authors wrote.

The analysis included patients over the age of 50 years who underwent decompression surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis in the National Swedish Spine Registry from December 31, 2015, until October 6, 2017. The data was culled from surgeon reports and patient questionnaires before surgery and at two-years postop.

The primary outcome was the Oswestry Disability Index and secondary outcomes were the Numeric Rating Scale for leg and back pain, EuroQol-5 Dimensions, Global Assessment, patient satisfaction and rate of subsequent surgery.

Overall, the research team collected data for 2,974 patients who were treated with decompression laminectomy and 365 patients who had midline preserving surgery.

The researchers found that baseline scores were comparable between the groups. The mean improvement in Oswestry Disability Index Score at follow-up was 16.6 in the laminectomy group and 16.9 in the midline preserving surgery group.

The difference in improved Oswestry Disability score was 0.53 (95% confidence interval, CI -1.71 to 2.76; p = 0.64). The researchers calculated that 68.3% of the patients showed a decreases score of at least the defined minimal clinically importance difference after laminectomy and 67% did after preserving the midline structures (p = 0.73).

Advertisement

They also reported no significant differences in the improvement of Numeric Rating Scale for leg and back pain, EuroQol-5 Dimensions, Global Assessment or patient satisfaction. Additional surgeries were required for 5.5% of the laminectomy patients and 4.09% of the midline preserving surgery patients.

“In this study on decompression techniques for lumbar spinal stenosis, there was no benefit in preserving the midline structures compared to laminectomy 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,” the study authors concluded.

The study authors include Erik Elmqvist, M.D., of Visby Hospital, Visby, Sweden, and Lars Lindhagen and Peter Försth, M.D., Ph.D., both from Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.

React:

Discussion

14
DS
Dr. Sarah MitchellOrthopedic Surgeon · Mayo Clinic

This is a fascinating development. In my practice we've seen similar outcomes with the revised protocol. The key differentiator seems to be patient selection criteria. Has anyone else noticed the correlation with BMI thresholds?

8
JT
James Thornton, MDSpine Fellow · HSS

Great point. I'd push back slightly on the conclusion, the sample size in the cited study is too small to draw population-level inferences. That said, the directional signal is compelling and worth a larger RCT.

5
RP
R. PatelSports Medicine · Stanford

We implemented a similar approach last year. Early results are promising but we're still gathering 12-month follow-up data. Happy to share our protocol if anyone is interested.

Join the conversation

Orthopedic professionals are discussing this. Sign in and upgrade to read every comment and add your voice.

Subscribe

Get Full Access

Read every OTW article and join member discussions for $24.99/month.

Get Full Access

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Orthopedics This Week

The most trusted source in orthopedic industry news since 2005. Covering spine, joints, trauma, biologics, and the business of orthopedics.

A publication of RRY Publications, LLC

LinkedInXFacebook

Categories

  • Spine
  • Joints
  • Upper Extremities
  • Foot & Ankle
  • Sports Medicine
  • Pain Mgmt
  • Trauma
  • Biologics
  • Technology
  • People
  • Company News
  • Legal & Regulatory

Resources

  • Subscribe
  • Community Posts
  • Job Board
  • Press Release Opportunities
  • Power Rankings
  • About OTW
  • Advertise
  • Contact Us

Get Full Access

Unlimited articles, community posts, and Power Rankings.

Get Full Access

Plans start at $24.99/mo · Annual saves 20%

© 2026 Orthopedics This Week · RRY Publications, LLC

Privacy PolicyTerms of ServiceCookie Policy