Percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis in the elderly

Transforaminal Endoscopic Lumbar Foraminotomy for the Treatment of L5-S1 Isthmic Lumbar Spondylolisthesis with Foraminal Stenosis: A 1-Year Follow-Up

BACKGROUND

Isthmic lumbar spondylolisthesis (ILS) is a prevalent spinal pathology. Radicular pain in patients is often attributed to L5-S1 ILS combined with foraminal stenosis (FS), making such patients prime candidates for surgical intervention. We herein aimed to elucidate the surgical technique and clinical outcomes of transforaminal endoscopic lumbar foraminotomy (TELF) in the treatment of L5-S1 ILS with FS.

METHODS

From September 2021 to December 2022, 20 consecutive patients were diagnosed with L5-S1 ILS with FS and underwent TELF. All patients were followed up for at least 12 months. The clinical outcomes were evaluated using the visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index, and modified MacNab criteria.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 62.4 ± 10.9 years. The mean preoperative VAS score for low back, VAS score of the leg, and Oswestry Disability Index score was 5.1 ± 1.7, 7.4 ± 0.7, and 58.0 ± 8.4, respectively. These scores significantly improved to 1.8 ± 0.7, 1.5 ± 0.6, and 15.3 ± 7.1 at 12 months postoperatively, respectively (P < 0.01). Evaluation based on the modified MacNab criteria revealed that 95.0% of patients achieved a good-to-excellent outcome. One patient underwent revision surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

TELF emerges as a potentially safe and effective surgical option for alleviating radicular pain in patients with L5-S1 stable ILS combined with FS. While our short-term clinical results are satisfactory, it is necessary to expand the sample size and extend the follow-up time to validate the effectiveness and long-term efficacy of TELF.

Comparative clinical efficacy of percutaneous coaxial large-channel endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a retrospective study

This study aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of percutaneous coaxial large-channel endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (PCLE-LIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. The clinical data of patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis who underwent PCLE-LIF (experimental group) and TLIF (control group) surgery from September 2019 to September 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. We collected clinical data and compared the two groups in terms of perioperative parameters, treatment response rate, inflammatory response markers, postoperative complications, postoperative pain, and functional recovery. The results showed that the treatment outcomes in the experimental group were significantly better than those in the control group. Specifically, perioperative parameters and inflammatory response markers in the experimental group were significantly better than those in the control group, with statistically significant differences (P < 0.05). The overall treatment response rate in the experimental group was significantly higher than that in the control group (P < 0.05). Meanwhile, the incidence of postoperative complications in the experimental group was lower than that in the control group, postoperative VAS pain scores and ODI functional scores were lower, and postoperative JOA functional scores were higher than those in the control group, with statistically significant differences (P < 0.05). In conclusion, PCLE-LIF appears to be a promising technique with better clinical outcomes in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.

Comparative study of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar decompression and traditional revision surgery in the treatment of symptomatic adjacent segment degeneration

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to evaluate and compare the surgical outcomes and complications of Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Decompression (PELD) and traditional revision surgery in treating symptomatic Adjacent Segment Degeneration (ASD). This comparison aims to delineate the advantages and disadvantages of these methods, assisting spine surgeons in making informed surgical decisions.

METHODS

66 patients with symptomatic ASD who failed conservative treatment for more than 1 month and received repeated lumbar surgery were retrospectively collected in the study from January 2015 to November 2018, with the average age of 65.86 ± 11.04 years old. According to the type of surgery they received, all the patients were divided in 2 groups, including 32 patients replaced the prior rod in Group A and 34 patients received PELD at the adjacent level in Group B. Patients were followed up routinely and received clinical and radiological evaluation at 3, 6, 12 months and yearly postoperatively. Complications and hospital costs were recorded through chart reviews.

RESULTS

The majority of patients experienced positive surgical outcomes. However, three cases encountered complications. Notably, Group B patients demonstrated superior pain relief and improved postoperative functional scores throughout the follow-up period, alongside reduced hospital costs (P < 0.05). Additionally, significant reductions in average operative time, blood loss, and hospital stay were observed in Group B (P < 0.05). Notwithstanding these benefits, three patients in Group B experienced disc re-herniation and underwent subsequent revision surgeries.

CONCLUSIONS

While PELD offers several advantages over traditional revision surgery, such as reduced operative time, blood loss, and hospital stay, it also presents a higher likelihood of requiring subsequent revision surgeries. Future studies involving a larger cohort and extended follow-up periods are essential to fully assess the relative benefits and drawbacks of these surgical approaches for ASD.

Percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic decompression with removal of the posterosuperior region underneath the slipping vertebral body for lumbar spinal stenosis with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic decompression (PTED) is an ideal minimally invasive decompression technique for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS). The posterosuperior region underneath the slipping vertebral body (PRSVB) formed by DLS is an important factor exacerbating LSS in patients. Therefore, the necessity of removing the PRSVB during ventral decompression remains to be discussed. This study aimed to describe the procedure of PTED combined with the removal of the PRSVB and to evaluate the clinical outcomes.

METHODS

LSS with DLS was diagnosed in 44 consecutive patients at our institution from January 2019 to July 2021, and they underwent PTED combined with the removal of the PRSVB. All patients were followed up for at least 12 months. The clinical outcomes were evaluated using the visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and modified MacNab criteria.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 69.5 ± 7.1 years. The mean preoperative ODI score, VAS score of the low back, and VAS score of the leg were 68.3 ± 10.8, 5.8 ± 1.0, and 7.7 ± 1.1, respectively, which improved to 18.8 ± 5.0, 1.4 ± 0.8, and 1.6 ± 0.7, respectively, at 12 months postoperatively. The proportion of patients presenting "good" and "excellent" ratings according to the modified MacNab criteria was 93.2%. The percent slippage in spondylolisthesis preoperatively (16.0% ± 3.3%) and at the end of follow-up (15.8% ± 3.3%) did not differ significantly (p>0.05). One patient had a dural tear, and one patient had postoperative dysesthesia.

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing the removal of PRSVB during the PTED process may be a beneficial surgical procedure for alleviating clinical symptoms in patients with LSS and DLS. However, long-term follow-up is needed to study clinical effects.

Complications and Management of Endoscopic Spinal Surgery

In the past, the use of endoscopic spine surgery was limited to intervertebral discectomy; however, it has recently become possible to treat various spinal degenerative diseases, such as spinal stenosis and foraminal stenosis, and the treatment range has also expanded from the lumbar spine to the cervical and thoracic regions. However, as endoscopic spine surgery develops and its indications widen, more diverse and advanced surgical techniques are being introduced, and the complications of endoscopic spine surgery are also increasing accordingly. We searched the PubMed/MEDLINE databases to identify articles on endoscopic spinal surgery, and key words were set as “endoscopic spinal surgery,” “endoscopic cervical foramoinotomy,” “PECD,” “percutaneous transforaminal discectomy,” “percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy,” “PELD,” “PETD,” “PEID,” “YESS” and “TESSYS.” We analyzed the evidence level and classified the prescribed complications according to the literature. Endoscopic lumbar surgery was divided into full endoscopic interlaminar and transforaminal approaches and a unilateral biportal approach. We performed a comprehensive review of available literature on complications of endoscopic spinal surgery. This study particularly focused on the prevention of complications. Regardless of the surgical methods, the most common complications related to endoscopic spinal surgery include dural tears and perioperative hematoma. transient dysesthesia, nerve root injury and recurrence. However, Endoscopic spinal surgery, including full endoscopic transforaminal and interlaminar and unilateral biportal approaches, is a safe and effective a treatment for lumbar as well as cervical and thoracic spinal diseases such as disc herniation, lumbar spinal stenosis, foraminal stenosis and recurrent disc herniation.

Comparison of 270-degree percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic decompression under local anesthesia and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of geriatric lateral recess stenosis associated with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis

PURPOSE

Various lumbar decompression techniques have been used for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS). Few studies have compared the clinical efficacy of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic decompression (PTED) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) in the treatment of lateral recess stenosis associated with DLS (LRS-DLS) in geriatric patients. The objective of the study was to compare the safety and short-term clinical efficacy of 270-degree PTED under local anesthesia and MIS-TLIF in the treatment of LRS-DLS in Chinese geriatric patients over 60 years old.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From January 2017 to August 2019, the data of 90 consecutive geriatric patients with single-level L4-5 LRS-DLS were retrospectively reviewed, including those in the PTED group (n = 44) and MIS-TLIF group (n = 46). The patients were followed up for at least 1 year. Patient demographics and perioperative outcomes were reviewed before and after surgery. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analog scale (VAS) for leg pain, and modified MacNab criteria were used to evaluate the clinical outcomes. X-ray examinations were performed 1 year after surgery to assess the progression of spondylolisthesis in the PTED group and bone fusion in the MIS-TLIF group.

RESULTS

The mean patient ages in the PTED and MIS-TLIF groups were 70.3 years and 68.6 years, respectively. Both the PTED and MIS-TLIF groups demonstrated significant improvements in the VAS score for leg pain and ODI score, and no significant differences were found between the groups at any time point (P > 0.05). Although the good-to-excellent rate of the modified MacNab criteria in the PTED group was similar to that in the MIS-TLIF group (90.9% vs. 91.3%, P > 0.05), PTED was advantageous in terms of the operative time, estimated blood loss, incision length, drainage time, drainage volume, length of hospital stay, and complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Both PTED and MIS-TLIF led to favorable outcomes in geriatric patients with LRS-DLS. In addition, PTED caused less severe trauma and fewer complications. In terms of perioperative quality-of-life and clinical outcomes, PTED could supplement MIS-TLIF in geriatric patients with LRS-DLS.

Clinical comparison of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy and unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy for single-level lumbar disc herniation

Purpose

To compare the clinical outcomes of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) and unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBE) for the treatment of single-level lumbar disc herniation (LDH).

Materials and methods

From January 2020 to November 2021, 62 patients with single-level LDH were retrospectively reviewed. All patients underwent spinal surgeries at the Affiliated Hospital of Chengde Medical University and Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University. Among them, 30 patients were treated with UBE, and 32 were treated with PTED. The patients were followed up for at least one year. Patient demographics and perioperative outcomes were reviewed before and after surgery. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analog scale (VAS) for back pain and leg pain, and modified MacNab criteria were used to evaluate the clinical outcomes. x-ray examinations were performed one year after surgery to assess the stability of the lumbar spine.

Results

The mean ages in the UBE and PTED groups were 46.7 years and 48.0 years, respectively. Compared to the UBE group, the PTED group had better VAS scores for back pain at 1 and 7 days after surgery (3.06 ± 0.80 vs. 4.03 ± 0.81, P < 0.05; 2.81 ± 0.60 vs. 3.70 ± 0.79, P < 0.05). The UBE and PTED groups demonstrated significant improvements in the VAS score for leg pain and ODI score, and no significant differences were found between the groups at any time after the first month (P > 0.05). Although the good-to-excellent rate of the modified MacNab criteria in the UBE group was similar to that in the PTED group (86.7% vs. 87.5%, P > 0.05), PTED was advantageous in terms of the operation time, estimated blood loss, incision length, and length of postoperative hospital stay.

Conclusions

Both UBE and PTED have favorable outcomes in patients with single-level LDH. However, PTED is superior to UBE in terms of short-term postoperative back pain relief and perioperative quality of life.

Outcome of Percutaneous Transforaminal Endoscopic Lumbar Decompression for Multisegment Lumbar Spinal Stenosis and the Effect on VAS Scores

Purpose

To investigate the efficacy of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic lumbar decompression (PTED) in the treatment of multisegment lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) and its effect on VAS scores.

Methods

126 patients with multisegment LSS admitted between August 2017 and August 2021 were selected and divided into the PTED group and the traditional open surgery group (TOS group) according to the different treatment methods. There were 70 cases in the PTED group, treated with PTED, and 56 cases in the TOS group, treated with traditional open surgery. The clinical outcomes, the preoperative and postoperative pain visual analogue scale (VAS), the Oswestry disability index (ODI), the SF-36 quality of life questionnaire scores, the perioperative indicators (operative time, days in hospital, intraoperative blood loss), the postoperative complications, and imaging data were compared between the two groups.

Results

After the operation, the excellent and good rate in the PTED group (91.43%) was significantly higher than that in the TOS group (75.00%) (P < 0.05). At each time after the operation, the VAS and ODI scores of the two groups were lower than those before the operation, and the VAS scores of the PTED group at 1 day and 3 months after operation were lower than those of the TOS group, and the ODI scores of the PTED group at 3 months after operation were lower than those of the TOS group (P < 0.05). 3 months after the operation, the SF-36 scores in both groups were higher than those before the operation, and those in the PTED group were higher than those in the TOS group (P < 0.05). The operation time and days in hospital in the PTED group were shorter than those in the TOS group, and the intraoperative dominant blood loss and recessive blood loss were less than those in the TOS group (P < 0.05). The total incidence of complications in the PTED group (15.71%) was significantly lower than that in the TOS group (32.14%) (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Both PTED and traditional open surgery are effective in treating patients with multisegmental LSS, and both show positive postoperative changes in all indicators, but the former has more promising near -term results in improving lumbar spine pain, function and quality of life than the latter, and has the advantages of less trauma, less bleeding, and fewer complications.

Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Percutaneous Spinal Endoscopy versus Traditional Open Surgery for Lumbar Disc Herniation: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective

Systematic analysis of the incidence of percutaneous spinal endoscopic technique and traditional open surgery for lumbar disc herniation.

Methods

A randomized controlled trial (RCT) and cohort study on complications related to traditional open surgery was searched on the MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, Chinese journal full-text database (CNKI), Wanfang, and Embase database. Language is not limited. The quality of each study was evaluated, various complications were compiled into electronic baseline tables, and the data from these studies were available. Meta-analysis and synthesis were performed with the RevMan 5.3 software to evaluate the statistical significance of both surgical techniques in terms of various complications.

Results

12 studies were eventually included, and a total of 2,797 patients were included in the analysis. Meta-analysis results showed that there was no statistical difference in postoperative paresthesia between percutaneous spinal endoscopy and traditional open surgery (OR = 1.17, 95% CI (0.82, 1.66), P = 0.38, I ² = 0%, Z = 0.88), direct nerve root damage (OR = 0.79, 95% CI (0.58, 1.07), P = 0.13, I ² = 73%, Z = 1.52), and intraoperative hemorrhage and hematoma formation (OR = 1.00, 95% CI (0.67, 1.48), P = 0.99, I ² = 0%, Z = 0.02), but there was a statistical difference in disc recurrence (OR = 2.24, 95% CI (1.56, 3.21), P < 0.0001, I ² = 81%, Z = 4.39).

Conclusion

Compared with the traditional open surgical treatment of lumbar disc herniation, percutaneous spinal endoscopic technology has obvious advantages in reducing nerve root injury, dural injury, and surgical area wound complications, but it is limited to preventing the technical characteristics of the surgical site, which is worse than that of open surgery.