Talk:Laminotomy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comment

• The reference item "Surgical Procedures > Spinal" (http://www.tylerneuro.com/lumbar_hemilaminectomy.htm) is no longer a valid link, the page does not exist on the web server referenced. This should be updated to a current source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CraSH (talk • contribs) 07:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Student BIOL3501 Group 6 Bibliography (draft)

1) The surgical treatment of central lumbar stenosis. Multiple laminotomy compared with total laminectomy [1]

2)Laminotomy in adults: technique and results [2]

3) The Effect of Bilateral Laminotomy Versus Laminectomy on the Motion and Stiffness of the Human Lumbar Spine [3]

4)Use of lumbar laminoplasty vs. laminotomy for transection of the filum terminale does not affect early complication rates or postoperative course [4]

5) Patient outcomes for a minimally invasive approach to treat lumbar spinal canal stenosis: Is microendoscopic or microscopic decompressive laminotomy the less invasive surgery? [5]

6) Effectiveness of posterior decompression techniques compared with conventional laminectomy for lumbar stenosis [6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awaldera18 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Student Updated Laminotomy page for class project

Three other student editors and myself are updating the laminotomy page by adding new content that is all sourced to expand on the information that is on the pre-existing page. This page is written for a class project with our goal being to create a page that included the anatomy, types of laminotomies, procedure, advantages, disadvantages, radiographic imaging, and alternative minimally invasive procedures. The existing material was kept on this page, but just moved around to fit along with our content. Our group welcomes any feedback or constructive criticism on this talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feeny95 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Student Secondary Review

Overall great article guys! Lots of detail which I liked a lot and I liked how you choose to section off everything. One thing: I'm not sure if you guys edited this part of the article, but the "Reasons for performing a laminotomy" section has a lot of grammatical errors and run-on sentences. If you can, I would re-read over that section. -Alex H — Preceding unsigned comment added by MU golden eagle (talk • contribs) 13:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Student Secondary Review

Anatomy overview: (pleural: vertebrae) Change to plural*. Procedure: Last paragraph has a couple of “(5)”s that you must have meant to be footnote citations. Looks like a lot of detail and information for such a limited time, good work!9230isaact (talk) 21:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Student Secondary Review

The lead paragraph is very informative, however, some of the sentences are very long and you may want to consider breaking them up. An editor on my own page said that each paragraph should have a reference at the end of it, so watch for this as a few paragraphs do not have a reference listed at the end or at all. The article overall is quite interesting and well done. I found it interesting how the different types of the laminotomies are defined by the instrument type. Braun4135 (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)Braun4135

Student Secondary Review

The summary paragraph is descriptive and simple enough for the average reader. The topic is explained well and I really liked the pictures your group chose. Overall, great article but the only suggestion I have is that you may want to reread over your article a couple of times just to see if you would like to reword certain parts or make certain sentences shorter. HarshPatel1 (talk) 23:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC) Harsh P.

Student Secondary Review

Overall, this is a well-written article. It is easy to read and understand. I suggest adding links to MRI and CT scans in the lead paragraph in order for readers to learn more about these topics. Under Procedure, add a link to ligament flava. In this same section do not use “patients” maybe say individuals or persons. Under endoscopic spine surgery move the reference to the end of the first sentence, because references should not be in the middle of a sentence. As mentioned by other reviewers reread your article to fix grammatical errors. The figures provided are very helpful in understanding the anatomy as I was reading through the article. MMstudentMU (talk) 01:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Student- secondary review

Overall, this is a great article with lots of detailed but very interesting information. I really enjoyed the format as well, having clear and distinctive sections. On the other hand, I noticed in the last section (when comparing with laminectomy), there are some grammatical errors with sentence formatting and such which should be addressed. Also, additional images in some of the sections would also help make the article even better. Aside from that, this article is informative and was a great read, good job! →Batmed 095 (talk) 03:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)Batmed095

Student Primary Review

Overall, it is a very detailed and informative article, but there are a few suggestions. Besides that I would recommend capitalizing the first letter of each word of your titles.

Summary Paragraph

• This paragraph is very concise and touches every aspect that is talked about in the rest of the page. Everything is well explained and there are not grammatical errors.

Anatomy Overview

• Well written, but I suggest breaking this section into paragraphs so that it doesn't look long. Great choice on the illustration.

Types

• This section is very informative and shows how complex this surgery can be.
• I suggest to bullet point each type to help the reader have an easier time reading becasue the majority of the article has long paragraphs.
• I also suggest explaining if all the types have different procedures or if there are only two distinct procedures? It was a little confusing when I moved on to the procedure section because it was not clear which types performed which procedure.

Procedure

• This section is very informative, but it needs to be broken down too.
• I suggest explaining what types of laminotomies fall under the unilateral or bilateral procedures.
• Also I suggest splitting the first paragraph after the sentence that ends with (71 minutes for unilateral laminotomy and 83 minutes for bilateral laminotomy).
• Also the following sentence (after 71 minutes for unilateral laminotomy and 83 minutes for bilateral laminotomy ) explicitly say which (unilateral or bilateral procedure you are referring to because it is vague.
• I also suggest having a paragraph for only bilateral procedure then another paragraph for the unilateral procedure.
• The last paragraph of this section was not cited properly because you still have the (5) instead of the footnote.

Reason for Perfoming a Laminotomy

• Overall, good paragraph, but there are some grammatical errors you should revisit. I like that the symptoms are talked about and how it affects a person's life.
• Are there any other diseases that might use of this surgery? Herniated lumbar discs?
• Revisit the second to last sentence of this section.
• Don't use the term patients use the term people
• Talk about lumbar ligamentum flavum and facet hypertrophy as you do in the CT scan section and explain what they are and how they are detected through the scan.

Benefits

• Overall, the paragraph does a good job at explaining the benefits of this surgery.
• Explain why it is cost efficient?
• Is physical therapy required after the surgery? Does it take long to recover compared to other procedures?
• Specify what procedures you are comparing this laminotomy with. Are you comparing it only to laminectomy or are there other types?

Risks and Potential Complications

• I suggest placing the laminotomy vs.laminectomy after this section because it looks random being at the end.
• I suggest giving a sentence explanation of what each of the risks are.

Radiographic Imaging

• The MRI paragraph is well written and explains how it works and its role with laminotomy
• CT paragraph is well written. It is very informative and goes deeper into what is seen in the scan for spinal stenosis. (apply some of this in the section that talks about spinal stenosis)

Alternative minimally Invasive Procedures

• I think this section is good to go.
• I would suggest adding an illustration with all three procedures to visualize how they are different.

Laminotomy vs. Laminectomy

• I like this paragraph because you compare and contrast them as well as explain a little of the history behind it.
• I would suggest explaining why in laminectomy more tissue is being removed versus in laminotomy.
• Add an illustration that shows the differences between them.

I checked the first resource listed under footnotes and it is a secondary resource. --BCBF13 (talk) 00:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Response Thank you for taking the time to review our article so thoroughly. We found you comments incredibly helpful and we used many of your suggestions. We also appreciate that you provided a lot of positive feedback. Here are a few comments on your suggestions:

• We initially capitalized each word of our section headings but in Ian’s review he told us that section headers should use sentence case (i.e. capitalizing only proper nouns and the first word of each title) Bulleted list item
• We did break the anatomy section into smaller paragraphs to make it easier to read
• We changes the types section to bullet points instead of paragraph form. We also added some sentences to the procedure section to hopefully reduce confusion about how the procedures differ for the different types of laminotomies.
• The procedure section has been broken into smaller paragraphs and the citations have been fixed.
• We rewrote the reasons paragraph to have fewer grammatical errors and explain the disorders more thoroughly
• We wanted to keep this section shorter and more simple because the reasons for having a laminotomy vary widely. Therefore we did not elaborate on the ligamentum flavum and facet hypertrophy
• We did move the laminotomy v laminectomy section per your suggestion
• more detail was added to the laminotomy v laminectomy section
• we could not find pictures that we could legally use to clearly show the difference between laminotomy and laminectomy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.48.5.68 (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Student Primary Review

• •Summary - Solid. Good use of links to other pages. Good job using layman’s terms.
• •The Anatomy - Well written. Good use of images. I did get a little lost and had to reread some sections but that is to be expected.
• •Types of Laminotomies - I agree with the other peer reviewer to make these into bullet points. It would be cool too if you possibly found images of the microscopes or such to give the reader a more visual understanding. Otherwise, solid paragraph and concise information.
• •Procedure - Seems to be some grammar or missing citations in the second paragraph. Looks well cited and good job explaining some medical terms that could confuse a lay person or a non-medical person.
• •Reasons - I would reword this sentence -> “This contributes to a great amount of pain and discomfort to patients because there is a narrowing of the canal or tightening and because of this the spinal cord and the surrounding nerves pressed tightly against one another.” This paragraph has good content but seems a little wordy. Good job citing.
• •Benefits - Because this is pretty much a list of information I wonder if it would be beneficial to bullet point? Maybe, go into a little more depth on some points. How much does it tyoically cost? Is it more often covered by insurance than other procedures?
• •Risks and potential complications - Explain what these risks are because I have no idea what a dural tear is.
• •Radiographic imaging - Well written. You go into strong detail. I would just rearrange them into best to worst imaging or vice versa. Another recommendation would be to add images for the other two scans if you can find them.
• •Alternative minimally invasive procedures - Well written. Solid citation use. I agree with the other peer reviewer to add images if you can.
• •Source Check - I looked at the 5th source and it is all good! Secondary source and works well in your article--T.thompson19 (talk) 23:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Response Thank you for your feedback. Here are some comments about how we responded to your review:

• Thank you for understanding that the anatomy information will be a little difficult to follow because of the nature of the topic.
• We did make the types section into a bullet point list. We also added pictures of a surgical microscope and an endoscope per your suggestion. Good call!
• We reworded the reasons section to make it more clear and concise
• We added more detail to the benefits and risks section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.48.5.68 (talk) 21:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Student Primary Review

Your group’s article covers a very interesting and important topic. Overall, your group’s article was well done. In referring to the “Six Points” of what makes a good Wiki article, I found that your group’s article is decently written, and is verifiable with no original research. Furthermore, I found that your group’s article was very broad in its coverage, which was essential for this topic given the wealth of information is available on the subject. Your group’s article also took a neutral position, was stable, and had very useful illustrations. I also reviewed your group’s second listed source, and it checks out as a proper secondary source. It's utilized well in your group's article and is sources correctly. From what I read, your group used all the necessary information form this source in your group's article.

Before continuing on with more specific review remarks, I would like to mention two broad, overarching concepts that I think your group should go over. One: after reading the other reviews on your article, I noticed that most of them discuss some grammatical errors existing within the text. I found this to be the case as well. I would highly recommend reviewing the article multiple times for these errors and possibly rewriting certain sentences. Two: make sure that the tenses within individual paragraphs (and also within context of the entire article) are the same. This would really strengthen your groups writing and make the entire article flow.

Specific Article Comments:

Summary- This section does a great job of providing a basic outline of the topic. One comment I had about it was its length. It might be a bit long, and contain some aspects that are either explained later or that could be explained later. I think it would be wise to shorten/condense this section, as it would strengthen your article as a whole. Also, on a grammatical note, the second to last sentence doesn’t seem right. I think if you add a “though” after “even,” the sentence would flow much better.

Anatomy Overview-This second was solid. I loved the illustration. You could break it up, but I think it is okay the way it is.

Types-This second section was also well done, however, your group needs to add a source in one of the middle sentences.

"Procedure-This section was also well written, but again, your group needs to correctly site some of the sources.

Reasons for performing a laminotomy-This section was solid for the most part, however the fourth sentence from the bottom isn’t quite right. I would recommend rewriting it. Also, in the “Benefits” section, the fifth sentence needs some commas to help break up the sentence structure, and make it easier to read.

Radiographic imaging- The first two sub-sections in this article are well done. The CT section, however, could use some touch-ups. First off, in the fourth sentence from the top, the word “change” should be switched to “changes.” Furthermore, there is a lot of information in this section that is fluff. I think the section would sound much stronger if some of the extra information was condensed or removed. The information on the L3 linkage, while important, could be shortened or added elsewhere. The last paragraph could also either be condensed or added into another section.

Alternative minimally invasive procedures-This section looks pretty well done. I would recommend adding more detail under the endoscopic spine surgery section. More specifically, I would include what the procedure is and how it is preformed. Also, if possible, it would be really beneficial for your article if you could add images/diagrams of these surgeries. I think it would really be beneficial for the average individual.

Laminotomy vs. Laminectomy- This last section should definitely be moved up as other reviewers have also mentioned. Also, this paragraph contains several grammatical errors. Honestly, I would recommend rewriting this paragraph all together. This section is essential for your article, and it is necessary for it to be strong. Thus, I think your best course would be to simply rewrite it. Gloryrunner13 (talk) 02:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)Gloryrunner13

Response Thank you for taking your time while reviewing our article! Here are some comments about how we responded to your review:

• We wrote out lead section to make it more concise
• We broke up the anatomy section to make the paragraphs shorter
• We added the source in the types and procedure section
• We edited the reasons for performing a laminotomy section to make it flow better
• Edited the benefits section in order to flow better
• We moved the laminotomy vs laminectomy section and re-wrote it to make it flow better
• Edited the radiographic imaging and alternative minimally invasive procedures to make, but there were no pictures we could find to add to these sections Feeny95 (talk) 05:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Primary review

Introduction: This section was well written and very informative, giving information about the importance of this not so common surgery for humans. The picture included helps visualize in detail how the surgery is done. The second paragraph starts with “This was originally performed as a hemilaminectomy’’, can you be more specific? What do you mean by this? The third paragraph starts with “This procedure has many benefits such as being less invasive and a faster recovery time”, maybe change the last part to: and because of (state reasons) it provides a faster recovery time. Anatomy: This section is short and written in a simple way, easy for anyone with a non-science background to understand it. You can add more links that would benefit the readers. Types: Since are different types (cervical, thoracic, and lumbar) maybe you can add more subtopic inside this section and divide them up. Or, you can change the format (use bullet points) so that it is more clear. One of the sentences ends with “(source)”, so add the reference missing. Procedure: This section contains two paragraphs that are very extensive, so try to break them down. Also, some of the sentences have no relation one to another which makes it really difficult to follow. Pictures would be really helpful in this section because of the not so common terminology used. Good job on explaining the different type of procedures for the unilateral laminotomy. The source (number 6) was read and all of the information was correctly used. Reasons: Add more links and I recommend starting this paragraph with another sentence instead of introducing right away lumbar stenosis. Benefits: “The laminotomy procedure has many benefits as to why it is a preferred spinal surgery.” Why it is a preferred spinal surgery? Give more details behind this reason and also include a reference for this sentence. Risks and complications: Concise paragraph that informs of some of the risks of this procedure. Change “surgery” to “surgical” so that the sentence makes more sense. Imaging: X-Rays: Since you are comparing a CT scan to X-rays, this paragraph should go after you have discussed the properties and the relevance of CT scans to laminotomy. MRI: This paragraph is very well-written but some links are missing. CT Scans: Again, I believe that you should start this section with this paragraph. Procedures: Stating the differences between invasive and minimally invasive spinal surgeries was very helpful. Also, dividing this section into three further subtopics was a good idea. Laminotomy vs. Laminectomy: Since you talk about laminectomy in the previous section, you should move this paragraph. Also, add more links. In the last sentence you talk about some invasive methods that are more safe. Explain this in further detail. References The references are wrong formatted.

0475ramosk (talk) 04:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)Katherine Ramos Delgado

Response: Thank you for taking the time to review our article! Here are some ways we responded to your comments:

• We wrote the introduction paragraph to be more concise and clear
• Edited the types and procedure sections
• Edited the reasons for performing a laminotomy, benefits, and risks and complications to make them clearer and expanded on some things
• Changed the location of the laminotomy vs laminectomy and rewrote it to make it clearer and concise
• We looked at our reference formatting Feeny95 (talk) 05:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Long-term effectiveness

The laminectomy article addresses long-term effectiveness, a critical consideration for those attempting to decide between the two procedures; so, it would be useful if the long-term benefits and prospects of recurrence for a laminotomy were presented here as well.

2600:1702:701:21A0:8C0E:E473:E6DC:859B (talk) 11:15, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Possible Mistake

I think there is a mistake in this article. In the second paragraph of the "Procedure" section, it says "During a laminotomy, the individual lays supine, or lying on their stomach with their back facing up towards the physician.". I think either "supine" should be replaced with "prone" or "lying on their stomach with their back facing up" should be replaced with "lying on their back with their stomach facing up". Nobel lebon (talk) 03:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

yep, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 03:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Awaldera18, Feeny95, Cwall511, Crnogorac15.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)