The Effectiveness and Safety of Selective Lumbar Decompression in Diagnostic Doubt Patients: A Retrospective Control Study.

Background: Our previous study demonstrated that selective nerve root block (SNRB) can influence decision-making in lumbar surgery by guiding the selection of nerve roots targeted for decompression in diagnostic doubt patients (DDPs). However, further studies were needed to determine whether this selective decompression (SD) procedure would result in similar clinical outcomes and reduce the perioperative parameters and postoperative complications as compared to the non-selective decompression (NSD) procedure.

Objective: The specific goal of this study is to compare clinical outcomes, perioperative parameters, and complications between SD and NSD procedures in DDPs.

Study Design: A retrospective control study.

Setting: Gaozhou People's Hospital.

Methods: From January 2009 to January 2011, 57 lumbar surgery patients with diagnostic doubt were retrospectively reviewed. Basic patient parameters, as well as perioperative and postoperative data were compared between the selective and non-selective decompression groups. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using the visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores, and JOA recovery rates.

Results: Both groups showed significant improvement in VAS, ODI, and JOA scores between preoperative and postoperative measurements. The differences in VAS and ODI scores between groups were not significant at 3 and 60 months postoperatively (both P > 0.05). In addition, there was no significant difference in JOA recovery rate (P = 0.659) and survival rate (P = 0.586) during the 60 months following surgery. However, distinctly superior perioperative parameters (operation time and hospital stay, blood loss and drainage volume, laminectomy numbers, and fusion segment numbers) were observed in the SD group (P < 0.001 for each score). Moreover, the SD-treated group experienced significantly fewer adverse events postoperatively (P = 0.036).

Limitations: The limitations of this study lie in the size of the study and selection of patients and in the fact that it was not feasible to include all cases of diagnostic doubt.

Conclusions: On the basis of the 5-year follow-up data, we suggest that the SD procedure guided by SNRB is an effective and safe method for the surgical treatment of DDPs. This procedure produces superior perioperative parameters when compared with the conventional NSD procedure, but has a comparable clinical outcome. Moreover, the benefits of SD surgery include fewer perioperative and postoperative complications.