Full-Endoscopic Interlaminar Lumbar Discectomy: Retrospective Review of Clinical Results and Complications in 545 International Patients

New ipsilateral full endoscopic interlaminar approach for L5-S1 foraminal and extraforaminal decompression: technique description and initial case series

BACKGROUND

The L5-S1 interlaminar access described in 2006 by Ruetten et al. represented a paradigm shift and a new perspective on endoscopic spinal approaches. Since then, the spinal community has shown that both the traditional ipsilateral and novel contralateral interlaminar approaches to the L5-S1 foramen are good alternatives to transforaminal access. This study aimed to provide a technical description and brief case series analysis of a new endoscopic foraminal and extraforaminal approach for pathologies at the lumbar L5-S1 level using a new ipsilateral interlaminar approach.

METHODS

Thirty patients with degenerative stenotic conditions at the L5-S1 disc level underwent the modified interlaminar approach. The surgical time, blood loss, occurrence of complications, and clinical outcomes were recorded. The data were compiled in Excel and analyzed using R software version 4.2. All continuous variables are presented as the mean, median, minimum, and maximal ranges. For categorical variables, data are described as counts and percentages.

RESULTS

Thirty patients were included in the study. The cohort showed significant improvements in all quality-of-life scores (ODI, visual analog scale of back pain, and visual analog scale of leg pain). Five cases of postoperative numbness and three cases of postoperative dysesthesia have been reported. No case of durotomy or leg weakness has been reported.

CONCLUSIONS

The fundamental change proposed by this procedure, the new ipsilateral approach, presents potential advantages to surgeons by overcoming anatomical challenges at the L5-S1 level and by providing surgeon-friendly visualization and access. This approach allows for extensive foraminal and extraforaminal decompression, including the removal of hernias and osteophytosis, without causing neural retraction of the L5-S1 roots while maintaining the stability of the operated level.

Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Discectomy versus Percutaneous Endoscopic Interlaminar Discectomy for Lumbar Disc Herniation

Background

As the latest endoscopic spine surgery, percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) and unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) discectomy have distinct technical characteristics. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of PEID and UBE discectomy in the treatment of single-level lumbar disc herniation (LDH).

Methods

Between February 2019 and April 2022, 115 patients with single-level LDH at L4-5 or L5-S1 received PEID or UBE discectomy. The patients were separated into two groups based on the surgical method used: Group 1 (the PEID group) (n = 60) and Group 2 (the UBE group) (n = 55). Various parameters, including operative time, hospitalization time, fluoroscopy frequency, total costs, complications, visual analogue scale (VAS), and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), were evaluated and compared between the two groups.

Results

There were no significant differences in the VAS and ODI scores in 12 months after the operation between two groups (P > 0.05). However, the VAS of lower back pain on the first day after the operation in Group 2 (2.53±0.89) was higher than that in Group 1 (2.19±0.74) (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in the operation time and incidence of complications between two groups (P > 0.05). But total costs in Group 2 (43,121±4280) were significantly higher than those in Group 1 (30,069±3551) (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Both UBE and PEID procedures have similar efficacy in alleviating pain and improving functional ability in patients with LDH. However, UBE surgery results in higher costs than PEID surgery.

Complications in endoscopic spine surgery: a systematic review

PURPOSE

This systematic review aims to investigate the complication rate of endoscopic spine surgeries, stratifying them by technique, district and kind of procedure performed.

METHODS

This study was conducted according to the PRISMA statement. The literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane Register, OTseeker and ScienceDirect database. Types of studies included were observational studies (cohort studies, case-control studies and case series) and randomised or quasi-randomised clinical with human subjects. No restrictions on publication year were applied. Repeated articles, reviews, expert's comments, congress abstracts, technical notes and articles not in English were excluded. Several data were extracted from the articles. In particular, data of perioperative (≤ 3 months) and late (> 3 months) complications were collected and grouped according to: (1) surgical technique [uniportal full-endoscopic spine surgery (UESS) or unilateral biportal endoscopic spine surgery (UBESS)]; (2) spinal district treated [cervical, thoracic or lumbar] and (3) type of procedure [discectomy/decompression or fusion]. Complication analysis was performed in subgroups with at least 100 patients to have clinically meaningful statistical validity.

RESULTS

A total of 117 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. Of the 117 records included, 95 focused their research on UESS (14 LOE V, 33 LOE IV, 43 LOE III and five LOE II) and 23 on UBESS (three LOE V, eight LOE IV, 10 LOE III and two LOE II). A total of 20,020 patients were extracted to investigate the incidence of different perioperative and late complications, 10,405 for UESS and 9615 for UBESS.

CONCLUSION

The present study summarises the complications reported in the literature for spinal endoscopic procedures. On the one hand, the most relevant described were perioperative complications (transient neurological deficit, dural tear and dysesthesia) that are especially meaningful for endoscopic discectomy and decompression. On the other hand, late complications, such as mechanical implant failure, are more common in endoscopic interbody fusion.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

I.

Comparison of safety and efficacy of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and modified transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (M-TLIF) in the treatment of single-segment lumbar degenerative diseases

OBJECTIVE

To compare modified transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (M-TLIF) with posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in the treatment of single-segment lumbar degenerative disorders in order to assess its safety and effectiveness.

METHODS

From January 2016 to January 2021, 74 patients who received single-segment M-TLIF were examined. A total of 74 patients having single-segment PLIF during the same time period were included in a retrospective controlled study using the same inclusion and exclusion criteria. The two groups were compared in terms of the fusion rate, the Oswestry disability index (ODI), the visual analogue scale of low back pain (VAS), the perioperative condition, the postoperative complications, and the postoperative neighbouring segment degeneration.

RESULTS

All patients had surgery satisfactorily and were monitored for at least a year afterwards. The baseline values for the two groups did not significantly differ. The interbody fusion rate between PLIF (98.65%) and M-TLIF (97.30%) was not significantly different. In the follow-up, the M-TLIF group's VAS score for low back and leg pain was lower than that of the PLIF group. The ODI score of the M-TLIF group was lower than that of the PLIF group at 7 days and 3 months following surgery. Both groups' post-op VAS and ODI scores for low back and leg pain were much lower than those from before the procedure. In M-TLIF group, the operation time, drainage tube extraction time, postoperative bed rest time and hospital stay time were shorter, and the amount of intraoperative blood loss was less. Compared with those before operation, the height of intervertebral space and intervertebral foramen were significantly increased in both groups during postoperative follow-up (P < 0.05). The postoperative complications and adjacent segment degeneration of M-TLIF were significantly lower than those of PLIF.

CONCLUSIONS

M-TLIF is a safe and effective treatment for lumbar degenerative disorders, with a high fusion rate and no significant difference between M-TLIF and PLIF. M-TLIF's efficacy and safety are comparable to that of PLIF, particularly in terms of early relief of low back pain and improvement in quality of life following surgery. Therefore, M-TLIF technology can be popularized and applied in clinic.

Comparison of percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy and conventional open lumbar discectomy for L4/5 and L5/S1 double-segmental lumbar disk herniation

OBJECTIVE

Although spinal endoscopic techniques have shown great advantages in the treatment of single-segment lumbar disk herniation (LDH), the therapeutic advantages for double-segment LDH are controversial. To compare the outcomes of percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) versus conventional open lumbar discectomy (COLD) for the treatment of L4/5 and L5/S1 double-segmental LDH.

METHODS

From January 2016 to September 2021, we included 50 patients with double-segmental LDH who underwent PEID (n = 25) or COLD (n = 25). The clinical outcomes between the two groups were evaluated using the visual analog scale (VAS), the Oswestry disability index (ODI), and the modified MacNab criteria. Moreover, the incision length, operation time, intraoperative fluoroscopy time, postoperative bedtime, hospital stays, and complications were also recorded and compared after surgery.

RESULTS

In both groups, the VAS and ODI scores at different timepoints postoperatively were significantly improved compared with those preoperatively (P < 0.05) According to the modified MacNab criteria, the excellent or good outcome rate was 92% in the PEID group and 88% in the COLD group. The PEID group had shorter incision length, postoperative bedtime, and hospital stays than the COLD group. However, the operation time was shorter and intraoperative fluoroscopy time was fewer in the COLD group. In addition, there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of surgical complications during the postoperative follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

Both PEID and COLD have good efficacy and high safety for management of L4/5 and L5/S1 double-segmental LDH. Compared with the COLD group, the PEID group had more operative time as well as more intraoperative fluoroscopy, but it had a more minimally invasive surgical incision as well as faster postoperative recovery.

Development and Validation of a Nomogram to Predict the Risk of Recurrent Lower Extremity Radiating Pain Within 1 Week Following Full-Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy

BACKGROUND

Accurately predicting the risk of lower extremity (LE) radiating pain after surgery is an important endeavor for spinal surgeons. Our study aimed to identify risk factors for LE radiating pain after decompression with full-endoscopic lumbar discectomy (FELD) and develop a nomogram.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical data of patients with lumbar disc herniation who underwent FELD. Two hundred thirty-five patients diagnosed at our hospital from January 2015 to December 2020 were used for model development. The independent risk factors for LE radiating pain after surgery were determined by least absolute shrinkage and selection operator logistic regression and multivariate logistic regression analysis. A nomogram was developed to predict the risk of LE radiating pain based on independent risk factors. Receiver operating characteristic curve, calibration curve, and decision curve analyses were used to evaluate the predictive performance. The nomogram was further verified by an independent cohort.

RESULTS

Three hundred seventy-five patients were enrolled in this study, with 102 patients in the training cohort reporting LE radiating pain after FELD, while 133 patients did not. In the validation cohort, 57 patients reported LE radiating pain after FELD, while 83 patients did not. The model was established by multivariate logistic regression analysis. The risk factors included a higher Michigan State University classification of herniated discs, increased disease course, increased time of surgery, reduced lateral recess width, and an interlaminar surgical approach, compared to transforaminal approach. The C-indices and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the predictive model demonstrated good discrimination. Good predictive performance and accuracy were also observed in the validation cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

A novel nomogram for predicting recurrent LE radiating pain within 1 week after FELD was established and validated. More aggressive pain management strategies should be considered for patients at high risk of LE radiating pain after surgery, as predicted by this model.

Full-Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy Approach Selection: A Systematic Review and Proposed Algorithm

STUDY DESIGN

A systematic review of the literature to develop an algorithm formulated by key opinion leaders.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to analyze currently available data and propose a decision-making algorithm for full-endoscopic lumbar discectomy for treating lumbar disc herniation (LDH) to help surgeons choose the most appropriate approach [transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy (TELD) or interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy (IELD)] for patients.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Full-endoscopic discectomy has gained popularity in recent decades. To our knowledge, an algorithm for choosing the proper surgical approach has never been proposed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review of the literature using PubMed and MeSH terms was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Patient samples included patients with LDH treated with full-endoscopic discectomy. The inclusion criteria were interventional research (randomized and nonrandomized trials) and observation research (cohort, case-control, case series). Exclusion criteria were case series and technical reports. The criteria used for selecting patients were grouped and analyzed. Then, an algorithm was generated based on these findings with support and reconfirmation from key expert opinions. Data on overall complications were collected. Outcome measures included zone of herniation, level of herniation, and approach (TELD or IELD).

RESULTS

In total, 474 articles met the initial screening criteria. The detailed analysis identified the 80 best-matching articles; after applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 53 articles remained for this review.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed algorithm suggests a TELD for LDH located in the foraminal or extraforaminal zones at upper and lower levels and for central and subarticular discs at the upper levels considering the anatomic foraminal features and the craniocaudal pathology location. An IELD is preferred for LDH in the central or subarticular zones at L4/L5 and L5/S1, especially if a high iliac crest or high-grade migration is found.

Perioperative Management for Full-Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy: Consideration From the Perspective of Preventing Complication

In recent years, full-endoscopic discectomy (FED) has expanded its range of indications with the development of devices and various techniques. The advantage of FED over conventional surgery is that it is a minimally invasive procedure. However, intraoperative and postoperative precautions must be taken to prevent complications. It is necessary to avoid complications that could compromise the outcome of the procedure. Effective perioperative management is necessary to avoid complications; however, there is no set view for perioperative management in FED. In this study, we perform a literature review to examine the effectiveness of perioperative management methods for FED. The key to ensuring the efficacy and minimal invasiveness of FED is prevention of complications. Based on the result and literature review, we believe that the most manageable postoperative management after FED is prevention of recurrent disc herniation and hematoma formation. A drain should be placed to prevent postoperative hematoma formation. It is advisable to evaluate the patient’s symptoms and monitor C-reactive protein and erythrocyte sedimentation rate levels during the first week after surgery. Postoperative antibiotics were administered for 1 day.

Comparison of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Discectomy with Other Surgical Technics: A Systemic Review of Indications and Outcomes of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Discectomy from the Current Literature

OBJECTIVE

Unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) spine surgery for spinal diseases has been increasing in popularity because of its favorable outcomes. The goal of this systemic review is to analyze the status of outcomes and complications in lumbar disc herniation during UBE discectomy.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and OVID databases published until June 30, 2021, was performed. The outcomes of interest were indications, operative time, blood loss, hospital stay, complications, visual analog scale score, and Oswestry Disability Index.

RESULTS

Seven studies were included in our research. UBE surgery for lumbar stenosis was excluded. A total of 230 patients with lumbar disc herniation were enrolled in the 7 selected studies. The mean operative time was 74.4 minutes, and the mean length of hospital stay was 4.5 days. Mean incidence of complications reported in the 7 articles was 6.2%. UBE showed shorter hospital stays than did microdiscectomy, no significant differences of Oswestry Disability Index or visual analog scale scores, and good recovery rate among other discectomy techniques (microdiscectomy, full endoscopic transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy, and interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy) at 1 month follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Even with the small number of studies and reports analyzed, biases were the main limitation of this analysis; overall, the clinical outcomes and complication rates associated with UBE discectomy were relatively good. It is clear that UBE discectomy is a good treatment choice for lumbar disc herniation, but to prevent unique UBE surgery complications, a clear understanding of the surgical procedures and careful efforts to overcome the learning curve are necessary.

Risk Factors in the Prediction of Leg Numbness after Spinal Endoscopic Surgery: Evaluation and Development of a Nomogram

Purpose

This study aims at constructing a clinical predictive model that predicted the risk factors for leg numbness after spinal endoscopic surgery.

Methods

We collected the clinical data of patients, including general information, imaging parameters, and clinical score, from our hospital's electronic database. Based on the postoperative leg numbness visual analog scale (LN-VAS), the clinical data were divided into the leg numbness group (≥25) and the improvement group (<25). All parameters were included in the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression analysis, while the parameters with the area under the curve (AUC) greater than 0.7 were selected to construct nomograms. Furthermore, the accuracy and validity of the model were evaluated using the C-index, decision curve analysis (DCA), calibration curve, and receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC).

Results

A total of 73 patients' clinical data were included in the training set, where 51 patients were assigned to the improvement group and 22 to the leg numbness group. The nomogram was constructed using four selected parameters, including symptom duration, lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), pelvic incidence (PI), and preoperative low back pain visual analog scale (LBP-VAS). The nomogram predictions were found to range between 0.01 and 0.99. The values of the C-index, AUC, and internally validated C-index were 0.96, 0.96, and 0.94, respectively. Our result showed that the clinical net benefit of the nomogram ranged between 0.01 and 0.99.

Conclusion

Our clinical prediction model demonstrated high predictive ability and clinical validity. Moreover, we found that symptom duration, LSS, PI, and preoperative LBP-VAS were the predictive risk factors for leg numbness after spinal endoscopic surgery.

Comparison of percutaneous endoscopic and open posterior lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of single-segmental lumbar degenerative diseases

Background

Endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion has become an emerging technique. Some researchers have reported the technique of percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. We propose percutaneous endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PE-PLIF) as an alternative approach. The purpose of this study was to assess the clinical efficacy of PE-PLIF by comparing percutaneous endoscopic and open posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF).

Methods

Thirty patients were enrolled in each group. Demographic data, perioperative data, and radiological parameters were collected prospectively. The clinical outcomes were evaluated by visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores.

Results

The background data were comparable between the two groups. The mean operation time was longer in the PE-PLIF group. The PE-PLIF group showed benefits in less blood loss and shorter hospital stay. VAS and ODI scores significantly improved in both groups. However, the VAS score of low-back pain was lower in the PE-PLIF group. The satisfaction rate was 96.7% in both groups. The radiological outcomes were similar in both groups. In the PE-PLIF group, the fusion rate was 93.3%, and the cage subsidence rate was 6.7%; in the open PLIF group, the fusion and cage subsidence rates were 96.7% and 16.7%. There were minor complications in one patient in the PE-PLIF group and two in the open PLIF group.

Conclusions

The current study revealed that PE-PLIF is safe and effective compared with open PLIF. In addition, this minimally invasive technique may enhance postoperative recovery by reducing tissue damage and blood loss.

Risk Factors and Surgical Management of Recurrent Herniation after Full-Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy Using Interlaminar Approach

Full-endoscopic lumbar discectomy (FED) is one of the least invasive procedures for lumbar disc herniation. Patients who receive FED for lumbar disc herniation may develop recurrent herniation at a frequency similar to conventional procedures. Reoperation and risk factors of recurrent lumbar disc herniation were investigated among 909 patients who received FED using an interlaminar approach (FED-IL). Sixty-five of the 909 patients received reoperation for recurrent herniation. Disc height, smoking, diabetes mellitus (DM), subligamentous extrusion (SE) type, and Modic change were identified as the risk factors for recurrence. Other indicators such as LL, Cobb angle, disc migration, age, sex, and body mass index (BMI) did not reach significance. Among 65 patients, reoperation was performed within 14 days following FED-IL (very early) in 7 patients, from 15 days to 3 months (early) in 14 patients, from 3 months to 1 year (midterm) in 17 patients, and after more than 1 year (late) in 27 patients. The very early group included a greater number of males, and the mean age was significantly lower in comparison to other groups. All patients in the very early group received FED-IL for reoperation. Reoperation within 2 weeks allows FED-IL to be performed without adhesion. Fusion surgery was performed on three cases in the early and midterm groups and on 10 cases in the late group, which increased over time as degenerative change and adhesion progressed. The procedure selected to treat recurrent herniation mostly depends on the surgeon’s preference. Revision FED-IL is the first choice for recurrent herniation in terms of minimizing surgical burden, whereas fusion surgery offers the advantage that discectomy can be performed through unscarred tissues. FED-IL is recommended for recurrent herniation within 2 weeks before adhesion progresses.

A Postoperative Phenomenon of Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy: Rebound Pain

OBJECTIVE

After percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD), most patients with lumbar disc herniation (LDH) experience relief from the typical symptoms of low back and leg pain. However, for a small number of patients, these symptoms are relieved immediately after surgery but aggravated soon after, and then relieved after short-term full rest or conservative treatment. The aim of the study was to demonstrate this short-term recurrent phenomenon, termed rebound pain.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted on 144 patients who underwent single-segment PELD from May 2017 to June 2020. Postoperative patients were divided into a rebound pain group and a non-rebound pain group. For the former group, general information, symptom characteristics and visual analogue score (VAS) changes in rebound pain were summarized. For both groups, postoperative efficacy was evaluated by recent VAS of low back and leg pain in the remission stage, the Oswestry disability index (ODI) and the modified MacNab criteria at the last follow-up. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors for rebound pain.

RESULTS

The VAS and ODI exhibited significant improvements at the last follow-up of average 15.4 months (P < 0.001). The successful outcomes according to the modified MacNab criteria reached 94.4%. A total of 15 patients (10.4%) experienced rebound pain. The typical feature was pain that usually began within 1 month after surgery and lasted for less than 1 month. The symptoms were mainly leg pain with or without low back pain. The range of pain was equal to or less than that before surgery. The symptoms were relieved after conservative treatment. In logistic regression model, postoperative return-to-work time > 45 days was found as a protective factor for rebound pain (p = 0.031).

CONCLUSION

Although rebound pain with multiple characteristics and a short duration had no significant effect on long-term postoperative efficacy, its high incidence often caused unnecessary concern in both patients and doctors. As a result, careful differentiation of rebound pain from other postoperative complications is needed.

Dural Tears During Lumbar Spinal Endoscopy: Surgeon Skill, Training, Incidence, Risk Factors, and Management

BACKGROUND

Incidental dural tears during lumbar endoscopy can be challenging to manage. There is limited literature on their appropriate management, risk factors, and the clinical consequences of this typically uncommon complication.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

To improve the statistical power of studying durotomy with lumbar endoscopy, we performed a retrospective survey study among endoscopic spine surgeons by email and chat groups on social media networks, including WhatsApp and WeChat. Descriptive and correlative statistics were done on the surgeons' recorded responses to multiple-choice questions. Surgeons were asked about their clinical experience with spinal endoscopy, training background, the types of lumbar endoscopic decompression they perform by approach, the decompression instruments they use, and incidental durotomy incidence with routine lumbar endoscopy.

RESULTS

There were 689 dural tears in 64 470 lumbar endoscopies, resulting in an incidental durotomy incidence of 1.07%. Seventy percent of the durotomies were reported by 20.4% of the surgeons. Eliminating these 19 outlier surgeons yielded an adjusted durotomy rate of 0.32. Endoscopic stenosis decompression (54.8%; P < .0001), rather than endoscopic discectomy (44.1%; 41/93), was significantly more associated with durotomy. Medium-sized dural tears (1-10 mm) were the most common (52.2%; 48/93). Small pinhole durotomies (less than 1 mm) were the second most common type (46.7%; 43/93). Rootlet herniations were seen by 46.2% (43/93) of responding surgeons. The posterior dural sac injury during the interlaminar approach (57%; 53/93) occurred more frequently than traversing nerve-root injuries (31.2%) or anterior dural sac (23.7%; 22/93). Exiting nerve-root injuries (10.8%;10/93) were less common. Over half of surgeons did not attempt any repair or closure (52.2%; 47/90). Forty percent (36/90) used sealants. Only 7.8% (7/90) of surgeons attempted an endoscopic repair or sutures (11.1%; 10/90). DuralSeal was the most commonly used brand of commercially available sealant used (42.7%; 35/82). However, other sealants such as Tisseal (15.9%; 13/82), Evicel (2.4%2/82), and additional no-brand sealants (38; 32/82) were also used. Nearly half of the patients (48.3%; 43/89) were treated with 24-48 hours of bed rest. The majority of participating surgeons (64%; 57/89) reported that the long-term outcome was unaffected. Only 18% of surgeons reported having seen the development of a postoperative cerebrospinal fluid (CSF)-fistula (18%;16/89). However, the absolute incidence of CSF fistula was only 0.025% (16/64 470). Severe radiculopathy with dysesthesia; sensory loss; and motor weakness in association with an incidental durotomy were reported by 12.4% (11/89), 3.4% (3/89), and 2.2% (2/89) of surgeons, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of dural tears with lumbar endoscopy is about 1%. The incidence of durotomy is higher with the use of power drills and the interlaminar approach. Stenosis decompression that typically requires the more aggressive use of these power instruments has a slightly higher incidence of dural tears than does endoscopic decompression for a herniated disc. Most dural tears are small and can be successfully managed with mechanical compression with Gelfoam and sealants. Two-thirds of patients with incidental dural tears had an entirely uneventful postoperative course. The remaining one-third of patients may develop a persistent CSF leak, radiculopathy with dysesthesia, sensory loss, or motor function loss. Patients should be educated preoperatively and reassured.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Lumbar Endoscopic Bony and Soft Tissue Decompression With the Hybridized Inside-Out Approach: A Review And Technical Note

This study aimed to showcase the authors' preferred technique of a hybrid of modern "inside-out" and "outside-in" endoscopic decompression. A case series of 411 patients consisting of 192 females (46.7%) and 219 males (53.3%) with an average age of 54.84 ± 16.32 years and an average of 43.2 ± 26.53 months are presented. Patients underwent surgery for low-grade spondylolisthesis (13 of 411, 3.2%), herniated disc (135 of 411, 32.8%), foraminal spinal stenosis (101 of 411, 24.6%), or a combination of the latter 2 conditions (162 of 411, 39.4%). The preoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analogue scale (VAS) for leg pain were 49.8 ± 17.65 and 7.9 ± 1.55, respectively. Postoperative ODI and VAS leg were 12.2 ± 9.34 and 2.41 ± 5 1.55 at final follow-up (p < 0.0001). MacNab outcomes were excellent in 134 (32.6%), good in 228 (55.5%), fair in 40 (9.7%), and poor in 9 patients (2.2%), respectively. There was end-stage degenerative vacuum disc disease in 304 of the 411 patients (74%) of which had 37.5% had excellent and 50% good MacNab outcomes. Patients without vacuum discs had excellent and good 18.7% and 71.0% of the time. Direct visualization of pain generators in the epidural- and intradiscal space is the authors' preferred transforaminal decompression technique and is supported by their reliable clinical outcomes.

Technical Considerations of Interlaminar Approach for Lumbar Disc Herniation

With the evolution of endoscopic instruments and techniques, full-endoscopic spine surgery has attracted more attention worldwide in recent years. At the initial stage, surgeons conducted endoscopic lumbar discectomy using the transforaminal approach. Next, interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy was developed to treat a herniation disc at the L5-S1 level. The progression in interlaminar endoscopic techniques has further broadened the indications for full-endoscopic spine surgery. However, the steep learning curve of endoscopic procedures has remained challenging. The use of interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy entails many essential skills to manage the different anatomical structures of the spine. From the perspective of successful and safe interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy, we have discussed the technical considerations for endoscopic procedures.

Patient selection protocols for endoscopic transforaminal, interlaminar, and translaminar decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis

Background

The indications of different endoscopic and endoscopically assisted translaminar approaches for lumbar spinal stenosis are not well-defined, and validated protocols for the use of the transforaminal over the interlaminar approach are lacking.

Methods

We performed a retrospective study employing an image-based patient stratification protocol of stenosis location (type I-central canal, type II-lateral recess, type III-foraminal, type IV-extraforaminal) and clinical outcomes on 249 patients consisting of 137 (55%) men and 112 (45%) women with an average age of 56.03±16.8 years who underwent endoscopic surgery for symptomatic spinal stenosis from January 2013 to February 2019. The average follow-up of 38.27±27.9 months. The primary clinical outcome measures were the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), and modified Macnab criteria.

Results

The frequency of stenosis configuration in decreasing order was as follows: type I-121/249; 48.6%, type III-104/249; 41.8%, type II-15/249; 6%, and type IV-9/249; 3.6%. The transforaminal approach (137/249; 55.0%) was used in most type II to IV lesions followed by the interlaminar approach (78/249; 31.3%), and the full endoscopic approach (12/249; 4.8%), and the endoscopically assisted translaminar approach (8/249; 3.2%) which was exclusively used for type I lesions. Macnab outcomes analysis showed Excellent in 47 patients (18.9%), Good in 178 (71.5%), Fair in 18 (7.2%) and Poor in 6 (2.4%), respectively. Paired two-tailed t-test showed statistically significant VAS (5.46±2.1; P<0.0001) and ODI (37.1±16.9; P<0.0001) reductions as a result of the endoscopic decompression surgery. Cross-tabulation of the Macnab outcomes versus the endoscopic approach and surgical technique confirmed beneficial association of the approach selection with Excellent (P=0.001) and Good (P<0.0001) outcomes with statistically significance.

Conclusions

This study suggests that in the hands of skilled endoscopic spines surgeon use of an image-based stenosis location protocol may contribute to obtaining Excellent and Good clinical outcomes in a high percentage (93%) of patients suffering from lumbar stenosis related radiculopathy. Additional comparative studies should examine the prognostic value of choosing the endoscopic approach on the basis of the proposed four-type stenosis protocol by correlating its impact on outcomes with preoperative diagnostic injections and intraoperative direct visualization of symptomatic pain generators under local anesthesia and sedation.