Full Endoscopic Uniportal Unilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Decompression in Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Highlight of Ligamentum Flavum Detachment and Survey of Efficacy and Safety in 2 Years of Follow-up

Full-Endoscopic Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Review and Technical Note

Remarkable innovations in spinal endoscopic surgery have broadened its applications over the past 20 years. Full-endoscopic fusions have been widely reported, and several full-endoscopic approaches for interbody fusion have been published. In general, full-endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) is called Endo-LIF, and facet-preserving Endo-LIF through the transforaminal route is called trans-Kambin's triangle LIF, which has a relatively longer history than facet-sacrificing Endo-LIF via the posterolateral route. Both approaches can reduce intraoperative and postoperative bleeding. However, there is a higher risk of subsidence and exit nerve root injury. There is no direct decompression in either of the interbody fusions, and additional decompression is required if there is severe lumbar bony canal stenosis. However, the posterior interlaminar approach, which is a well-known standard in full-endoscopic spine surgery, has rarely been applied in the field of endoscopic lumbar fusion surgery. Full-endoscopic posterior LIF (FE-PLIF) via an interlaminar approach can accomplish direct decompression of bony canal stenosis and safe interbody fusion. FE-PLIF via an interlaminar approach demonstrated a longer operation time, less blood loss, and shorter hospitalization duration than minimally invasive transforaminal LIF. FE-PLIF, which can accomplish direct decompression for bony spinal canal stenosis, is superior to other Endo-LIFs. However, FE-PLIF requires technical dexterity to improve efficiency and reduce technical complexity.

Full endoscopic percutaneous stenoscopic lumbar decompression and discectomy: An outcome and efficacy analysis on 606 lumbar stenosis patients

Introduction

Laminectomy has long been a "gold standard" to treat symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). Minimal invasive spine surgery (MISS) is widely developed to overcome the limitations of conventional laminectomy to achieve a better outcome with minimal complications. Full endoscopic percutaneous stenoscopic lumbar decompression (FE-PSLD) is the newest MISS technique for spinal canal decompression. We aimed to evaluate and analyze the significance of FE-PSLD in reducing pain and its association with age, duration of symptoms, stenosis level, and operative time (OT).

Materials and Methods

A longitudinal cross-sectional study was conducted on 606 LSS patients who underwent FE-PSLD and enrolled from 2020 to 2022. Three-month evaluation of the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and the modified MacNab criteria were assessed. The significance of changes was analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-ranks test. Spearman's correlation test was performed to evaluate the significant correlation of several variables (pre-PSLD-VAS, age, symptoms duration, OT, and level of LSS) to post-PSLD-VAS, and multiple regression analysis was conducted.

Results

The reduction of VAS was statistically significant (P ≤ 0.005) with an average pre-PSLD-VAS of 6.75 ± 0.63 and post-PSLD-VAS of 2.24 ± 1.04. Pre-PSLD-VAS, age, and stenosis level have a statistically significant correlation with post-PSLD-VAS, while the duration of the symptoms and OT have an insignificant correlation. Multiple regression showed the effect of pre-PSLD-VAS (β =0.4033, P = 0.000) and stenosis level (β =0.0951, P = 0.021) are statistically significant with a positive coefficient.

Conclusions

FE-PSLD is an efficacious strategy with favorable outcomes for managing LSS, shown by a significant reduction of pain level with a relatively short follow-up time after the procedure. Preoperative pain level, age, and stenosis level are significantly correlated with postoperative pain level. Based on this experimental study, PSLD can be considered a good strategy for treating lumbar canal stenosis in all age groups and all LSS levels.

Consecutive Case Series of Uniportal Full-endoscopic Unilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Decompression in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Relationship between Decompression Range and Functional Outcomes

OBJECTIVE

Uniportal full-endoscopic unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (UFE-ULBD) has been used to treat lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) with satisfactory outcomes. However, a limited number of studies have investigated the relationship between decompression range and clinical outcomes. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of UFE-ULBD for single-segment LSS and to explore the relationship between the decompression range and functional outcomes.

METHODS

Single-segment LSS patients who had undergone UFE-ULBD using an interlaminar approach between November 2021 and February 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. Patient demographics, visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for leg and back pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores, modified MacNab grades, and radiological outcomes, including the decompression ratio of the disc-flava ligament space and osseous lateral recess, the enlargement ratio of superior articular process interval, lamina interval dural sac cross-sectional area (DSCA), were collected. The independent sample t-tests, paired sample t-tests, chi-square tests, Fisher's exact tests, and Pearson's and Spearman's correlation analyses were used.

RESULTS

Forty patients (23 males, and 17 females) were retrospectively enrolled in this study. The mean follow-up period was 12 months. At the last follow-up, VAS scores for leg pain and back pain decreased from 6.0 ± 0.8 to 1.0 ± 1.9 (p < 0.001), and from 6.0 ± 0.8 to 1.2 ± 1.8 (p < 0.001) respectively; ODI score decreased from 71.7 ± 6.2 to 24.3 ± 21.3 (p < 0.001). According to the modified MacNab criteria, the results were excellent in 28 (70%), good in 5 (12.5%), fair in 6 (15%), and poor in 1 (2.5%), with an excellent-good rate of 82.5%. The postoperative DSCA enlarged from 57.69 ± 21.86 to 150.75 ± 39.33 mm2 (p < 0.001), with an enlargement ratio of 189.43 ± 107.83%. No difference in clinical or radiological parameters was detected between patients with excellent, good, fair, or poor outcomes based on the modified MacNab criteria.

CONCLUSION

UFE-ULBD can provide satisfactory clinical and radiological outcomes in single-segment LSS patients. With sufficient exposure to the dural sac boundary, the functional outcome was not related to the radiological decompression range in LSS patients who had undergone UFE-ULBD.

Comparison of the Tubular Approach and Uniportal Interlaminar Full-Endoscopic Approach in the Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Our 3-Year Results

BACKGROUND

To report the long-term results of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), for whom we applied the tubular and endoscopic approaches and previously published the short-term results.

METHODS

A multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-blind study was carried out to evaluate 2 groups of patients with LSS who underwent microsurgery via a tubular retractor with a unilateral approach (T group) and bilateral spinal decompression using uniportal interlaminar endoscopic approaches (E group). Dural sac cross-sectional and spinal canal cross-sectional areas were measured with the patients' preoperative and postoperative magnetic resonance images. The visual analog scale, Oswestry Disability Index, and Japanese Orthopedic Association scores in the preoperative period and the first, second, and third years after surgery were evaluated.

RESULTS

Twenty patients met the inclusion criteria for the research (T group; n = 10, E group; n = 10). The groups' visual analog scale (respectively; P = 0.315, P = 0.529, and P = 0.853), Oswestry Disability Index (respectively; P = 0.529, P = 0.739, and P = 0.912), and Japanese Orthopedic Association (respectively; P = 0.436, P =0.853, and P = 0.684) scores from the first, second, and third postoperative years were quite good compared with the preoperative period, but there was no statistically significant difference. A significant difference was found in the E group, with less blood loss (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The long-term results of the patients with LSS treated with tubular and endoscopic approaches were similar and very good. Bilateral decompression with minimally invasive spinal surgery methods can be completed with less tissue damage, complications, and blood loss with the unilateral approach.

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.

Bibliographic Study and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Outcomes of Full-Endoscopic Spine Surgery for Painful Lumbar Spine Conditions

BACKGROUND

Full-endoscopic spine surgery (FESS) indications already cover degenerative, infectious, and neoplastic diseases. This study aimed to use a bibliometric search and meta-analysis of the highest-quality studies in the last 20 years to determine the quantity and quality of FESS research, geographic distribution, and the outcomes for lumbar conditions.

METHODS

Articles on FESS published from 2000 to 2022 were screened and assessed through Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus. Also, databases were searched for longitudinal studies to pool in a meta-analysis of patients undergoing FESS for lumbar conditions. After stratifying the risk of bias and having collected the studies of the highest quality, we included the proportion of patients with a satisfactory outcome and intraoperative and postoperative adverse events after the analysis of lumbar spine conditions.

RESULTS

A total of 728 articles were identified by the bibliographic search. Between 2000 and 2021, the published articles increased 21-fold. Most were from China (70.15%), followed by South Korea (19.5%). Most were retrospective (68.3%) and regarding treatment of lumbar disease (86.4%). Fifty studies, including 34,828 patients, were pooled in the meta-analysis. More than 85% of patients experienced satisfactory improvement in each of different lumbar conditions. Major adverse events were <2%; recurrence and postoperative dysesthesia rates were within those reported for open or mini-invasive procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

This study may fill research gaps on FESS and lead to adequately designed studies. Our meta-analysis showed that FESS for lumbar diseases is a procedure with satisfactory outcomes and low rates of adverse events.

Delta large-channel technique versus microscopy-assisted laminar fenestration decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: a one-year prospective cohort study

PURPOSE

When it comes to treating lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), a procedure known as microscope-assisted fenestration decompression has expediently become the gold standard. With the advancement of spinal endoscopy, the Delta large-channel approach has shown promising clinical outcomes in the management of lumbar spinal stenosis. However, case studies of this method being used to treat lumbar spinal stenosis are still uncommon. The purpose of this research was to examine how well microscopy-assisted laminectomy and the Delta large-channel approach work in treating LSS in the clinic.

METHODS

From May 2018 to June 2020, 149 patients diagnosed with LSS were divided into 80 patients in Delta large-channel technique groups (FE group) and 69 patients in microscope groups (Micro group). Lower back and lower limb pain were measured using the visual analogue scale (VAS-LBP and VAS-LP), while lower limb numbness was evaluated using the 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS-LN); modified Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) was used to evaluate the quality of life, and modified MacNab criteria were used to assess the clinical efficacy before surgery and at one week, three months, six months, and 12 months after surgery. All patients had single-level lumbar spinal stenosis, and clinical data such as hospital stay, operation time, intraoperative blood loss were statistically analyzed.

RESULTS

Finally, 111 patients (62 in FE group and 49 in Micro group) completed follow-up. Compared with preoperative results, postoperative VAS-LBP, VAS-LP, NRS-LN score and modified ODI score were significantly improved in 2 groups (P < 0.05), but there was no significant difference in postoperative follow-up at each time point (P > 0.05), Except 1 week after surgery, VAS-LBP in FE group was lower than that in Micro group (P < 0.05). It is noteworthy that the FE group had a shorter hospital stay, less intraoperative blood loss, and a quicker time of getting out of bed when compared with the microscope group，but the operation time was just the opposite (P < 0.05). The excellent and good rate was 83.87% in FE group and 85.71% in Micro group (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Both microscope-assisted laminar fenestration decompression and Delta large-channel procedures provide satisfactory treatment outcomes, however the Delta large-channel approach has some potential advantages for the treatment of LSS, including quicker recovery and sooner reduced VAS-LBP. Long-term consequences, however, will necessitate additional follow-up and research.

Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Discectomy versus Microendoscopic Discectomy for the Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective

In minimally invasive spinal surgery, the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with microendoscopic discectomy (MED) or unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBED) shows effective results, but which is more effective is controversial. Our study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of UBED versus MED in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis by a systematic review and meta-analysis, so as to provide reference for the promotion of UBED in clinical practice.

Methods

The multiple databases like PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Chinese National Knowledge Databases, Chinese BioMedical Database, and Wanfang Database were used to search for the relevant studies. Review Manager 5.4 was adopted to estimate the effects of the results among selected articles. Odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to estimate the overall pooled effect. Subgroup analysis, forest plots, funnel plots and Egger's test for the articles included were also conducted.

Results

Three randomized clinical trials and seven cohort studies were finally retrieved, these studies included 685 and 829 patients in the UBED and MED groups, respectively. There were no differences in terms of operation time (MD = -0.92, P =0.72), estimated blood loss (MD = -26.31, P =0.08), complications (MD =0.81, P =0.38) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score (P >0.05 in four subgroup) between the two groups. The visual analog scale (VAS) score of back pain in the UBED group was better than MED group only at 6 months (MD = -0.23, P =0.006) after operation, the VAS score of leg pain in the UBED group was better than that of MED group at 3 mouths (MD = -0.22, P =0.002) and 6 months (MD = -0.24, P =0.006) after operation, the UBED group had a less postoperative length of stay than the MED group (MD = -1.85, P <0.001). The bias analysis showed that there was no potential publication bias in the included literature.

Conclusion

This study showed that compared with MED, UBED has the advantages of short hospital stay and good short-term curative effect, but there is no significant difference in long-term efficacy and safety, they can be replaced by each other in clinical application.

Case Report: Five-Level Unilateral Laminectomy Bilateral Decompression (ULBD) by Two-Stage Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy (UBE)

Introduction

Unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) is a relatively new yet common minimally invasive procedure in spine surgery, capable of achieving adequate decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis through unilateral laminectomy bilateral decompression (ULBD). Neither additional fusion nor rigid fixation is required, as UBE-ULBD rarely causes iatrogenic lumbar instability. However, to our knowledge, five-level ULBD via two-stage UBE without lumbar fusion has been yet to be reported in the treatment of multilevel lumbar spinal stenosis.

Case description

We present a case of an 80-year-old female patient who developed progressive paralysis of the lower extremities. Radiographic examinations showed multilevel degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis and extensive compression of the dural sac and nerve roots from L1-2 to L5-S1. The patient underwent five-level ULBD through two-stage UBE without lumbar fusion or fixation. One week after the final procedure, the patient could ambulate with walking aids and braces. Moreover, no back pain or limited lumbar motion was observed at the 6-month follow-up.

Conclusion

Multilevel ULBD through UBE may provide elderly patients with an alternative, minimally invasive procedure for treating spinal stenosis. This procedure could be achieved by staging surgeries. In this case, we reported complaints of little back pain, despite not needing to perform lumbar fusion or fixation.

Efficacy and Complications of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Spinal Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

As an emerging minimally invasive endoscopic technique, unilateral biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (UBESS) has the advantages of flexibility, a wide and clear field of view, and less soft tissue damage. However, the clinical evidence is insufficient and controversy exists regarding UBESS for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). In the present meta-analysis, we investigated the clinical efficacy and complications of UBESS for the treatment of LSS.

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched through to June 1, 2021 to identify all reported studies on UBESS for LSS. Only English-language studies with original reported data from ≥30 cases were considered for inclusion. The patient demographics, operative time, hospital stay, complications, visual analog scale (VAS) score, Oswestry disability index, and Macnab criteria were extracted. Quality assessment was performed using the Cochrane collaboration tool for randomized controlled trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for retrospective studies. A meta-analysis was performed using a random or fixed effect model according to the heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies with 586 patients and 607 operation levels were included. The mean single-level operative time, hospital stay, and follow-up duration were 61.10 minutes, 2.32 days, and 14.7 months, respectively. At the final follow-up visit, the mean VAS score for leg pain had decreased from 7.23 preoperatively to 1.83 postoperatively, the mean VAS score for back pain had decreased from 6.30 to 1.95, and the mean Oswestry disability index had significantly improved from 56.99 to 17.83. The average satisfied outcome (excellent or good using the Macnab criteria) was 86%. The overall complication rate was 5%, and the most common complication was a dural tear, with an incidence of 2%, followed by epidural hematoma with an incidence of 1%. The remaining complications were nerve root injury, inadequate decompression, and postoperative headache.

CONCLUSIONS

From the available clinical results and experience from reported studies, UBESS for LSS is a feasible and effective approach and a worthwhile choice for clinicians. However, the complications associated with the procedure should also be seriously considered.

Unilateral Bi-portal Endoscopic Decompression via the Contralateral Approach in Asymmetric Spinal Stenosis: A Technical Note

We discuss the technical details and operative advantages of approaching pathologies from the contralateral side in cases of asymmetric spinal stenosis. The contralateral approach offers better manipulative freedom and a more accessible target approach along the plane of the pathology, allowing safer decompression and facet preservation; further, this approach is ergonomic for surgeons. We recommend the adoption of this approach in decompressing asymmetric spinal stenosis.

Indications and Contraindications of Full-Endoscopic Interlaminar Lumbar Decompression

BACKGROUND

Spinal stenosis is a common disease with an increasing incidence. Narrowing of the spinal canal is caused by bone and soft tissue degeneration, such as osteophyte formation, facet and ligamentum flavum hypertrophy, and disc herniation. Various surgical techniques have been used to treat spinal canal stenosis, including open, tubular, microsurgical decompression, and fusion surgery. This article presents the technique for full-endoscopic interlaminar bilateral decompression of the lumbar spine.

METHODS

Surgical approach, anatomy, pathology, indications, contraindications, and surgical equipment are described.

RESULTS

With well-chosen endoscopic equipment, surgical time can be reduced with minimal collateral damage. Clear advantages of full-endoscopic decompression over open or other minimally invasive surgery methods are demonstrated in many clinical studies. The endoscopic technique has been shown to be effective in spinal canal decompression with good to excellent clinical results. The interlaminar endoscopic approach minimizes iatrogenic injury to the stabilizing anatomic structures while achieving full unilateral and bilateral decompression. A significant improvement in pain and functional outcome scores with low complication rates has been demonstrated.

CONCLUSIONS

This technique is safe for lumbar spinal decompression and more minimally invasive than a microendoscopic approach. However, this technique should be performed by surgeons with advanced skills. Endoscopy could become the gold standard for treatment of canal stenosis in the near future.

Inside-Out Approach of Lumbar Endoscopic Unilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Decompression: A Detailed Technical Description, Rationale and Outcomes

Although lumbar stenosis was recognized as a contraindication for endoscopic spine surgery in the past, the advancement in endoscopic system design and development of approach techniques and strategies now enabled the endoscopic spine surgeons to manage all types of lumbar stenosis safely and more effectively. A full-endoscopic lumbar technique for surgical management of spinal canal stenosis is now used today in many advanced spine centers around the world as one of their standard procedures which can be done under general, regional, local anesthesia with sedation. In this technical report, we described in detail the inside-out approach of performing lumbar endoscopic unilateral laminotomy with bilateral decompression (LE-ULBD) and retrospectively reviewed hospital records of 127 patients who underwent the approach from December 2018 to March 2019 to address 1 level lumbar spinal stenosis and determined its outcome after 12-month follow-up period. Perioperative outcomes, operation time, length of hospital stay, and surgical complications were recorded and analyzed. The cross-sectional area of the thecal sac at the operated level was measured. The visual analogue scale (VAS) was assessed preoperatively, 1 month, and 12 months as well as the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). The data were statistically analyzed (using SPSS ver. 17.0). The inside-out approach LE-ULBD was shown to effect statistically significant improvement in the VAS of leg and back pain as well as the ODI. It is a familiar, safe, and effective way of performing spinal stenosis decompression with good reproducible outcomes.

Clinical Comparison of Full-Endoscopic and Microscopic Unilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Decompression in the Treatment of Elderly Lumbar Spinal stenosis: A Retrospective Study with 12-Month Follow-Up

Purpose

Although lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is the most common spinal disease in the elderly, there is still a confusion about the appropriate surgical treatment strategy. The aim of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of full-endoscopic and microscopic unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) for LSS in elderly patients.

Patients and Methods

A retrospective analysis of 61 consecutive elderly patients with LSS who underwent either full-endoscopic (FE group) or microscopic (Micro group) unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression was performed. Clinical data were assessed before 2 weeks, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months after surgery using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the modified MacNab criteria.

Results

There are no significant differences in VAS (back and leg) and ODI between the two groups. However, the VAS back pain in the FE group was significantly improved compared to the Micro group at 2 weeks. The rate of excellent or good outcomes was 87.88% and 85.71% in the FE and Micro group, respectively (P>0.05). The hospital stay and early ambulation in FE group were shorter than those in Micro group, but the operation time was longer (P<0.05). The complications between the FE group (18.18%) and the Micro group (17.86%) were minor (P>0.05).

Conclusion

Both full-endoscopic and microscopic decompression have achieved favorable clinical results in treating elderly lumbar spinal stenosis, and the complications are minor. Full-endoscopic decompression has the advantages of small incision and rapid recovery, which can be used as an alternative for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis, especially the elderly with comorbidities.