Comparing Mean Post-Operative Back Pain Score between Hemilaminectomy and Conventional Laminectomy in Patients of Lumbar Stenosis

  • Taimoor Anwar
  • Muhammad Abdur Rehman
  • Urwa Tanveer Ahmad
  • Ammar Anwer
  • Anum Wahab
  • Qura Tul Ain Tariq Government General Hospital, Ghulam Muhammadabad, Faisalabad
Keywords: Lumbar spinal stenosis, hemilaminectomy, conventional laminectomy, postoperative back pain


Objective:  To observe the comparative mean post-operative back-pain score between hemilaminectomy and conventional laminectomy in patients of lumbar stenosis.

Material and Methods:  The randomized controlled study was carried out in Neurosurgery Unit, Allied Hospital, Faisalabad, Pakistan. A total of 60 patients were distributed equally in two groups. Group A underwent hemilaminectomy while group B underwent conventional laminectomy. A linear median fascial incision was made on the side with more pain or symptoms. Only in the hemilaminectomy group, ipsilateral decompression was performed. It involves partial resection of adjacent parts of the hemi laminae of the superior and inferior vertebrae using operative loupes or neurosurgical microscope. Mean ±SD was calculated for quantitative data including back pain score.

Results:  Mean age was 46.2 ± 6.94 years in hemi group and 46.3 ± 6.74 years in the conventional group. We observed that in hemi group, the back pain score was 2.23 ± 0.73 and it was 2.7 ± 0.65 in the conventional group (p-value was 0.011). Significant differences (p value<0.050) existed in these age ranges with respect to the back pain score in both surgery groups. A significant difference (p value < 0.0001) observed only in male patients between two surgery groups for the back pain scores.

Conclusion:  Mean post-operative back pain score is significantly reduced in hemilaminectomy cases when compared with conventional laminectomy in patients of lumbar stenosis.


Costa F, Sassi M, Cardia A, Ortolina A, De Santis A, Luccarell G, Fornari M: Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: analysis of results in a series of 374 patients treated with unilateral laminotomy for bilateral microdecompression. Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine, 2007; 7 (6): 579-86.
2. Haddadi K, Ganjeh Qazvini HR. Outcome after surgery of lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized comparison of bilateral laminotomy, trumpet laminectomy, and conventional laminectomy. Frontiers in Surgery, 2016; 8 (3): 19.
3. Hu W, Zhao J, Gong C, Zou M, Yuan JH, Liu XY: A comparation of efficacy between unilateral laminectomy approach bilateral decompression and traditional total laminectomy decompression in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. Zhonghuayixuezazhi, 2016; 96 (21): 1673-6.
4. Komp M, Hahn P, Oezdemir S, Giannakopoulos A, Heikenfeld R, Kasch R, Merk H, Godolias G, Ruetten S: Bilateral spinal decompression of lumbar central stenosis with the full-endoscopic interlaminar versus microsurgical laminotomy technique: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Pain Physician, 2015; 8 (1): 61-70.
5. Moisi M, Fisahn C, Tkachenko L, Tubbs RS, Ginat D, Grunert P, Jeyamohan S, Reintjes S, Ajayi O, Page J, Oskouian RJ: Unilateral laminotomy with bilateral spinal canal decompression for lumbar stenosis: a technical note. Cureus, 2015; 8 (5): e623.
6. Munting E, Röder C, Sobottke R, Dietrich D, Aghayev E: Patient outcomes after laminotomy, hemilaminectomy, laminectomy and laminectomy with instrumented fusion for spinal canal stenosis: a propensity score-based study from the Spine Tango registry. European Spine Journal, 2015; 24 (2): 358-68.
7. Rahman M, Summers LE, Richter B, Mimran RI, Jacob RP: Comparison of techniques for decompressive lumbar laminectomy: the minimally invasive versus the “classic” open approach. min-Minimally Invasive Neurosurgery, 2008; 51 (02): 100-5.
8. SHin MH, KiM JS, Ryu KS, HuR JW: Bilateral Decompression via Microscopic Tubular Crossing Laminotomy (MTCL) for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Technique and Early Surgical Result. Neurologia Medico-Chirurgica, 2015; 55 (7): 570-7.
9. Usman M, Ali M, Khanzada K, Ishaq M, Naeem-ul-Haq AR, Ali M: Unilateral approach for bilateral decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis: a minimal invasive surgery. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2013; 23 (12): 852-856.
10. Weiner BK, Walker M, Brower RS, McCulloch JA: Microdecompression for lumbar spinal canal stenosis. Spine, 1999; 24 (21): 2268.
11. Wong AP, Smith ZA, Lall RR, Bresnahan LE, Fessler RG: The microendoscopic decompression of lumbar stenosis: a review of the current literature and clinical results. Minimally Invasive Surgery, 2012; 2012: 325095.
12. Yaman O, Ozdemir N, Dagli AT, Acar E, Dalbayrak S, Temiz C: A comparison of bilateral decompression via unilateral approach and classic laminectomy in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: a retrospective clinical study. Turk Neurosurg. 2015; 25: 239-45.
13. Young S, Veerapen R, O’Laoire SA: Relief of lumbar canal stenosis using multilevel subarticular fenestrations as an alternative to wide laminectomy. Neurosurgery, 1988; 23: 628-633.
14. Zhang L, Miao HX, Wang Y, Chen AF, Zhang T, Liu XG: Limited unilateral decompression and pedicle screw fixation with fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis with unilateral radiculopathy: a retrospective analysis of 25 cases. Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society, 2015; 58 (1): 65
Original Articles