Efficacy and Safety of Full-endoscopic Decompression via Interlaminar Approach for Central or Lateral Recess Spinal Stenosis of the Lumbar Spine: A Meta-analysis

Clinical Observation of 10-mm Endoscopic Minimally Invasive Interlaminar Decompression in the Treatment of Ossified Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

PURPOSE

This study aims to observe the safety and effectiveness of 10-mm endoscopic minimally invasive interlaminar decompression in the treatment of ossified lumbar spinal stenosis.

METHODS

The clinical data of 50 consecutive patients with ossified lumbar spinal stenosis were retrospectively analyzed. All patients underwent minimally invasive interlaminar decompression with 10-mm endoscope. Patient demographics, perioperative data, and clinical outcomes were recorded. Visual analog scale scores, Oswestry disability index scores, and modified Macnab criteria were used to assess clinical outcomes. The lateral recess angle, real spinal canal area, and effective intervertebral foramen area were used to assess the effect of decompression.

RESULTS

The mean age of all patients was 59.0 ± 12.3 years. The mean operative time and intraoperative blood loss were 43.7 ± 8.7 minutes and <20 ml, respectively. Two years after surgery, the leg pain Visual analog scale score decreased from 7.4 ± 1.0 to 1.6 ± 0.6 (P < 0.05) and the Oswestry disability index score decreased from 63.8 ± 7.6 to 21.7 ± 3.4 (P < 0.05). The lateral recess angle, real spinal canal area and effective intervertebral foramen area were significantly larger than before surgery (P < 0.05). The overall excellent and good rate at the last follow-up was 92.0% according to the modified Macnab criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

The 10-mm endoscopic minimally invasive interlaminar decompression can safely and effectively remove the ossification in the spinal canal and achieve adequate decompression in patients with ossified lumbar spinal stenosis.

Evolution, Current Trends, and Latest Advances of Endoscopic Spine Surgery

Background: The aging of the population in developing and developed countries has led to a significant increase in the health burden of spinal diseases. These elderly patients often have a number of medical comorbidities due to aging. The need for minimally invasive techniques to address spinal disorders in this elderly population group cannot be stressed enough. Minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) has several proven benefits, such as minimal muscle trauma, minimal bony resection, lesser postoperative pain, decreased infection rate, and shorter hospital stay. Methods: A comprehensive search of the literature was performed using PubMed. Results: Over the past 40 years, constant efforts have been made to develop newer techniques of spine surgery. Endoscopic spine surgery is one such subset of MISS, which has all the benefits of modern MISS. Endoscopic spine surgery was initially limited only to the treatment of lumbar disc herniation. With improvements in optics, endoscopes, endoscopic drills and shavers, and irrigation pumps, there has been a paradigm shift. Endoscopic spine surgery can now be performed with high magnification, thus allowing its application not only to lumbar spinal stenosis but also to spinal fusion surgeries and cervical and thoracic pathology as well. There has been increasing evidence in support of these newer techniques of spine surgery. Conclusions: For this report, we studied the currently available literature and outlined the historical evolution of endoscopic spine surgery, the various endoscopic systems and techniques available, and the current applications of endoscopic techniques as an alternative to traditional spinal surgery.

Enhanced technique of dural closure using autologous fat graft and Gelfoam for effective management of dural tear following interlaminar endoscopic lumbar spine surgery

BACKGROUND

Incidental dural tears are common complications in lumbar spine surgery, particularly in endoscopic procedures where primary closure via suturing is challenging. The absence of a standardized approach for dural closure in endoscopic spine surgery necessitates exploring alternative techniques.

OBJECTIVE

This study introduces a surgical technique for dural closure utilizing fat graft and Gelfoam, offering an effective alternative to standard approaches in endoscopic spine surgery.

METHODS

Surgical data from patients who underwent interlaminar endoscopic discectomy or stenosis decompression at Lerdsin Hospital from October 2014 to October 2021 were analyzed.

RESULTS

Among 393 cases, dural tears occurred in 2% (8 patients). Our technique achieved successful closure in all these cases, with no incidents of cerebrospinal fluid leakage or wound complications. The majority of patients showed favorable clinical outcomes, except for one case involving concomitant nerve root injury.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that using fat graft and Gelfoam for dural closure is a simple, reliable, and safe technique, particularly effective for challenging-to-repair areas in interlaminar endoscopic lumbar spine surgery.

Advances and Challenges of Endoscopic Spine Surgery

The purpose of this paper is to review the data supporting current endoscopic surgical techniques for the spine and the potential challenges and future of the field. The origins of endoscopic spine surgery can be traced back many decades, with many important innovations throughout its development. It can be applied to all levels of the spine, with many robust trials supporting its clinical outcomes. Continued clinical research is needed to explore its expanding indications. Although the limitations of starting an endoscopic program can be justified by its cost effectiveness and positive societal impact, challenges facing its widespread adoption are still present. As more residency and fellowship programs include endoscopy as part of their spine training, it will become more prevalent in hospitals in the United States. Technological advancements in spine surgery will further propel and enhance endoscopic techniques as they become an integral part of a spine surgeon's repertoire.

Predictors of Clinical Failure after Endoscopic Lumbar Spine Surgery During the Initial Learning Curve

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to identify clinical factors that may predict failed endoscopic lumbar spine surgery to guide surgeons with patient selection during the initial learning curve.

METHODS

This is an Australasian prospective analysis of the first 105 patients to undergo lumbar endoscopic spine decompression by 3 surgeons. Modified MacNab outcomes, visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores were utilized to evaluate clinical outcomes at 6 months postoperatively. Descriptive statistics and ANOVA t tests were performed to measure statistically significant (P < 0.05) associations between variables using GraphPad Prism v10.

RESULTS

Patients undergoing endoscopic lumbar surgery via an interlaminar or transforaminal approach have overall good/excellent modified MacNab outcomes and a significant reduction in postoperative VAS and ODI scores. Regardless of the anatomic location of disc herniations, good/excellent modified MacNab outcomes and significant reductions in VAS and ODI were reported post-operatively, however, not in patients with calcified disc herniations. Patients with central and foraminal stenosis overall reported poor/fair modified MacNab outcomes, however, there were significant reductions in VAS and ODI scores postoperatively. Patients with subarticular stenosis or an associated spondylolisthesis reported good/excellent modified MacNab outcomes and significant reductions in VAS and ODI scores postoperatively. Patients with disc herniation and concurrent degenerative stenosis had generally poor/fair modified MacNab outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The outcomes of endoscopic spine surgery are encouraging with low complication and reoperation rates. However, patients with calcified disc herniations, central canal stenosis, or disc herniation with concurrent degenerative stenosis present challenges during the initial learning curve and may benefit from traditional open or other minimally invasive techniques.

Clinical outcome of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar decompression in treatment of elderly patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: a matched retrospective study

PURPOSE

This retrospective cohort study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar decompression (PELD) in elderly patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).

STUDY DESIGN

A matched retrospective study.

SETTING

The research was conducted in Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University, China.

METHODS

This study included patients treated with PELD for LSS from September 2016 to September 2020. Patients with LSS aged ≥ 80 years were screened according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria as the study group, and then the same number of patients with LSS aged 50-80 years were matched according to gender, stenosis type, and surgical segment as the control group. Preoperative patient status was assessed using the Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) and the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification score. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, modified Macnab criteria, radiological parameters and complication rates.

RESULTS

A total of 624 LSS patients met the screening criteria between September 2016 and September 2020, with 47 LSS patients ≥ 80 years old serving as the study group. Forty-seven LSS patients aged 50-80 years were matched to the study group according to gender, stenosis type, and stenosis segment. The CCI score (1.77 ± 1.67) and ASA classification (2.62 ± 0.74) of the study group were significantly higher than the CCI score (0.66 ± 0.96) and ASA classification (1.28 ± 0.54) of the control group, and the difference was statistically significant. Compared with preoperative data, postoperative ODI, leg pain VAS scores and back pain VAS scores were significantly improved in both groups (p < 0.05). However, no significant difference was found between two groups in preoperative and postoperative ODI, leg pain VAS scores and back pain VAS scores (p > 0.05). The operation time and postoperative hospital stay in control group were significantly lower than those in study (p < 0.05), but there was no significant difference in blood loss between the two groups (p > 0.05). Besides, overall radiological parameters were comparable in elder and younger patients (p > 0.05), and disc height (DH), lumbar lordosis and segmental lordosis decreased after two year follow-up in both groups (p < 0.05). In addition, complication rates were similar between the two groups (p > 0.05), and no serious complications and deaths were found.

LIMITATIONS

Single-centre retrospective design, non-randomized sample, small sample size.

CONCLUSION

Although elderly LSS patients (≥ 80 years old) are less fit and have more comorbidities, satisfactory outcomes can be achieved with PELD, comparable to those of LSS patients < 80 years old, and without increased complications.

Large-Scale Comparative Study Between Microendoscopic Laminectomy and Full-Endoscopic Laminectomy for the Treatment of Single-Level Lumbar Spinal Canal Stenosis

BACKGROUND

We previously compared the operative outcomes of microendoscopic laminectomy (MEL) and full-endoscopic laminectomy (FEL) for single-level lumbar spinal canal stenosis (LSCS). In this initial report, the operative outcomes of FEL were not inferior to those of MEL.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to compare the outcomes of MEL and FEL for single-level LSCS on a large scale using widely used multiple evaluation methods.

METHODS

MEL was performed using a 16 mm tubular retractor and an endoscope, while FEL was performed using a 6.4 mm working channel endoscope. A retrospective study was performed on patients with LSCS treated with MEL (n = 355) or FEL (n = 154). Patient background and operative data were also collected. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), and 36-item Short Form Survey (SF-36) scores were recorded preoperatively and 1-year postoperatively.

RESULTS

Background data of the two groups and the mean operation time (MEL, 72.1 m; FEL, 74.2 m) were not significant (p>0.2). The mean volumes of intraoperative bleeding (MEL, 25.2 ml; FEL, 10.3 ml) were significantly different (p<0.001). The mean postoperative hospital stays (MEL, 3.9 days; FEL, 2.1 days) were significantly different (p<0.001). Fifteen dural tears (MEL, 11; FEL, 4) and 1 surgical site infection (MEL, 1; FEL, 0) were observed but not significant (p>0.5). Reoperation was required for postoperative hematoma in five patients (MEL, 3; FEL, 2). Although the ODI, EQ-5D, and SF-36 scores improved significantly at one year postoperatively in the MEL and FEL groups (p<0.001), there were no significant differences between the two groups (p>0.1).

CONCLUSION

The operative outcomes and minimal invasiveness were no statistical difference between the MEL and FEL groups. Further development of the operative techniques and the instruments of FEL are required to shorten the operation time.

Movement examination of the lumbar spine using a developed wearable motion sensor

A system for monitoring spinal movements based on wearable motion sensors is proposed here. For this purpose, a hardware system is first developed that measures data of linear acceleration, angular velocity, and the magnetic field of the spine. Then, the obtained data from these sensors are combined in a proposed complementary filter, and their angular variations are estimated. The obtained results of angular variation of this system in comparison with an accurate reference illustrate that the root mean squared error is less than 1.61 degrees for three angles of ϕ r , θ r and ψ r for this system that proves this system can accurately estimate the angular variation of the spine. Then, the system is mounted on the lumbar spine of several volunteers, and the obtained angles from the patients' spine are compared with some healthy volunteers' spine, and the performance of their spine improves over time. The results show that this system can be very effective for patients who suffer from back problems and help in their recovery process a lot.

Intracranial Pressure Evaluation in Swine During Full-Endoscopic Lumbar Spine Surgery

BACKGROUND

Neurological complications during full-endoscopic spine surgery (FESS) might be attributed to intracranial pressure (ICP) increase due to continuous saline infusion (CSI). Understanding CSI and ICP correlation might modify irrigation pump usage. This study aimed to evaluate invasive ICP during interlaminar FESS; correlate ICP with irrigation pump parameters (IPPs); evaluate ICP during saline outflow occlusion, commonly used to control bleeding and improve the surgeon's view; and, after durotomy, simulate accidental dural tear.

METHODS

Five swine were monitored, submitted to total intravenous anesthesia, and positioned ventrally. A parenchymal catheter was installed through a skull burr for ICP monitoring. Lumbar interlaminar FESS was performed until exposure of neural structures. CSI was used within progressively higher IPPs (A [60 mm Hg, 350 mL/minute] to D [150 mm Hg, 700 mL/minute]), and ICP was documented. During each IPP, different situations were grouped: intact dura with open channels (A1-D1) or occlusion test (A2-D2); dural tear with open channels (Ax1-Dx1) or occlusion test (Ax2-Dx2). ICP <20 mm Hg was defined as safe.

RESULTS

Basal average ICP was 8.1 mm Hg. Adjustment in total intravenous anesthesia or suspension of tests was necessary due to critical ICP or animal discomfort. It was safe to operate with all IPPs with opened drainage channels (A1-D1) even with dural tear (Ax1-Dx1). Several occlusion tests (A2-D2, Ax2-Dx2) caused ICP increase (e.g., 86.1 mm Hg) influenced by anesthetic state and hemodynamics.

CONCLUSIONS

During FESS, CSI might critically raise ICP. Keeping drainage channels open, with ideal anesthetic state, ICP remains safe even with high IPPs, despite dural tear. Drainage occlusions can quickly raise ICP, being even more severe with higher IPPs. Total intravenous anesthesia may protect from ICP increase and may allow longer drainage occlusion or higher IPPs.

Surgical Technique of Central and Over-the-Top Full-Endoscopic Decompression of the Cervical Spine: A Technical Note

Endoscopic surgery of the cervical spine is constantly evolving and the spectrum of its indications has expanded in recent decades. Full-endoscopic techniques have standardized the procedures for posterior and anterior access. The full-endoscopic approach was developed to treat degenerative diseases with the least possible invasion and without causing instability of the cervical spine. The posterior full-endoscopic approach is indicated for the treatment of diseases of the lateral part of the vertebral segment, such as herniations and stenoses of the lateral recess and vertebral foramen. There has been little discussion of this approach to the treatment of central stenosis of the cervical spine. This technical note describes a step-by-step surgical technique for central and over-the-top full-endoscopic decompression in the cervical spine, using a 3.7 mm working channel endoscope. This technique has already been shown to be effective in a recent case series with a 4.7 mm working channel endoscope, and may represent a new treatment option for central or bilateral lateral recess stenosis. There is also the possibility of a bilateral full-endoscopic approach, but this may be associated with greater muscle damage and a longer operative time. Case series and comparative studies should be encouraged to confirm the safety and utility of this technique.

One-hole split endoscopy technique versus unilateral biportal endoscopy technique for L5-S1 lumbar disk herniation: analysis of clinical and radiologic outcomes

BACKGROUND

Lumbar disk herniation (LDH) is one of the most common diseases of the spine, especially occurring in L4-5 and L5-S1 intervertebral disks, and surgery is a choice when conservative treatment is ineffective. The purpose of this study is to investigate the clinical efficacy and radiologic outcomes of one-hole split endoscopy (OSE) technique versus unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) technique in the treatment of L5-S1 lumbar disk herniation (LDH).

METHODS

A total of 133 patients of a single center surgically treated for L5-S1 LDH between 2019 and 2021 were retrospectively included in this study, of which 70 were treated by UBE technique and the rest were treated by OSE technique. Hospitalization time, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, fluoroscopy times, incision length and related complications were recorded. Bone resection area (BRA), articular process resection rate, range of motion (ROM), sagittal translation (ST), disk height (DH), Visual Analog Score (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Macnab criteria were used to evaluated the clinical efficacy.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference in hospitalization time or fluoroscopy times between the two groups. The operation time was shorter in the UBE group than that in the OSE group; however, the incision length was longer. Intraoperative blood loss and BRA were larger in the UBE group than in the OSE group. There was no significant difference in ROM, ST, DH, or postoperative facet resection rate between the two groups. There was no significant difference in ROM, ST, or postoperative facet resection rate compared with preoperative indicators in each group, but there was a significant difference in DH among distinct groups. At any time point, the lower back and leg VAS and ODI in each group were significantly improved compared to those before the operation, with no significant difference between the two groups. There was one case of dural tear in the UBE group. One case of transient hypoesthesia occurred in each of the two groups. The excellent-good rates of the UBE group and the OSE group were 88.6% and 90.5%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The OSE technique is an effective minimally invasive surgical option as well as the UBE technique in the treatment of L5-S1 LDH.

Comparison of ligamentum flavum thickness between central and lateral lesions in a patient with central lumbar spinal canal stenosis

Thickened ligamentum flavum has been considered as a major cause of central lumbar spinal canal stenosis (CLSCS). Previous studies have demonstrated that ligamentum flavum thickness (LFT) is correlated with aging, degenerative spinal stenosis, and disc degeneration. Thus, hypertrophy of the ligamentum flavum is a major cause of CLSCS, and measurement of LFT has been considered a morphologic parameter in the diagnosis of CLSCS. To our knowledge, comparison of LFT between central and lateral lesions has not been reported. In addition, no research has analyzed best clinical cutoff values of central ligament flavum thickness (CLFT) and lateral ligament flavum thickness (LLFT). This study aimed to compare CLFT with LLFT in patients with CLSCS and further compare the CLFT and LLFT findings between the 2 groups to analyze LFT variation. Both CLFT and LLFT samples were collected from 101 participants with CLSCS and from 103 participants in the control group who underwent lumbar magnetic resonance imaging without evidence of CLSCS. Axial T2-weighted lumbar magnetic resonance scans were acquired at the L4 to 5 facet joint level from each participant. Average CLFT value was 2.25 ± 0.51 mm in the control group and 4.02 ± 0.74 mm in the CLSCS group. Average LLFT value was 2.50 ± 0.51 mm in the control group and 3.38 ± 0.66 mm in the CLSCS group. CLSCS patients had significantly higher CLFT and LLFT (both P < .001). Regarding the validity of both CLFT and LLFT as predictors of CLSCS, a receiver operating characteristic estimation revealed that the most suitable cutoff value for CLFT was 3.10 mm, with sensitivity of 95.0%, specificity of 94.2%, and an area under the curve of 0.97. The best cut-off value of LLFT was 2.92 mm, with sensitivity of 78.2%, specificity of 77.7%, and area under the curve of 0.87. We have 4 important new findings: The mean CLFT is significantly lower than that of the mean LLFT in the normal control group; CLFT and LLFT are both significantly associated with CLSCS; Increase rate of CLFT is faster than that of LLFT in the CLSCS group; and CLFT is a more sensitive measurement parameter to predict CLSCS than LLFT.

Comparison of full-endoscopic and tubular-based microscopic decompression in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

We aimed to demonstrate non-inferiority in terms of functional outcomes in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis who underwent full-endoscopic decompression compared with tubular-based microscopic decompression.

METHODS

This prospective, randomized controlled, non-inferiority trial included 60 patients with single-level lumbar spinal stenosis who required decompression surgery. The patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to the full-endoscopic group (FE group) or the tubular-based microscopic group (TM group). Based on intention-to-treat analysis, the primary outcome was the Oswestry Disability Index score at 24 months postoperative. The secondary outcomes included the visual analog scale (VAS) score for back and leg pain, European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) score, walking time, and patient satisfaction rate according to the modified MacNab criteria. Surgery-related outcomes were also analyzed.

RESULTS

Of the total patients, 92% (n = 55) completed a 24-month follow-up. The primary outcomes were comparable between the two groups (p = 0.748). However, the FE group showed a statistically significant improvement in the mean VAS score for back pain at day 1 and at 6, 12, and 24 months after surgery (p < 0.05). No significant difference was observed in the VAS score for leg pain, EQ-5D score, or walking time (p > 0.05). Regarding the modified MacNab criteria, 86.7% of patients in the FE group and 83.3% in the TM group had excellent or good results at 24 months after surgery (p = 0.261). Despite the similar results in surgery-related outcomes, including operative time, radiation exposure, revision rate, and complication rate, between the two groups (p > 0.05), less blood loss and shorter length of hospital stay were observed in the FE group (p ≤ 0.001 and 0.011, respectively).

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that full-endoscopic decompression is an alternative treatment for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis because it provides non-inferior clinical efficacy and safety compared with tubular-based microscopic surgery. In addition, it offers advantages in terms of less invasive surgery. Trial registration number (TRN): TCTR20191217001.

Economic comparisons of endoscopic spine surgery: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Full-endoscopic techniques are minimally invasive surgery alternatives to traditional spinal surgery. We performed a systematic review of the literature to assess the costs of these techniques compared to traditional approaches.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed for economic evaluations that compare endoscopic decompressions of the lumbar spine for stenosis or disc herniation to open or microsurgical decompressions. The search was performed in the following databases: Medline, Embase Classic, Embase, and Central Cochrane library, from January 1, 2005, to October 22, 2022. The included studies were each evaluated according to a formal assessment checklist to evaluate the quality of economic evaluations based on 35 criteria.

RESULT

A total of 1153 studies were identified, with 9 articles included in the final analysis. In evaluating the quality of economic evaluations, the study with the fewest met criteria scored 9/35 and the study with the most met criteria scored 28/35. Only 3 studies completed cost-effectiveness analyses. Surgical procedure duration varied between studies, but hospital length of stays were consistently shorter with endoscopy. While endoscopy was more frequently associated with higher operating costs, studies that measured healthcare and societal costs found endoscopy to be advantageous.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic spine surgery was found to be cost-effective in treating patients with lumbar stenosis and disc herniation when compared to standard microscopic approaches from a societal perspective. More well-designed economic evaluations investigating the cost-effectiveness of endoscopic spine procedures are needed to further support these findings.

Clinical outcomes of uniportal compared with biportal endoscopic decompression for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) treatment has evolved with the introduction of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) techniques. Endoscopic methods take the concepts applied to MIS a step further, with multiple studies showing that endoscopic techniques have outcomes that are similar to those of more traditional approaches. The aim of this study was to perform an updated meta-analysis and systematic review of studies comparing the outcomes between both available endoscopic techniques (uni and biportal) for the treatment of LSS.

METHODS

Following PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a systematic literature search and compared the randomized controlled trials and retrospective studies of uniportal and biportal endoscopy in the treatment of LSS from several databases. Bias was assessed using quality assessment criteria and funnel plots. Meta-analysis using a random-effects model was used to synthesize the metadata. The authors used Review Manager 5.4 to manage the date and perform the review.

RESULTS

After a preliminary selection of 388 studies from electronic databases, the full inclusion criteria were applied; three studies were found to be eligible for inclusion. There were 184 patients from three unique studies. Meta-analysis of visual analog scale score for low back pain and leg pain showed no significant difference at the final follow-up (P = 0.51 and P = 0.66). ODI score after biportal surgery was lower than uniportal surgery [SMD = 0.34, 95% CI (0.04, 0.63), P = 0.02]. The mean operation time was similar in the unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) and uniportal groups (P = 0.53). The UBE group was associated with a shorter length of hospital stay (P = 0.05). Complications were similar in both groups (P = 0.89).

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence shows no significant differences in most clinical outcomes between uniportal and biportal surgery. UBE may have a better ODI score at the end of the follow-up compared to uniportal. Further studies are required before drawing a definite conclusion.

STUDY REGISTRATION

PROSPERO prospective register of systematic reviews: Registration Nº. CRD42022339078, Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/displayrecord.php?ID=CRD42022339078.

Clinical Outcomes of Selective Single-Level Lumbar Endoscopic Unilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Decompression of Multilevel Lumbar Spinal Stenosis and Risk Factors of Reoperation

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the usefulness of selective single-level lumbar endoscopic unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (LE-ULBD) in patients with radiological multilevel lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) and clarify the predictive factors of reoperation.

METHODS

A total of 128 patients who underwent LE-ULBD of radiological multilevel LSS were retrospectively examined. Single-level decompression was selected clinically and supplemented radiologically. Clinical outcomes were assessed with the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ), numeric rating scale (NRS), and Macnab criteria (mean follow-up period, 28.6 months [range, 24-63 months]). Stenosis severity was classified as grades M (moderate) and S (severe) based magnetic resonance imaging findings. Multilevel LSS was classified as SS, SM, and MM according to the number of grade S levels.

RESULTS

The follow-up rate was 74.2%. All domains of the JOABPEQ and NRS significantly improved during follow-up. The Macnab outcome classification was "excellent" or "good" in 77.9% of the patients. The reoperation rate was 10.2%. None of the patients with unilateral symptoms required reoperation. The SS type was a significant risk factor of reoperation for multilevel LSS with bilateral symptoms. Additional LE-ULBD was performed for all the reoperation with the "excellent" or "good" results of the Macnab criteria in 69% of the patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Selective single-level LE-ULBD provided favorable results for multilevel LSS. However, information about the risks of reoperation for multilevel severe stenosis with bilateral symptoms should be shared between surgeons and patients.

Retrospective Case Control Study: Clinical and Computer Tomographic Fusion and Subsidence Evaluation for Single Level Uniportal Endoscopic Posterolateral Approach Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Microscopic Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Interbody Fusion

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective comparative study.

OBJECTIVE

Assessment of difference in clinical and computer tomographic outcomes between the 2 cohorts.

METHODS

Computer tomographic evaluation by Bridwell's grade, Kim's stage, Kim's subsidence grade and clinical evaluation by VAS, ODI and McNab's criteria on both cohorts.

RESULTS

33 levels of Endo-TLIF and 22 levels of TLIF were included, with a mean follow up of 14.3 (10-24) and 22.9 (13-30) months respectively. Both Endo-TLIF and TLIF achieved significant improvement of pain and ODI at post-operative 4 week, 3 months and at final follow up with VAS 4.39 ± 0.92, 5.27 ± 1.16 and 5.73 ± 1.21in Endo-TLIF and 4.55 ± 1.16, 5.05 ± 1.11 and 5.50 ± 1.20 in TLIF respectively and ODI at post-operative 1 week, 3 months and final follow up were 43.15 ± 6.57, 49.27 ± 8.24 and 51.73 ± 9.09 in Endo-TLIF and 41.73 ± 7.98, 46.18± 8.46 and 49.09 ± 8.98 in TLIF respectively, P < 0.05. Compared to TLIF, Endo-TLIF achieved better VAS with 0.727 ± 0.235 at 3 months and 0.727 ± 0.252 at final follow up and better ODI with 3.88 ± 1.50 at 3months and 3.42 ± 1.63 at final follow up, P < 0.05. At 6 months radiological evaluation comparison of the Endo-TLIF and TLIF showed significant with more favorable fusion rate in Endo-TLIF of -0.61 ± 0.12 at 6 months and -0.49 ± 0.12 at 1 year in Bridwell's grading and 0.70 ± 0.15 at 6 months and 0.56 ± 0.14 at 1 year in Kim's stage.There is less subsidence of 0.606 ± 0.18 at 6 months and -0.561 ± 0.20 at 1 year of Kim's subsidence grade, P < 0.05.

CONCLUSION

Application of single level uniportal endoscopic posterolateral lumbar interbody fusion achieved better clinical outcomes and fusion rate with less subsidence than microscopic minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in mid-term evaluation for our cohorts of patients.

Case-matched radiological and clinical outcome evaluation of interlaminar versus microsurgical decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis

PURPOSE

Endoscopic spine surgery is a globally expanding technique advocated as less invasive for spinal stenosis treatment compared to the microsurgical approach. However, evidence on the efficiency of interlaminar full-endoscopic decompression (FED) vs. conventional microsurgical decompression (MSD) in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis is still scarce. We conducted a case-matched comparison for treatment success with consideration of clinical, laboratory, and radiologic predictors.

METHODS

We included 88 consecutive patients (FED: 36/88, 40.9%; MSD: 52/88, 59.1%) presenting with lumbar central spinal stenosis. Surgery-related (operation time, complications, length of stay (LOS), American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status (ASA) score, C-reactive protein (CRP), white blood cell count, side of approach (unilateral/bilateral), patient-related outcome measures (PROMs) (Oswestry disability index (ODI), numeric rating scale of pain (NRS; leg-, back pain), EuroQol questionnaire (eQ-5D), core outcome measures index (COMI)), and radiological (dural sack cross-sectional area, Schizas score (SC), left and right lateral recess heights, and facet angles, respectively) parameters were extracted at different time points up to 1-year follow-up. The relationship of PROMs was analyzed using Spearman's rank correlation. Surgery-related outcome parameters were correlated with patient-centered and radiological outcomes utilizing a regression model to determine predictors for propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Complication (most often residual sensorimotor deficits and restenosis due to hematoma) rates were higher in the FED (33.3%) than MSD (13.5%) group (p < 0.05), while all complications in the FED group were observed within the first 20 FED patients. Operation time was higher in the FED, whereas LOS was higher in the MSD group. Age, SC, CRP revealed significant associations with PROMs. We did not observe significant differences in the endoscopic vs. microsurgical group in PROMs. The correlation between ODI and COMI was significantly high, and both were inversely correlated with eQ-5D, whereas the correlations of these PROMs with NRS findings were less pronounced.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis was similarly successful as the conventional microsurgical approach. Although FED was associated with higher complication rates in our single-center study experience, the distribution of complications indicated surgical learning curves to be the main factor of these findings. Future long-term prospective studies considering the surgical learning curve are warranted for reliable comparisons of these techniques.

A Comparative Analysis of Bi-Portal Endoscopic Spine Surgery and Unilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Decompression in Multilevel Lumbar Stenosis Patients

The clinical and radiological results before and after surgery were compared and analyzed for patients with multilevel lumbar stenosis who underwent bi-portal endoscopic spine surgery (BESS) and microscopic unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD). We retrospectively identified 47 and 49 patients who underwent BESS and microscopic ULBD, respectively, who were diagnosed with multi-level lumbar stenosis. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using the visual analog scale score for both back and leg pain, and medication (pregabalin) use and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores for overall treatment outcomes were used pre-operatively and at the final follow-up. Radiological outcomes were evaluated as the percentage of dura expansion volume, and percentage preservation of both facets and both lateral recess angles. The follow-up period of patients was about 17.04 months in the BESS group and about 16.90 months in the microscopic ULBD group. The back and leg visual analog scale (VAS) scores and average pregabalin use decreased more significantly in the BESS group than in the microscopic ULBD group (each p-value 0.0443, <0.001, 0.0378). All radiological outcomes were significantly higher in the BESS group than in the ULBD group. The change in ODI in two-level spinal stenosis showed a significantly higher value in the BESS group compared to the microscopic ULBD group (p-value 0.0335). Multilevel decompression with the BESS technique in multiple spinal stenosis is an adequate technique as it shows better clinical and radiological results than microscopic ULBD during a short-term follow-up period.

Endoscopic Resection of Pseudoarticulation as a Treatment for Bertolotti's Syndrome

Bertolotti's syndrome is described as lower back pain with the presence of lumbosacral transitional vertebrae (LSTV) associated with an articulation, pseudoarticulation, or full fusion of the transverse process to the sacrum and ilium. We present a unique case of the management of a 57-year-old woman with treatment-resistant lower back pain who underwent endoscopic resection of a pseudoarticulation related to LSTV. The patient underwent multiple treatment regimens without achieving satisfactory relief. These included physical therapy, sacroiliac (SI) joint injections, radiofrequency lesioning at multiple levels, and spinal cord stimulator placement. Relief with injection at the patient's pseudoarticulation confirmed this as a contributor to the patient's back pain. Interventional management of Bertolotti's syndrome can include different modalities, most recently including minimally invasive surgical techniques. This patient experienced partial relief of lower back pain after undergoing minimally invasive resection of the pseudoarticulation. This case demonstrates the benefit of a minimally invasive resection of this anatomic abnormality in a patient who has undergone previous treatments. Isolating this anomaly as a source of pain is necessary to ensure a favorable response and prevent needless surgery.

Full Endoscopic Ligamentum Flavum Sparing Unilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Recess Decompression: Surgical Technique and Clinical Results

OBJECTIVE

Interlaminar endoscopic spine surgery has been introduced and utilized for lumbar lateral recess decompression. We modified this technique and utilized it for bilateral lateral recess stenoses without significant central stenosis. Here we present the surgical details and clinical outcome of ligamentum flavum sparing unilateral laminotomy for bilateral recess decompression (ULBRD).

METHODS

Prospectively collected registry for full-endoscopic surgeries was reviewed retrospectively. One hundred eighty-two consecutive cases from a single center between September 2015 and March 2021 were reviewed and 57 of them whom underwent ULBRD were enrolled for analysis. Basic patient demographic data, perioperative details, surgeryrelated complications, and clinical outcome were reviewed. The detailed surgical technique is presented as well.

RESULTS

Among the 57 patients enrolled, 37 were males while the other 20 were females. The mean age was 58.53 ± 14.51 years, and a bimodal age distribution at the age of mid-fifties and mid-sixties or older was noted. The later age-peak was related to coexistence of degenerative scoliosis. The average operative time per lamina was 70.34 ± 20.51 minutes and mean length of stay was 0.56 ± 0.85 days. Four perioperative complications were reported (7.0%) and the overall reoperation rate at the index level within 1 year was 8.8%. The preoperative back/leg visual analogue scale scores and functional outcome scales including EuroQol-5 dimension questionnaire, Oswestry Disability Index presented significant improvement immediately after surgery and were maintained until final follow-up.

CONCLUSION

ULBRD for bilateral lateral recess stenoses without significant central stenosis resulted in good clinical outcomes with acceptably low perioperative complications rates. Sufficient decompression was achieved with the central ligamentum flavum being preserved.

Percutaneous fully endoscopic surgical management of the ruptured epidural catheter: Rescue of the novice anesthesiologist from his dilemma

BACKGROUND

Epidural nerve block and analgesia are basic anesthetic techniques for anesthesia. Epidural catheter rupture and partial retention are adverse events and rare complications of epidural catheterization technique. The probability of occurrence when applied by novice doctors is high. Removal of the residual catheter by conventional surgery causes more trauma and bleeding, slows recovery, and may causes medical disputes. We hypothesized that percutaneous spinal endoscopy a safe and effective remediation technique. This study was to analyze the efficacy and safety of removing the residual dural catheter by a percutaneous full-endoscopic technique(PFET) and discuss the clinical technique and precautions.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of 7 patients with ruptured epidural catheters treated in our department from October 2015 to October 2019 using the PFET to remove the remaining epidural catheter. The operation time, intraoperative bleeding volume, surgical complications, and neurological symptoms before and after surgery were recorded. The Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS) was used to assess the anxiety level of the anesthesiologist and the patient before and after the catheter removal operation, and the postoperative low back pain VAS score was recorded.

RESULTS

The remaining epidural catheter was successfully removed from all 7 patients. The operation time was 54.14 ± 14.45 (32-78) minutes, and the intraoperative blood loss was 9.134 ± 3.078 (5-15) ml. There were no cases of dural damage, cerebrospinal fluid leakage, sensorimotor dysfunction of the lower limbs, or bowel dysfunction. The anxiety symptoms of the patient and the anesthesiologist disappeared after removal of the residual epidural catheter. The patients' postoperative back pain VAS score was 0 to 2 points.

CONCLUSION

PFET is a safe and effective minimally invasive technique for removing residual epidural catheters. It causes less trauma and less bleeding, allows a faster recovery. It does not affect the recovery of patients from other surgical operations and reduces both medical risks and medical costs. At the same time, it avoids or reduces the occurrence of medical disputes and eliminates the pressure on novice anesthesiologists regarding similar adverse events.

[Comparative analysis of unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy, percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy, and fenestration discectomy in treatment of lumbar disc herniation]

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effectiveness of unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBED), percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD), and traditional fenestration discectomy (FD) in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH).

METHODS

The clinical data of 347 LDH patients who met the selection criteria and underwent discectomy between January 2017 and December 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. They were divided into FD group (160 cases), PELD group (86 cases), and UBED group (101 cases) according to operation methods. There was no significant difference in gender, age, surgical level distribution, disease duration, and preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score and Oswestry disability index (ODI) between groups ( P>0.05). The operation time, hospitalization stay, treatment cost, and incidence of surgery-related complications were recorded and compared between groups. The patients' pain and functional recovery were evaluated by VAS score and ODI before and after operation.

RESULTS

The operation time of FD group was significantly shorter than that of PELD group and UBED group, and the hospitalization stay was significantly longer than that of PELD group and UBED group ( P<0.05); there was no significant difference between PELD group and UBED group ( P>0.05). The treatment cost in UBED group was significantly higher than that in PELD group, and in PELD group than in FD group ( P<0.05). All the patients were followed up 6-24 months, with an average of 14.6 months. VAS score of lower extremity and ODI in 3 groups significantly improved after operation when compared with that before operation ( P<0.05). At 1 day after operation, VAS score of lower extremity of UBED group was significantly better than that in PELD group and FD group ( P<0.05), but there was no significant difference between PELD group and FD group ( P>0.05). There was no significant difference in VAS scores of lower extremity between the 3 groups at 1 and 3 months after operation ( P>0.05). The difference of ODI before and after operation in FD group and UBED group was slightly better than that in PELD group ( P<0.05), and there was no significant difference between FD group and UBED group ( P>0.05). Incidence of surgery-related complications in FD group (20.0%) was significantly higher than that in PELD group (12.8%) and UBED group (6.9%), and PELD group was significantly higher than UBED group ( P<0.05). All the incision infection occurred in FD group (12 cases), symptomatic disc cyst and myeloid hypertension-like occurred in 1 case each in PELD group.

CONCLUSION

UBED, PELD, and FD have similar effectiveness on lower extremity pain in early LDH. Compared with FD, UBED and PELD have the advantage of shorter hospitalization stay and fewer complications.

Clinical efficacy of transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy for lumbar degenerative diseases: A minimum 6-year follow-up

Background

Transforaminal Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy (TELD) is widely applied for lumbar degenerative disease (LDDs) and satisfactory short-term outcomes have been achieved. However, the mid-term and long-term follow-up of this technique is still lacking.

Objective

To retrospectively analyze the mid-term clinical efficacy of TELD for single-level LDD and its effect on intervertebral disc degeneration with a minimum of 6-year follow-up.

Methods

64 patients with single-level LDDs (lumbar disc herniation, lumbar spinal stenosis) who underwent TELD under local anesthesia in our department from December 2014 to December 2015 were observed. Visual analog scale (VAS), Japanese Orthopaedic Association evaluation treatment (JOA) score and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were calculated and compared before operation, 3 months after operation, 6 months after operation, 1 year after operation and at the last follow-up. Disc Height (DH), disc range of motion (ROM) and disc degeneration on standard lumbar lateral radiographs before operation and at the last follow-up were determined. Recurrence rate and operation-related complications during follow-up were recorded.

Results

64 cases were followed up for 6.4 ± 0.1 years. There were no complications such as infection, epidural hematoma and nerve root injury. 1 patient (1.67%) was found to have dural rupture and cauda equina hernia during the operation. There were significant differences in VAS, JOA, ODI between preoperative and postoperative 3 months, 6 months, 1 year and last follow-up (P < 0 01), VAS, JOA, ODI at 3 months after operation were different from 6 months after operation (P < 0 05), and there were significant differences compared with preoperative, 1 year after operation and last follow up (P < 0 01). VAS, JOA and ODI at 6 months after operation were significantly different from those before operation (P < 0.01), but not significantly different from those at 1 year after operation and the last follow-up (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference in DH, ROM and the Pfirrmann grade of intervertebral disc preoperative and the last follow-up. During the follow-up period, 3 patients (4.69%) were recurrent, 13 patients (20.31%) had various degrees of postoperative dysesthesia (POD), and 3 patients (4.69%) had various degrees of muscle weakness.

Conclusion

TELD has a satisfactory mid-term efficacy, and has no significant effect on the DH, the stability of the intervertebral disc space, or on intervertebral disc degeneration. However, as expected, TELD was associated with some complications including recurrent disc herniation and POD.

The effectiveness of percutaneous endoscopic decompression compared with open decompression and fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis: protocol for a multicenter, prospective, cohort study

Background

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is one of the most frequent indications for spine surgery. Open decompression and fusion surgery was the most common treatment and used to be regarded as the golden standard treatment for LSS. In recent years, percutaneous endoscopic decompression surgery was also used for LSS. However, the effectiveness and safety of percutaneous endoscopic decompression in the treatment of LSS have not been supported by high-level evidence. Our aim is to 1) compare the effectiveness of percutaneous endoscopic decompression surgery and open decompression and fusion for the treatment of LSS. 2) Investigate the prognosis risk factors for LSS. 3) Evaluate the influence of percutaneous endoscopic decompression for the stability of operative level, and degeneration of adjacent level.

Methods

It’s a prospective, multicenter cohort study. The study is performed at 4 centers in Beijing. This study plans to enroll 600 LSS patients (300 patients in the percutaneous endoscopic decompression group, and 300 patients in the open decompression and fusion group). The demographic variables, healthcare variables, symptom related variables, clinical assessment (Visual analogue score (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), Japanese Orthopaedic Association score (JOA)), and radiological assessment (dynamic X-ray, CT, MRI) will be collected at baseline visit. Patients will follow up at 3, 6, 12 months. The primary outcome is the difference of improvement of ODI between baseline and 12-month follow-up between the two groups. The secondary outcome is the score changes of preoperative and postoperative VAS, the recovery rate of JOA, MacNab criteria, patient satisfaction, degeneration grade of adjacent level, ROM of operative level and adjacent level, complication rate.

Discussion

In this study, we propose to conduct a prospective registry study to address the major controversies of LSS decompression under percutaneous spinal endoscopy, and investigate the clinical efficacy and safety of percutaneous endoscopic decompression and open decompression in the treatment of LSS.

Trial registration

This study has been registered on clinicaltrials.gov in January 15, 2020 (NCT04254757). (SPIRIT 2a).

Remodeling Pattern of Spinal Canal after Full Endoscopic Uniportal Lumbar Endoscopic Unilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Decompression: One Year Repetitive MRI and Clinical Follow-Up Evaluation

Objective: There is limited literature on repetitive postoperative MRI and clinical evaluation after Uniportal Lumbar Endoscopic Unilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Decompression. Methods: Clinical visual analog scale, Oswestry Disability Index, McNab’s criteria evaluation and MRI evaluation of the axial cut spinal canal area of the upper end plate, mid disc and lower end plate were performed for patients who underwent single-level Uniportal Lumbar Endoscopic Unilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Decompression. From the evaluation of the axial cut MRI, four types of patterns of remodeling were identified: type A: continuous expanded spinal canal, type B: restenosis with delayed expansion, type C: progressive expansion and type D: restenosis. Result: A total of 126 patients with single-level Uniportal Lumbar Endoscopic Unilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Decompression were recruited with a minimum follow-up of 26 months. Thirty-six type A, fifty type B, thirty type C and ten type D patterns of spinal canal remodeling were observed. All four types of patterns of remodeling had statistically significant improvement in VAS at final follow-up compared to the preoperative state with type A (5.59 ± 1.58), B (5.58 ± 1.71), C (5.58 ± 1.71) and D (5.27 ± 1.68), p < 0.05. ODI was significantly improved at final follow-up with type A (49.19 ± 10.51), B (50.00 ± 11.29), C (45.60 ± 10.58) and D (45.60 ± 10.58), p < 0.05. A significant MRI axial cut increment of the spinal canal area was found at the upper endplate at postoperative day one and one year with type A (39.16 ± 22.73; 28.00 ± 42.57) mm2, B (47.42 ± 18.77; 42.38 ± 19.29) mm2, C (51.45 ± 18.16; 49.49 ± 18.41) mm2 and D (49.10 ± 23.05; 38.18 ± 18.94) mm2, respectively, p < 0.05. Similar significant increment was found at the mid-disc at postoperative day one, 6 months and one year with type A (55.16 ± 27.51; 37.23 ± 25.88; 44.86 ± 25.73) mm2, B (72.83 ± 23.87; 49.79 ± 21.93; 62.94 ± 24.43) mm2, C (66.85 ± 34.48; 54.92 ± 30.70; 64.33 ± 31.82) mm2 and D (71.65 ± 16.87; 41.55 ± 12.92; 49.83 ± 13.31) mm2 and the lower endplate at postoperative day one and one year with type A (49.89 ± 34.50; 41.04 ± 28.56) mm2, B (63.63 ± 23.70; 54.72 ± 24.29) mm2, C (58.50 ± 24.27; 55.32 ± 22.49) mm2 and D (81.43 ± 16.81; 58.40 ± 18.05) mm2 at postoperative day one and one year, respectively, p < 0.05. Conclusions: After full endoscopic lumbar decompression, despite achieving sufficient decompression immediately postoperatively, varying severity of asymptomatic restenosis was found in postoperative six months MRI without clinical significance. Further remodeling with a varying degree of increment of the spinal canal area occurs at postoperative one year with overall good clinical outcomes.

The Comparison of Fluoroscopy-Guided Epidural Anesthesia with Conscious Sedation and General Anesthesia for Endoscopic Lumbar Decompression Surgery: A Retrospective Analysis

BACKGROUND

With advances and refinements in endoscopic lumbar spine surgery showing effective and satisfactory results, the need for simple yet effective anesthetic techniques for minimally invasive endoscopic spine surgery has increased. The aim of this study was to compare feasibility and postoperative outcomes of fluoroscopy-guided epidural anesthesia with general anesthesia in patients undergoing endoscopic lumbar decompression surgery (≤3 levels).

METHODS

Patients who underwent 1-3 levels of endoscopic lumbar decompression surgery under either fluoroscopy-guided epidural or general anesthesia between January 2019 and October 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Postoperative pain intensity and use of rescue analgesics for up to 48 hours were compared between the epidural and general anesthesia groups. Intraoperative anesthetic data and postoperative recovery profiles were also analyzed.

RESULTS

Postoperative pain scores were significantly lower in the epidural anesthesia group compared with the general anesthesia group at 10 minutes after recovery room admission (2.1 ± 1.8 vs. 5.7 ± 1.9, P < 0.001), 24 hours postoperatively (3.3 ± 1.0 vs. 5.4 ± 1.8, P < 0.001), and 48 hours postoperatively (3.2 ± 0.6 vs. 4.4 ± 1.4, P < 0.001). The proportion of patients requiring rescue analgesics in the recovery room was significantly lower in the epidural anesthesia group (1.9% vs. 20.5%, P = 0.027). The median 15-item Quality of Recovery score on postoperative day 1 was significantly higher in the epidural anesthesia group (118.0 [113.5-123.0] vs. 82.0 [73.5-111.5], P < 0.001). Occurrence of nausea, vomiting, and voiding difficulty up to 48 hours postoperatively did not differ between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with general anesthesia, epidural anesthesia provided better analgesia and recovery characteristics during the early postoperative period in endoscopic lumbar decompression surgery.

Surgical decompression via the unilateral intervertebral foraminal approach with local anesthesia for treating elderly patients with lumbar central canal stenosis

OBJECTIVE

Surgical decompression via a posterior interlaminar approach is widely used for treating lumbar central canal stenosis (LCCS). However, this surgical approach poses a challenge for elderly patients with comorbidities. Thus, the authors tried a new surgical decompression via the unilateral intervertebral foraminal approach with local anesthesia to treat such patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of surgical decompression via the unilateral intervertebral foraminal approach with local anesthesia for patients with LCCS.

METHODS

Patients with LCCS who underwent surgical decompression, performed by a single surgeon, between January 2016 and March 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. All patients received decompression via the unilateral intervertebral foraminal approach with local anesthesia. Visual analog scale (VAS) scores, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, modified Macnab criteria, walking distance, and Schizas classification were used as outcome predictors. Additionally, a decompression evaluation method was designed for use after spinal endoscopic surgery.

RESULTS

Overall, 23 patients with a mean age of 69 years were included in this study, with a mean follow-up of 28 months. Low-back and leg pain were significantly improved after decompression surgery. Postoperative ODI scores and walking distances were statistically significantly better than before surgery. Postoperatively, the Schizas classification for all patients was improved by at least 1 grade compared with the preoperative grade. No complications occurred during the follow-up period. According to the novel decompression evaluation method, all patients had at least achieved decompression in part 123+B.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical decompression via the unilateral intervertebral foraminal approach with local anesthesia showed promising outcomes in the treatment of elderly patients with LCCS. Additionally, a proposed postoperative decompression evaluation method can help guide surgical decompression.

Decompression Using Minimally Invasive Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Associated with Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: A Review

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), which often occurs concurrently with degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS), is a common disease in the elderly population, affecting the quality of life of aged people significantly. Notwithstanding the frequently good effect of conservative therapy on LSS, a minority of the patients ultimately require surgery. Surgery for LSS aims to decompress the narrowed spinal canals with preservation of spinal stability. Traditional open surgery, either pure decompression or decompression with fusion, was considered effective for the treatment of LSS with or without DS. However, the long-term clinical outcomes of traditional open surgery are still unclear. Moreover, the disadvantages of conventional open surgery are extensive, examples including tissue injuries or secondary instability, with limited outcomes and significant reoperation rates. With the development and improvement of surgical tools, various minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) methods, including indirect decompression techniques of interspinous process devices (IPDs) and direct decompression techniques such as microscopic spine surgery or endoscopic spine surgery (ESS), have been updated with enhancement. IPDs, such as Superion devices, were reported to behave with comparable physical function, disability, and symptoms outcomes to laminectomy decompression. As an emerging technique of MISS, ESS has beneficial hallmarks including minimal tissue injuries, reduced complication rates, and shortened recovery periods, thus gaining popularity in recent years. ESS can be classified in terms of endoscopic hallmarks and approaches. Predictably, with the continuous development and gradual maturity, MISS is expected to replace traditional open surgery widely in the surgical treatment of LSS associated with DS in the future.

Transforaminal Endoscopic Decompression of Facet Cysts by Interventional Pain Physicians

Lumbar synovial cysts (LSC) can impinge neural structures, causing radicular back pain. Conservative treatment options; however, are often ineffective, and traditional surgical techniques can cause joint instability. We describe two cases in which interventional pain physicians used transforaminal endoscopic spine surgery to treat LSC. The patients reported complete resolution of their lower back and radicular pain and the procedures preserved their motor function and sensation in their bilateral lower extremities. This technique is a viable option for remediation of LSC and can be performed by well-trained pain physicians.

Early results of full-endoscopic decompression of lumbar central canal stenosis by outside-in technique: A clinical and radiographic study

Retrospective cohort study.Full-endoscopic decompression of lumbar spinal canal stenosis is being performed by endoscopic surgeons as an alternative to micro-lumbar decompression in the recent years. The outcomes of the procedure are reported by few authors only. The aim of this paper is to report the clinical and radiographic outcomes of full endoscopic lumbar decompression of central canal stenosis by outside-in technique at 1-year follow-up.We reviewed patients operated for lumbar central canal stenosis by full endoscopic decompression from May 2018 to November 2018. We analyzed the visual analogue scale scores for back and leg pain and Oswestry disability index at pre-op, post-op, and 1-year follow-up. At the same periods, we also evaluated disc height, segmental lordosis, whole lumbar lordosis on standing X-rays and canal cross sectional area at the affected level and at the adjacent levels on magnetic resonance imaging and the facet length and facet cross-sectional area on computed tomography scans. The degree of stenosis was judged by Schizas grading and the outcome at final follow-up was evaluated by MacNab criteria.We analyzed 32 patients with 43 levels (M:F = 14:18) with an average age of 63 (±11) years. The visual analogue scale back and leg improved from 5.4 (±1.3) and 7.8 (±2.3) to 1.6 (±0.5) and 1.4 (±1.2), respectively, and Oswestry disability index improved from 58.9 (±11.2) to 28 (±5.4) at 1-year follow-up. The average operative time per level was 50 (±16.2) minutes. The canal cross sectional area, on magnetic resonance imaging, improved from 85.78 mm2 (±28.45) to 150.5 mm2 (±38.66). The lumbar lordosis and segmental lordosis also improved significantly. The disc height was maintained in the postoperative period. All the radiographic improvements were maintained at 1-year follow-up. The MacNab criteria was excellent in 18 (56%), good in 11 (34%), and fair in 3 (9%) patients. None of the patients required conversion to open surgery or a revision surgery at follow-up. There was 1 patient with dural tear that was sealed with fibrin sealant patch endoscopically. There were 10 patients who had grade I stable listhesis preoperatively that did not progress at follow-up. No other complications like infection, hematoma formations etc. were observed in any patient.Full endoscopic outside-in decompression method is a safe and effective option for lumbar central canal stenosis with advantages of minimal invasive technique.

Therapeutic Effect of Large Channel Endoscopic Decompression in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

Background: Percutaneous endoscopic decompression (PED) is a minimally invasive surgical technique that is now used for not only disc herniation but also lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). However, few studies have reported endoscopic surgery for LSS. Therefore, we conducted this study to evaluate the outcomes and safety of large channel endoscopic decompression.

Methods: Forty-one patients diagnosed with LSS who underwent PED surgery were included in the study. The estimated blood loss, operative time, length of hospital stay, hospital costs, reoperations, complications, visual analogue scale (VAS) score, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score, Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score and SF-36 physical-component summary scores were assessed. Preoperative and postoperative continuous data were compared through paired-samples t-tests. The significance level for all analyses was defined as p < 0.05.

Results: A total of 41 consecutive patients underwent PED, including 21 (51.2%) males and 20 (48.8%) females. The VAS and ODI scores decreased from preoperatively to postoperatively, but the JOA and SF-36 physical component summary scores significantly increased. The VAS (lumbar) score decreased from 5.05 ± 2.33 to 0.45 ± 0.71 (P = 0.000); the VAS (leg) score decreased from 5.51 ± 2.82 to 0.53 ± 0.72 (P = 0.000); the ODI score decreased from 52.80 ± 20.41 to 4.84 ± 3.98 (P = 0.000), and the JOA score increased from 11.73 ± 4.99 to 25.32 ± 2.12 (P = 0.000). Only 1 patient experienced an intraoperative complication (2.4%; dural tear), and 1 patient required reoperation (2.4%).

Conclusions: Surgical treatment for LSS is to sufficiently decompress and minimize the trauma and complications caused by surgery. This study did not reveal any obvious shortcomings of PED and suggested PED is a safe and effective treatment for LSS.

Full-Endoscopic Lumbar Decompression versus Open Decompression and Fusion Surgery for the Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A 3-Year Follow-Up Study

Purpose

Compare the efficacy of full-endoscopic lumbar decompression surgery (FELDS) and open decompression and fusion surgery (ODFS) for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).

Patients and Methods

A retrospective analysis of 358 LSS patients treated by FELDS (“FELD” group) or ODFS (“open” group) was undertaken. There were 177 patients in the FELDS group with a mean age of 65.47±9.26 years and 181 patients in the open group with a mean age of 64.18±10.24 years. Duration of follow-up was 38.63±11.88 months in the FELDS group and 38.56±12.29 months in the open group. Visual analog scale (VAS) score, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Modified MacNab criteria were used to access clinical outcomes. Surgical outcomes (duration of surgical procedure, blood loss, complications, duration of postoperative hospital stay (DOPHS), prevalence of revision procedures) were evaluated. Magnetic resonance imaging was used to evaluate the change in the Pfirrmann grade at adjacent segments.

Results

VAS score (leg and back) and ODI improved significantly in both groups (P<0.001). Success rate reached 86.55% and 90.60% in the FELDS group and open group (P>0.05), respectively. Procedure duration (84.12 vs 112.08 min), blood loss (7.97 vs 279.67 mL), and DOPHS (2.68 vs 4.78 days) of the FELDS group were significantly better than those of the open group (P<0.05). Total prevalence of complications and procedure revisions was 14.69% and 10.73% in the FELD group, respectively, but did not show a significant difference with that in the open group (12.15% and 9.39%, respectively). The Pfirrmann grade increased in 13.04% of adjacent segments in the FELDS group, significantly better than that in the open group (32.67%) (P<0.05).

Conclusion

FELDS had the same efficacy as ODFS for LSS treatment. FELDS had the advantages of minimal invasiveness, less surgical trauma, rapid recovery, and lower risk of degeneration of adjacent segments compared with that of ODFS.

Is Decompression and Partial Discectomy Advantageous Over Decompression Alone in Microendoscopic Decompression Of Monosegmental Unilateral Lumbar Recess Stenosis?

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic techniques are well accepted as surgical technique for decompression of lumbar lateral recess stenosis (LRS). It is uncertain if there is a difference in clinical outcome for decompression alone (DA) or decompression with partial discectomy (DPD) for the treatment of LRS.

METHODS

All files of patients who underwent an endoscopic procedure for lumbar LRS were identified from a prospectively collected database. Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging and endoscopic video were analyzed with special focus on the technique of nerve root decompression. Clinical outcome was assessed via a personal examination, a standardized questionnaire including the numeric rating scale (NRS) for leg and back pain, the Oswestry disability index (ODI), and the modified MacNab criteria to assess functional outcome and clinical success.

RESULTS

Sixty-six patients were identified of which 57 attended for evaluation (86.4%). DA was performed in 15 (26.3%) patients and DPD in 42 patients (73.7%). The mean follow-up was 45.0 months (range: 16-82 months). Fifty-two patients reported to be free of leg pain (91.1%), 42 patients had no noticeable back pain (73.7%), 49 patients had full muscle strength (85.9%), and 48 patients had no sensory disturbance (84.2%). The mean NRS for leg pain was 1, the mean NRS for back pain was 2, mean ODI was 16% (range: 0%-60%). Clinical success was noted in 49 patients (85.9%) and it was significantly higher for patients following DPD (P = .024). The overall repeat procedure rate was 12% with reoperation rate at the index segment in 10.5% of cases. There were no significant differences with respect to leg and back pain, ODI, and reoperation between both groups.

CONCLUSION

Microendoscopic DPD of LRS achieves a 92% clinical success rate which is significantly higher compared to 67% clinical success achieved by DA. There was no significant difference for the rate of reoperation, leg and back pain, and ODI.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.

Clinical Outcomes of Interlaminar Percutaneous Endoscopic Decompression for Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis with Spinal Stenosis

The use of traditional open decompression alone in degenerative spondylolisthesis can lead to the development of postoperative spinal instability, whereas percutaneous endoscopic decompression can preserve the attachment of intervertebral muscles, facet joint capsules, and ligaments that stabilize the spine. The study’s aim was to determine clinical as well as radiologic outcomes associated with interlaminar percutaneous endoscopic decompression in patients with stable degenerative spondylolisthesis. For this study, 28 patients with stable degenerative spondylolisthesis who underwent percutaneous endoscopic decompression were enrolled. The clinical outcomes in terms of the visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) were evaluated. Radiologic outcomes were determined by measuring the ratio of disc height and the vertebral slippage percentage using lateral standing radiographs. The average follow-up period was 25.24 months. VAS and ODI were significantly improved at the final follow-up. In terms of ratio of disc height and vertebral slippage percentage found no significant difference between the preoperative and postoperative periods. One patient underwent further caudal epidural steroid injection. One patient underwent fusion because their radicular pain did not improve. Interlaminar percutaneous endoscopic decompression is an effective procedure with favorable outcomes in selected patients with stable degenerative spondylolisthesis.

Massively prolapsed intervertebral disc herniation with interlaminar endoscopic spine system Delta endoscope: A case series

BACKGROUND

Surgery is often indicated for patients with massively prolapsed intervertebral disc herniation. The interlaminar endoscopic spine system (iLESSYS) Delta 6-mm working channel endoscope has advantages over other systems. The aim of this study was to explore the benefits and complications of using the iLESSYS Delta for the treatment of massively prolapsed intervertebral disc herniation.

AIM

To explore the clinical benefits of treating massively prolapsed lumbar intervertebral disc herniation with the iLESSYS Delta endoscope.

METHODS

In this study, the data of 37 patients who underwent surgery with the iLESSYS Delta endoscope at The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University were retrospectively analyzed. Intraoperative blood loss, operation time, and complications were collected. The visual analog scale (VAS), oswestry disability index (ODI), and modified MacNab criteria were determined before and at 1 d, 3 mo, and 6 mo after surgery.

RESULTS

The mean intraoperative blood loss was 20.4 ± 1.2 mL. The mean operation time was 97.3 ± 12.4 min. The VAS scores for leg and back pain decreased from 68.0 ± 7.3, 34.4 ± 8.5 before operation to 2.5 ± 1.7, 5.5 ± 1.9 at 6 mo after surgery, respectively. The ODI also decreased from 60.2 ± 7.3 to 17.9 ± 3.4 at 6 mo after surgery. The improvement rate of the MacNab score was 86.4%, which was considered excellent. No spinal dural injury, nerve root injury, secondary protrusion of intervertebral disc, or myeloid hypertension was found during follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The iLESSYS Delta 6-mm working channel endoscope has several advantages in terms of clinical and functional benefits, complications, and low risk of residual vertebral pulp in treating patients with massively prolapsed intervertebral disc herniation.

Long-Term Outcomes Following Lumbar Microendoscopic Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis with and without Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: Minimum 10-Year Follow-Up

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether preoperative presence of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DS) worsens the minimum 10-year outcome of patients undergoing microendoscopic decompression (MED) for lumbar spinal stenosis (SS).

METHODS

Eighty patients undergoing MED were classified into 2 groups: DS group (34 SS with DS patients) and SS group (46 SS without DS patients). The degrees of improvement (DOIs) by the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ) and intensities of improvement (IOIs) by Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at 120-159 (mean, 138.4) months after MED of the DS and SS groups were statistically compared. Patients with DS were classified into 2 groups based on the effectiveness by VAS or JOABPEQ: effective group (E group: IOI or DOI ≥20) and ineffective group (I group). All preoperative radiologic measurements were statistically compared between the E and I groups.

RESULTS

Significant decreases in low back pain, leg pain, and numbness, as measured by VAS, were noted at follow-up in the DS and SS groups. The effectiveness rates of pain-related disorders, lumbar spine dysfunction, and gait disturbance by JOABPEQ were almost equally high in the DS and SS groups. Statistical comparisons of the DOIs in all 5 functional scores and IOIs in low back pain, leg pain, and numbness showed no significant differences between the DS and SS groups. No significant differences were confirmed between the E and I groups concerning preoperative spondylolisthesis and instability.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study indicated that preoperative DS did not worsen the outcome of patients with SS undergoing MED.

Clinical Results and Complications of Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Although endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) may combine the advantages of minimally invasive fusion and endoscopic spine surgery, little evidence exists on endoscopic TLIF. This meta-analysis investigated the clinical results of endoscopic TLIF.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search of Web-based electronic databases to identify articles on endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion. Only studies of water-based endoscopic TLIF with pedicle screw fixation were included. We analyzed preoperative and postoperative scores for the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analog scales (VASs) for back and leg pain to evaluate clinical efficacy. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of VAS and ODI was analyzed. We calculated differences in means and 95% confidence intervals and investigated indications for endoscopic TLIF, surgical approaches for endoscopic TLIF, the endoscopic systems that were used, and procedure-related complications.

RESULTS

Thirteen articles were included in this meta-analysis. Uniportal and biportal endoscopic systems were used. Six articles used the posterolateral approach and 7 used the trans-Kambin approach. Preoperative ODI and VAS scores for leg and back pain significantly improved after endoscopic TLIF with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (P = 0.00). The ODI significantly improved by twice as much as the MCID. The mean change in the VAS for back and leg pain showed significant improvements over the MCID. The perioperative complications were usually minor.

CONCLUSIONS

The early clinical results of endoscopic TLIF with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation are favorable. However, long-term outcomes should be investigated and randomized controlled trials should be conducted.

Linical efficacy of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis in elderly patients: a retrospective study

Background

Although percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) is increasingly being used to treat lumbar degenerative disease, the treatment of elderly patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) involves considerable uncertainty. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of PELD for the treatment of LSS in elderly patients aged 65 years or older.

Methods

In this retrospective review, 136 patients aged 65 years or older who underwent PELD to treat LSS were evaluated. The patients were divided into two groups, group A (ages 65–74) and group B (age ≥ 75), and perioperative data were analyzed. The Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, visual analog scale (VAS) score, and MacNab classification were used to evaluate postoperative clinical efficacy.

Results

All patients successfully underwent the operation with satisfactory treatment outcomes. Compared to preoperative scores, the self-reported scores or pain while performing daily activities were significantly improved in both treatment groups (P < 0.05). No statistically significant between-group differences were observed in operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative bed rest, and postoperative hospital stay (P > 0.05). The overall postoperative complication rate was similar between the two groups. Moreover, no statistically significant differences in VAS-back pain scores, VAS-leg pain scores, JOA scores, and MacNab classification were found between the groups at the 3-month and 1.5-year follow-up examinations (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

PELD is safe and effective for the treatment of LSS in elderly patients. Age is not a contraindication for decompressive lumbar spine surgery. PELD has advantages such as reduced trauma, fewer anesthesia-related complications, and a fast postoperative recovery. Elderly patients should be considered good candidates for lumbar decompression surgery using minimally invasive techniques.

Current and Future of Endoscopic Spine Surgery: What are the Common Procedures we Have Now and What Lies Ahead?

The aging population around the world leads to increasing incidence of degenerative spinal conditions. There is a need for a minimally invasive technique in treatment for spinal conditions to meet the medical complexity and comorbidities that comes with aging. Principles of endoscopy are similar to minimally invasive surgery, which is to decrease pressure on soft tissue crushing from prolonged retraction, avoid soft tissue stripping and dissection, and bone and ligamentous preservation for optimal decompression without excessive destruction. Endoscopic spine surgery techniques started slowly in development in the 1970s to 2000s, with a rapid phase of development since the turn of the 21st century with endoscopic solutions developing in cervical, thoracic, and lumbar conditions with increasing complexity in nature of operation. Technological enhancement with progressively supportive literature is pushing boundaries of endoscopy from the early days of soft tissue procedure to current fusion procedures, endoscopic spine surgery techniques is covering more areas of spine than ever previously possible with good clinical results. We present a review on the current techniques available and postulated near future development for endoscopic spine surgery.

Percutaneous transforaminal full endoscopic decompression for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis

Background

One advantage of an endoscopic approach to treating lumbar spinal stenosis is preservation of spine stability and the adjacent anatomy, and there is a decrease in adjacent segment disc degeneration. The purpose of this study was to discuss the clinical efficacy of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic decompression for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).

Methods

This is a retrospective study. From September 2012 to June 2017, 45 patients who were diagnosed with LSS underwent the treatment of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic decompression (PTED) and were followed up at 1 week, 3 months and 1 year postoperatively. Low back pain and leg pain were measured by Visual Analogue Scale scoring methods (VAS-back and VAS-leg), while functional outcomes were assessed by using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). All patients had one-level lumbar spinal stenosis.

Results

The most common type of stenosis was lateral recess stenosis (n = 22; 48.9%), followed by central stenosis (n = 13; 28.9%) and foraminal stenosis (n = 10: 22.2%). Regarding comparisons of VAS-back, VAS-leg, and ODI scores before and after operation, VAS and ODI scores significantly improved. The average leg VAS score improved from 7.01 ± 0.84 to 2.28 ± 1.43 (P < 0.001). The average ODI improved from 46.18 ± 10.11 to 14.40 ± 9.59 (P < 0.001). We also examined changes in ODI and VAS scores from baseline according to types of spinal stenosis, stenosis grade, spinal instability, and revision surgery in the same segment. The improvement percentage of leg VAS score was significantly less in patients with severe stenosis at both 3 months and 1 year postoperatively. The improvement percentages of ODI and leg VAS scores were significantly less in patients who had spinal instability and patients who had undergone revision surgery.

Conclusion

The PTED approach seems to give good results for the treatment of LSS. However, this approach may be less effective for LSS patients who have lumbar instability or require revision surgery in the same segment.

A Historical Review of Endoscopic Spinal Discectomy

As an essential component of minimally invasive spine surgery, endoscopic spine surgery (ESS) has continuously evolved and has been accepted as a practical procedure by the worldwide spine community. Especially for lumbar disc herniation (LDH), the percutaneous endoscopic or full-endoscopic discectomy technique has been scientifically proven through randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses to be a good alternative to open discectomy. The initial concept of endoscopic spine discectomy was concerned with indirect disc decompression using various instruments such as blind forceps, a nucleotome, laser, radiofrequency coblation, and some chemical agents. The main surgical field has been shifted from the intradiscal space to the epidural space. Precise and selective discectomy for extruded LDH in the epidural space under high-quality endoscopic visualization is now feasible. Furthermore, the medical applications of ESS is broadening to include spinal stenosis, segmental instability, infection, and even intradural lesions. In this review article, I describe the history of endoscopic spine discectomy and decompression techniques, as well as evolution of the paradigm. This history may help indicate the future of practical ESS.

Lumbar Endoscopic Unilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Decompression Outside-In Approach: A Proctorship Guideline With 12 Steps of Effectiveness and Safety

Minimally invasive spinal surgery in particular lumbar endoscopic unilateral laminotomy with bilateral decompression becomes popular as it can be performed with regional anesthesia, soft tissue damages are minimized as endoscopic visualization and instruments can be brought close to operating area bypassing much of the intervening soft tissues for sufficient spinal decompression with ligamentum flavum resection despite less bony resection compared to open surgery. Overall, when well executed, it preserves spinal stability. Outside-in technique of decompression is also known as over the top decompression in minimally invasive literature. It involves maintaining deep layer of ligamentum flavum integrity till satisfactory bony decompression is achieved. Deep layer of ligamentum flavum is removed as final step of decompression. Preservation of the deep layer of ligamentum flavum protects the neural elements, allowing drills and sharp equipment to be used safely to perform bony decompression.In this study, we demonstrate the technical details of outside-in approach lumbar endoscopic unilateral laminotomy with bilateral decompression (LE-ULBD). LE-ULBD Outside-in Technique is an effective and safe procedure in relieving lumbar spinal stenosis with favorable results with a follow-up for more than 1 year.

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.

A Narrative Review of Development of Full-Endoscopic Lumbar Spine Surgery

In the first phase of development of lumbar endoscopic spine surgery, the focus was on removal of soft disc material through the working corridor of Kambin’s triangle using transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy. With the introduction of the interlaminar approach and increased interest from both industry and surgeons, there has been an exponential development of endoscopic surgical equipment and a corresponding expansion of endoscopic techniques. Endoscopic treatment strategies are applied to conditions ranging from contained prolapsed intervertebral discs to noncontained migrated herniated discs, hard calcified discs, spinal stenosis in the central or lateral recess and the foraminal and extraforaminal region, and other combinations of degenerative conditions requiring decompression or fusion surgery. The further expansion of endoscopic surgical management involving complicated spinal cases and the final quartet of trauma, infections, tumors, and possibly deformities could be the future stage of endoscopic spine surgery development. This article covers the full range of current treatment strategies and presents possible future developments of endoscopic spine surgery for the management of lumbar spinal conditions.

Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis is the most frequent cause of low back pain and/or sciatica in the elderly patient. Epidemiology, pathophysiology, clinical manifestations and testing are reviewed in a wide current bibliographic investigation. The importance of the relationship between clinical presentation and imaging study, especially magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), is emphasized. Prior to treatment indication, it is necessary to identify the precise location of pain, as well as the differential diagnosis between neurological and vascular lameness. Conservative treatment combining medications with various physical therapy techniques solves the problem in most cases, while therapeutic testing with injections, whether epidural, foraminal or facetary, is performed when pain does not subside with conservative treatment and before surgery is indicated. Injections usually perform better results in relieving sciatica symptoms and less in neurological lameness. Equine tail and/or root decompression associated or not with fusion is the gold standard when surgical intervention is required. Fusion after decompression is necessary in cases with segmental instability, such as degenerative spondylolisthesis. When canal stenosis occurs at multiple levels and is accompanied by axis deviation, whether coronal and/or sagittal, correction of axis deviations should be performed in addition to decompression and fusion, especially of the sagittal axis, in which a lumbar lordosis correction is required with techniques that correct the rectified lordosis to values close to the pelvic incidence.