Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Lumbale Spinalkanalstenose

Lumbar spinal stenosis

  • CME Weiterbildung · Zertifizierte Fortbildung
  • Published:
Der Orthopäde Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Der lumbalen Spinalkanalstenose kommt aufgrund der sich wandelnden Bevölkerungsstruktur und des wachsenden Anspruchs älterer Patienten an die Lebensqualität eine immer größere Bedeutung zu. Die aktuellen Behandlungsempfehlungen basieren weniger auf nachgewiesener Evidenz als auf klinischer Erfahrung, Expertenmeinungen und Einzelstudien. Das radiologische Ausmaß einer Stenose korreliert nicht mit der klinischen Situation der Patienten. Es stellt nicht das Kriterium zur Operation dar, sondern die typische Anamnese und Claudicatio spinalis. Symptomatische Patienten mit leichten bis mittelschweren Beschwerden sollten multimodal konservativ behandelt werden. Epidurale Infiltrationen und entlordosierende Maßnahmen sind sinnvoll, ggf. auch eine medikamentöse Therapie. Bei hochgradigen symptomatischen Stenosen sollte nach erfolglosem konservativem Therapieversuch über 3 Monate eine operative Therapie erfolgen. Hochgradige Paresen oder Kaudasyndrom sind absolute Operationsindikationen. Ziel ist eine optimale Dekompression bei größtmöglichem Erhalt oder Wiederherstellung der Segmentstabilität. Eine Laminektomie ist nicht erforderlich. Bei begleitender degenerativer Spondylolisthese Meyerding Grad I–II oder Hypermobilität in den Funktionsaufnahmen ist zusätzlich zur Dekompression abhängig vom Alter und Aktivitätsgrad des Patienten eine Fusion oder dynamische Stabilisierung anzustreben.

Abstract

Lumbal spinal stenosis is gaining more and more clinical relevance because of changing population structure and increasing demand on lifequality in the elderly. Current treatment recommendations are based on clinical experience, expert opinions and single studies rather than on proven evidence. The radiologic degree of stenosis does not correlate with the patients’ clinical situation. It is not the main factor indicating surgery but rather the typical history and spinal claudication. Symptomatic patients with light to moderate complaints should undergo multimodal conservative treatment. Epidural injections, delordosating physiotherapy and medication are useful. In patients with severe symptomatic stenosis surgery is indicated after a conservative treatment of 3 months. Relevant pareses or a cauda equina syndrome are absolute indications for surgery. The general aim is to decompress sufficiently while maintaining or restoring segmental stability. A laminectomy is not necessarily required. In patients with accompanying degenerative Meyerding grade I–II spondylolisthesis or instability in functional radiographs, fusion or dynamic stabilisation are recommended in addition to decompression, depending on the patient’s age and activity level.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1a–d
Abb. 2a–d
Abb. 3a–c
Abb. 4a–c
Abb. 5
Abb. 6
Abb. 7
Abb. 8
Abb. 9
Abb. 10

Literatur

  1. Adamova B, Vohanka S, Dusek L (2005) Dynamic electrophysiological examination in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: is it useful in clinical practice? Eur Spine J 14: 269–276

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Amundsen T, Weber H, Nordal HJ et al. (2000) Lumbar spinal stenosis: conservative or surgical management? A prospective 10-year study. Spine 25: 1424–1435; discussion 1435–1436

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Atlas SJ, Delitto A (2006) Spinal stenosis: surgical versus nonsurgical treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res 443: 198–207

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Atlas SJ, Deyo RA, Keller RB et al. (1996) The Maine Lumbar Spine Study, Part III. 1-year outcomes of surgical and nonsurgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 21: 1787–1794; discussion 1794–1795

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Atlas SJ, Keller RB, Robson D et al. (2000) Surgical and nonsurgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis: four-year outcomes from the maine lumbar spine study. Spine 25: 556–562

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Atlas SJ, Keller RB, Wu YA et al. (2005) Long-term outcomes of surgical and nonsurgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis: 8 to 10 year results from the maine lumbar spine study. Spine 30: 936–943

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. AWMF-Leitlinien (2005) Leitlinien der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Neurochirurgie „Lumbale Spinalkanalstenose“

  8. Bal S, Celiker R, Palaoglu S, Cila A (2006) F wave studies of neurogenic intermittent claudication in lumbar spinal stenosis. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 85: 135–140

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Benz RJ, Ibrahim ZG, Afshar P, Garfin SR (2001) Predicting complications in elderly patients undergoing lumbar decompression. Clin Orthop Relat Res 384: 116–121

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Boden SD, Davis DO, Dina TS et al. (1990) Abnormal magnetic-resonance scans of the lumbar spine in asymptomatic subjects. A prospective investigation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 72: 403–408

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Cahill P, Bell GR, Ghanayem AJ (2004) Lumbar spinal stenosis, Part I and II. Cont Spine Surg 5: 56–68

    Google Scholar 

  12. Chang Y, Singer DE, Wu YA et al. (2005) The effect of surgical and nonsurgical treatment on longitudinal outcomes of lumbar spinal stenosis over 10 years. J Am Geriatr Soc 53: 785–792

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Chosa E, Sekimoto T, Kubo S, Tajima N (2005) Evaluation of circulatory compromise in the leg in lumbar spinal canal stenosis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 431: 129–133

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Christie SD, Song JK, Fessler RG (2005) Dynamic interspinous process technology. Spine 30: S73–78

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Danielson B, Willen J (2001) Axially loaded magnetic resonance image of the lumbar spine in asymptomatic individuals. Spine 26: 2601–2606

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Delank KS, Eysel P, Zollner J et al. (2002) Undercutting decompression versus laminectomy. Clinical and radiological results of a prospective controlled trial. Orthopade 31: 1048–1056; discussion 1057

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Deyo RA (1996) Drug therapy for back pain. Which drugs help which patients? Spine 21: 2840–2849; discussion 2849–2850

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Loeser JD et al. (1992) Morbidity and mortality in association with operations on the lumbar spine. The influence of age, diagnosis, and procedure. J Bone Joint Surg Am 74: 536–543

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Deyo RA, Ciol MA, Cherkin DC et al. (1993) Lumbar spinal fusion. A cohort study of complications, reoperations, and resource use in the Medicare population. Spine 18: 1463–1470

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. DiMaio S, Marmor E, Albrecht S, Mohr G (2005) Ligamentum flavum cysts causing incapacitating lumbar spinal stenosis. Can J Neurol Sci 32: 237–242

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Dvorak J, Grob D (2004) Epidural injections. What is certain?. Orthopade 33: 591–593

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Feldmann PH, Wittenberg RH (2003) Surgical treatment of spinal stenosis. Orthopade 32: 877–888

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Fogel GR, Cunningham PY 3rd, Esses SI (2005) Spinal epidural lipomatosis: case reports, literature review and meta-analysis. Spine J 5: 202–211

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Fokter SK, Yerby SA (2005) Patient-based outcomes for the operative treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Eur Spine J 21: 1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Fukusaki M, Kobayashi I, Hara T, Sumikawa K (1998) Symptoms of spinal stenosis do not improve after epidural steroid injection. Clin J Pain 14: 148–151

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Galiano K, Obwegeser AA, Gabl MV et al. (2005) Long-term outcome of laminectomy for spinal stenosis in octogenarians. Spine 30: 332–335

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Gelalis ID, Stafilas KS, Korompilias AV et al. (2006) Decompressive surgery for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: long-term results. Int Orthop 30: 59–63

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Gibson JN, Waddell G (2005) Surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylosis: updated Cochrane Review. Spine 30: 2312–2320

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Grob D, Benini A, Junge A, Mannion AF (2005) Clinical experience with the Dynesys semirigid fixation system for the lumbar spine: surgical and patient-oriented outcome in 50 cases after an average of 2 years. Spine 30: 324–331

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Haba K, Ikeda M, Soma M, Yamashima T (2005) Bilateral decompression of multilevel lumbar spinal stenosis through a unilateral approach. J Clin Neurosci 12: 169–171

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Haig AJ, Tong HC, Yamakawa KS et al. (2005) The sensitivity and specificity of electrodiagnostic testing for the clinical syndrome of lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 30: 2667–2676

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Herno A, Airaksinen O, Saari T, Luukkonen M (1996) Lumbar spinal stenosis: a matched-pair study of operated and non-operated patients. Br J Neurosurg 10: 461–465

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Herno A, Saari T, Suomalainen O, Airaksinen O (1999) The degree of decompressive relief and its relation to clinical outcome in patients undergoing surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 24:1010–1014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Ikuta K, Arima J, Tanaka T et al. (2005) Short-term results of microendoscopic posterior decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis. Technical note. J Neurosurg Spine 2: 624–633

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Jansson KA, Nemeth G, Granath F, Blomqvist P (2005) Spinal stenosis re-operation rate in Sweden is 11% at 10 years – a national analysis of 9,664 operations. Eur Spine J 14: 659–663

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Johnsson KE (1995) Lumbar spinal stenosis. A retrospective study of 163 cases in southern Sweden. Acta Orthop Scand 66: 403–405

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Johnsson KE, Rosen I, Uden A (1992) The natural course of lumbar spinal stenosis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 279: 82–86

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Jonsson B, Annertz M, Sjoberg C, Stromqvist B (1997) A prospective and consecutive study of surgically treated lumbar spinal stenosis. Part II: Five-year follow-up by an independent observer. Spine 22: 2938–2944

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Katz JN, Stucki G, Lipson SJ et al. (1999) Predictors of surgical outcome in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 24: 2229–2233

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Kawaguchi Y, Kanamori M, Ishihara H et al. (2005) Clinical and radiographic results of expansive lumbar laminoplasty in patients with spinal stenosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87 [Suppl 1]: 292–299

  41. Kawaguchi Y, Oya T, Abe Y et al. (2005) Spinal stenosis due to ossified lumbar lesions. J Neurosurg Spine 3: 262–270

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Kleeman TJ, Hiscoe AC, Berg EE (2000) Patient outcomes after minimally destabilizing lumbar stenosis decompression: the „Port-Hole“ technique. Spine 25: 865–870

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Kobayashi S, Baba H, Uchida K et al. (2005) Blood circulation of cauda equina and nerve root. Clin Calcium 15: 63–72

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Kobayashi S, Kokubo Y, Uchida K et al. (2005) Effect of lumbar nerve root compression on primary sensory neurons and their central branches: changes in the nociceptive neuropeptides substance P and somatostatin. Spine 30: 276–282

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Kobayashi S, Uchida K, Takeno K et al. (2006) Imaging of cauda equina edema in lumbar canal stenosis by using gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging: experimental constriction injury. Am J Neuroradiol 27: 346–353

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Kornblum MB, Fischgrund JS, Herkowitz HN et al. (2004) Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis: a prospective long-term study comparing fusion and pseudarthrosis. Spine 29: 726–733; discussion 733–734

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Lee CK, Rauschning W, Glenn W (1988) Lateral lumbar spinal canal stenosis: classification, pathologic anatomy and surgical decompression. Spine 13: 313–320

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Lurie JD, Birkmeyer NJ, Weinstein JN (2003) Rates of advanced spinal imaging and spine surgery. Spine 28: 616–620

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Mackay DC, Wheelwright EF (1998) Unilateral fenestration in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. Br J Neurosurg 12: 556–558

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Mardjetko SM, Connolly PJ, Shott S (1994) Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. A meta-analysis of literature 1970–1993. Spine 19: 2256S–2265S

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Matsudaira K, Yamazaki T, Seichi A et al. (2005) Spinal stenosis in grade I degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a comparative study of outcomes following laminoplasty and laminectomy with instrumented spinal fusion. J Orthop Sci 10: 270–276

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Matsumoto T, Yoshida M, Yamada H et al. (2001) Lumbar canal stenosis caused by hypertrophy of the posterior longitudinal ligament: case report. Spine 26: E576–579

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Mayer HM, List J, Korge A, Wiechert K (2003) Microsurgery of acquired degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Bilateral over-the-top decompression through unilateral approach. Orthopade 32: 889–895

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Moon ES, Kim HS, Park JO et al. (2005) Comparison of the predictive value of myelography, computed tomography and MRI on the treadmill test in lumbar spinal stenosis. Yonsei Med J 46: 806–811

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Murphy DR, Hurwitz EL, Gregory AA, Clary R (2006) A non-surgical approach to the management of lumbar spinal stenosis: a prospective observational cohort study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 7: 16

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Nelemans PJ, deBie RA, deVet HC, Sturmans F (2001) Injection therapy for subacute and chronic benign low back pain. Spine 26: 501–515

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Ng L, Chaudhary N, Sell P (2005) The efficacy of corticosteroids in periradicular infiltration for chronic radicular pain: a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial. Spine 30: 857–862

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Ng LC, Tafazal S, Sell P (2006) The effect of duration of symptoms on standard outcome measures in the surgical treatment of spinal stenosis. Eur Spine J, Epub ahead of print

  59. Pahl MA, Brislin B, Boden S et al. (2006) The impact of four common lumbar spine diagnoses upon overall health status. Spine J 6: 125–130

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Park JB, Lee JK, Park SJ, Riew KD (2005) Hypertrophy of ligamentum flavum in lumbar spinal stenosis associated with increased proteinase inhibitor concentration. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87: 2750–2757

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Penning L, Wilmink JT (1987) Posture-dependent bilateral compression of L4 or L5 nerve roots in facet hypertrophy. A dynamic CT-myelographic study. Spine 12: 488–500

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Podichetty VK, Segal AM, Lieber M, Mazanec DJ (2004) Effectiveness of salmon calcitonin nasal spray in the treatment of lumbar canal stenosis: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel group trial. Spine 29: 2343–2349

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Porter RW (1996) Spinal stenosis and neurogenic claudication. Spine 21: 2046–2052

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Postacchini F (1999) Surgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 24: 1043–1047

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Postacchini F, Cinotti G (1992) Bone regrowth after surgical decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 74: 862–869

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Postacchini F, Cinotti G, Perugia D, Gumina S (1993) The surgical treatment of central lumbar stenosis. Multiple laminotomy compared with total laminectomy. J Bone Joint Surg Br 75: 386–392

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Resnick DK, Choudhri TF, Dailey AT et al. (2005) Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 9: fusion in patients with stenosis and spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine 2: 679–685

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Resnick DK, Choudhri TF, Dailey AT et al. (2005) Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 10: fusion following decompression in patients with stenosis without spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine 2: 686–691

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Richards JC, Majumdar S, Lindsey DP et al. (2005) The treatment mechanism of an interspinous process implant for lumbar neurogenic intermittent claudication. Spine 30: 744–749

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Sairyo K, Biyani A, Goel V et al. (2005) Pathomechanism of ligamentum flavum hypertrophy: a multidisciplinary investigation based on clinical, biomechanical, histologic, and biologic assessments. Spine 30: 2649–2656

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Schnake KJ, Schaeren S, Jeanneret B (2006) Dynamic stabilization in addition to decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis. Spine 31: 442–449

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Siddiqui M, Nicol M, Karadimas E et al. (2005) The positional magnetic resonance imaging changes in the lumbar spine following insertion of a novel interspinous process distraction device. Spine 30: 2677–2682

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Simotas AC (2001) Nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 25(2): 153–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Singh K, Samartzis D, Vaccaro AR et al. (2005) Congenital lumbar spinal stenosis: a prospective, control-matched, cohort radiographic analysis. Spine J 5: 615–622

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Sinikallio S, Aalto T, Airaksinen O et al. (2006) Depression and associated factors in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Disabil Rehabil 28: 415–422

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Sinikallio S, Aalto T, Airaksinen O et al. (2006) Somatic comorbidity and younger age are associated with life dissatisfaction among patients with lumbar spinal stenosis before surgical treatment. Eur Spine J, Epub ahead of print

  77. Spetzger U, Bertalanffy H, Reinges MH, Gilsbach JM (1997) Unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis. Part II: Clinical experiences. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 139: 397–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Takahashi K, Kagechika K, Takino T et al. (1995) Changes in epidural pressure during walking in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 20: 2746–2749

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Takahashi K, Miyazaki T, Takino T et al. (1995) Epidural pressure measurements. Relationship between epidural pressure and posture in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 20: 650–653

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Tender GC, Baratta RV, Voorhies RM (2005) Unilateral removal of pars interarticularis. J Neurosurg Spine 2: 279–288

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Tender GC, Kutz S, Baratta R, Voorhies RM (2005) Unilateral progressive alterations in the lumbar spine: a biomechanical study. J Neurosurg Spine 2: 298–302

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Thome C, Zevgaridis D, Leheta O et al. (2005) Outcome after less-invasive decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized comparison of unilateral laminotomy, bilateral laminotomy, and laminectomy. J Neurosurg Spine 3: 129–141

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Toyone T, Tanaka T, Kato D et al. (2005) Patients‘ expectations and satisfaction in lumbar spine surgery. Spine 30: 2689–2694

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Tubbs RS, Oakes WJ (2005) An unusual presentation of achondroplasia. Case report. J Neurosurg 103: 170–171

    Google Scholar 

  85. van Tulder M, Becker A, Bekkering T et al. (2006) Chapter 3 European guidelines for the management of acute nonspecific low back pain in primary care. Eur Spine J 15: s169–s191

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. van Tulder MW, Koes B, Malmivaara A (2006) Outcome of non-invasive treatment modalities on back pain: an evidence-based review. Eur Spine J 15 [Suppl 1]: S64–81

  87. van Tulder MW, Koes B, Seitsalo S, Malmivaara A (2006) Outcome of invasive treatment modalities on back pain and sciatica: an evidence-based review. Eur Spine J 15 [Suppl 1]: S82–92

  88. Vo AN, Kamen LB, Shih VC et al. (2005) Rehabilitation of orthopedic and rheumatologic disorders. 5. Lumbar spinal stenosis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 86: S69–76

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Weiner BK, Walker M, Brower RS, McCulloch JA (1999) Microdecompression for lumbar spinal canal stenosis. Spine 24: 2268–2272

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Wunschmann BW, Sigl T, Ewert T et al. (2003) Physical therapy to treat spinal stenosis. Orthopade 32: 865–868

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Yayama T, Baba H, Furusawa N et al. (2005) Pathogenesis of calcium crystal deposition in the ligamentum flavum correlates with lumbar spinal canal stenosis. Clin Exp Rheumatol 23: 637–643

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Zucherman JF, Hsu KY, Hartjen CA et al. (2005) A multicenter, prospective, randomized trial evaluating the X STOP interspinous process decompression system for the treatment of neurogenic intermittent claudication: two-year follow-up results. Spine 30: 1351–1358

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Interessenkonflikt

Es besteht kein Interessenkonflikt. Der korrespondierende Autor versichert, dass keine Verbindungen mit einer Firma, deren Produkt in dem Artikel genannt ist, oder einer Firma, die ein Konkurrenzprodukt vertreibt, bestehen. Die Präsentation des Themas ist unabhängig und die Darstellung der Inhalte produktneutral.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Klinik und Poliklinik für Allgemeine Orthopädie, Universitätsklinikum Münster, Albert-Schweitzer-Straße 33, 48149 , Münster

    T. L. Schulte, V. Bullmann, T. Lerner, M. Schneider, B. Marquardt, U. Liljenqvist & L. Hackenberg

  2. Neurochirurgische Klinik, Klinikum Ingolstadt

    T. A. Pietilä

Authors
  1. T. L. Schulte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. V. Bullmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. T. Lerner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M. Schneider
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. B. Marquardt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. U. Liljenqvist
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. T. A. Pietilä
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. L. Hackenberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to T. L. Schulte.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schulte, T.L., Bullmann, V., Lerner, T. et al. Lumbale Spinalkanalstenose. Orthopäde 35, 675–694 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-006-0971-5

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-006-0971-5

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation