i'v had good luck with laminectomies way down in the lumbar spine. they never went back in to fuse them. other areas of my spine however required fusion. i suppose there is always the risk that because the spine becomes unstable a fusion may be necessary. the purpose of the fusion is to lock things in so they don't move around. a laminectomy is a more conservative approach to relieve pressure on the nerves.
it's great that the laminectomy helped for a while. since pain has returned obviously some additional problem has surfaced.
i guess you just have to take the problems as they come and hope for the best.
wishing you good luck with this new one
pete

i'v had good luck with laminectomies way down in the lumbar spine. they never went back in to fuse them. other areas of my spine however required fusion. i suppose there is always the risk that because the spine becomes unstable a fusion may be necessary. the purpose of the fusion is to lock things in so they don't move around. a laminectomy is a more conservative approach to relieve pressure on the nerves.
it's great that the laminectomy helped for a while. since pain has returned obviously some additional problem has surfaced.
i guess you just have to take the problems as they come and hope for the best.
wishing you good luck with this new one
pete

Sometimes it is the end of the problem, but as you have guessed, often further problems develop down the road and the patient needs further treatment. This may or may not include surgery.

With a laminectomy, bone is being removed. If several adjacent levels need to be done, the spine would become too unstable without fusion. So it all depends on where the problem is located and whether it adjoins another "problem" area.

Also, I personally think that if you are prone to back and spine problems, you will probably develop more than one problem as you age. I do know people though who had fusion and that was the end of their problems...at least for now. They feel great, are back to normal activities, sports, etc. and have no complaints. I envy them as this has not been my experience!!

As I'm sure you are aware, none of us who post on the board are medical professionals, so take whatever you read here for what it is -- personal experiences and knowledge learned in that process. Enjoy! There is much to be learned from reading through older threads, and from asking questions. Hope you find some information that you can use!

xx Gwennie

To me, a lami does not fix the original issue of disc bulging or herniation.
(not that a discectomy or fusion is any better or worse)
Removing bone from those lower vertebra doesn't make sense to me.

YMMV

I had a cervical fusion in january 2006. Not long after that i bent over to get clothes out of dryer and herniated 2 discs in my lower back. November 2006 i had the diskectomy done at L3 and L4. Fast forward to January 2009 I started having numbness and tingling in my left arm. After a cardiac stress test, a MRi, 2 x-rays of my cervial spine & a ct myelogram. My orthopedic specialist found a bone spur at C3 on the inside of my vertebra. 6/9/09 had a Cervical Laminectomy. So in regards to your question I was the opposite order for your question. I had the fusion first then the laminectomy.

I have had two complete laminectomies at L4 and L5. This was in 2005. I am not fused and don't expect that it will ever be required. A lot depends on the structural integrity of the spine and the condition of the core muscles.

Please keep in mind that the majority of the folks on Spine Health are those who have continuing issues with chronic pain. Many members come here for support prior to, during and for a while post op, but once they heal and begin to feel better they stop coming here looking for support. So the statistics on this site are generally heavily loaded towards the less than optimal outcome side.

"C"