Percutaneous Endoscopic Unilateral Laminotomy and Bilateral Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

Efficacy of PE-PLIF with a novel ULBD approach for lumbar degeneration diseases: a large-channel endoscopic retrospective study

PURPOSE

This study aims to assess the effectiveness of Percutaneous Endoscopic Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion (PE-PLIF) combined with a novel Unilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Decompression (ULBD) approach using a large-channel endoscope in treating Lumbar Degenerative Diseases (LDD).

METHODS

This retrospective analysis evaluates 41 LDD patients treated with PE-PLIF and ULBD from January 2021 to June 2023. A novel ULBD approach, called 'Non-touch Over-Top' technique, was utilized in this study. We compared preoperative and postoperative metrics such as demographic data, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score, surgical details, and radiographic changes.

RESULTS

The average follow-up duration was 14.41 ± 2.86 months. Notable improvements were observed postoperatively in VAS scores for back and leg pain (from 5.56 ± 0.20 and 6.95 ± 0.24 to 0.20 ± 0.06 and 0.12 ± 0.05), ODI (from 58.68 ± 0.80% to 8.10 ± 0.49%), and JOA scores (from 9.37 ± 0.37 to 25.07 ± 0.38). Radiographic measurements showed significant improvements in lumbar and segmental lordosis angles, disc height, and spinal canal area. A high fusion rate (97.56% at 6 months, 100% at 12 months) and a low cage subsidence rate (2.44%) were noted.

CONCLUSIONS

PE-PLIF combined with the novel ULBD technique via a large-channel endoscope offers significant short-term benefits for LDD management. The procedure effectively expands spinal canal volume, decompresses nerve structures, improves lumbar alignment, and stabilizes the spine. Notably, it improves patients' quality of life and minimizes complications, highlighting its potential as a promising LDD treatment option.

Efficacy of endoscopic decompression surgery for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis

Background

The overall aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of endoscopic decompression for outcomes in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort, single-institution study of n = 139 patients from 2019 to 2022 who underwent endoscopic decompression for LSS. The primary outcome was improvement of Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) between baseline and 12-month follow-up.

Results

In the present sample (n = 139) the average age was 57.6 years (SD = 17.4, with even distribution of men (49%) vs. women (51%). In patients with LSS, lumbar disc herniation was the most common diagnosis in 49 patients followed by lumbar radiculopathy in 25 patients. Lumbar radicular pain was the 3rd most common diagnosis in 21 patients with all other diagnosis listed in Table S1. There was a significant improvement (i.e., decrease) in ODI following endoscopic decompression (mean change: -8.3, 95% CI: -9.4, -7.2, P < 0.001, Fig. 1). Prior lumbar spine surgery (P = 0.048), BMI (P = 0.053), and age (P = 0.022) were associated with changes in ODI. Nearly half (47%) of the sample had prior lumbar spine surgery. Those with prior lumbar spine surgery (-7.5, 95% CI: -8.3, -6.6) showed less improvement than those without prior lumbar spine surgery (-9.1, 95% CI: -10.9, -7.2, Fig. 2). For BMI, 23% had normal BMI while 24% were overweight and 53% were obese. Patients with normal BMI (-10.3, 95% CI: -13.4, -7.2) showed greater improvements compared to overweight (-7.9, 95% CI: -9.4, -6.4) and obese (-7.6, 95% CI: -9.0, -6.3, Fig. 3) patients. Patients under 40 years old (-10.2, 95% CI: -13.6, -6.8) showed greater improvements in ODI compared to those 40 years and older (-7.8, 95% CI: -8.6, -6.8, Fig. 4).

Conclusions

In patients with lumbar spinal stenosis, endoscopic decompression was associated with reduced disability. Patients with no prior lumbar spine surgery, normal BMI, and who were under 40 years old showed greater improvements.

Is Full-Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Superior to Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Single-Level Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis? A Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

 In this study, we evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of full-endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for treatment of single-level lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis.

METHODS

 Fifty-three patients were divided into two groups according to the surgical techniques: Full endoscopic (Endo)-TLIF (n = 25) and TLIF (n = 28). Clinical efficacy was evaluated pre- and postoperatively. The operation time, operative blood loss, postoperative amount of serum creatine phosphokinase (CPK), postoperative drainage volume, postoperative hospital stay time, total cost, and operative complications were also recorded.

RESULTS

 Compared with the TLIF group, the Endo-TLIF group had similar intraoperative blood loss, less postoperative increased CPK, less postoperative drainage volume, and shorter postoperative hospital stay, but longer operative time and higher total cost. The postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) scores of back and leg pain and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores significantly improved compared with the preoperative scores in both two groups; more significant improvement of postoperative VAS scores of back pain and ODI scores were shown in the Endo-TLIF group at the 1-month follow-up (p < 0.05). No difference was found in the intervertebral fusion rate between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

 The Endo-TLIF has similar clinical effect compared with the TLIF for the treatment of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. It also has many surgical advantages such as less muscle trauma, less postoperative back pain, and fast functional recovery of the patient. However, steep learning curve, longer operative time, and higher total cost may be the disadvantages that limit this technique. Also, the Endo-TLIF treatment of patients with bilateral lateral recess stenosis is considered a relative contraindication.

The Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Narrative Review, and Future Perspective

Lumbar interbody fusion stands as a preferred surgical solution for degenerative lumbar spine diseases. The procedure primarily aims to establish lumbar segment stability, directly addressing patient symptoms associated with spinal complications. Traditional open surgery, though effective, is linked with notable morbidities and extended recovery time. To mitigate these concerns, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has garnered significant popularity, presenting an appealing alternative with numerous benefits such as reduced soft tissue trauma, decreased blood loss, and expedited recovery. Among MIS procedures, full endoscopic spinal surgery, characterized by its minimal invasiveness, holds the potential to further minimize morbidities while enhancing surgical outcomes. Endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion, a novel procedure within this paradigm, has gained attention for offering advantages comparable to those of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. However, the safety, efficacy, and associated surgical techniques and instrument design of this method continue to be subjects of ongoing debate. This paper critically reviews current evidence on the safety, efficacy, and advantages of endoscopic lumbar spinal interbody fusion, examining whether it could indeed supersede existing mainstream techniques.

Comparing the efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (BE-TLIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) in lumbar degenerative diseases.

METHODS

This study was registered on International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (ID: CRD42023432460). We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wan Fang Database, and Wei Pu Database by computer to collect controlled clinical studies on the efficacy and safety of unilateral BE-TLIF and MIS-TLIF in lumbar degenerative diseases from database establishment to May 2023. Two researchers screened the literature, extracted data and evaluated the risk of bias of the included studies, recorded the authors, and sample size, and extracted the intraoperative blood loss, operation time, postoperative drainage, Oswestry disability index, Visual analogue scale, lumbar lordosis, disk height, hospital length stay, fusion rate, and complications in each study. Meta-analysis was performed using Revman 5.4 software provided by Cochrane Library.

RESULTS

A total of 14 cohort studies with a total of 1007 patients were included in this study, including 472 patients in the BE-TLIF group and 535 patients in the MIS-TLIF group. The BE-TLIF group had lower intraoperative blood loss than the MIS-TLIF group [mean difference (MD) = - 78.72, 95% CI (- 98.47, - 58.97), P < 0.00001] and significantly reduced postoperative drainage than the MIS-TLIF group [MD = - 43.20, 95% CI (- 56.57, - 29.83), P < 0.00001], and the operation time was longer than that of the MIS-TLIF group [MD = 22.68, 95% CI (12.03, 33.33), P < 0.0001]. Hospital length stay in BE-TLIF group was significantly less than that in MIS-TLIF group [MD = - 1.20, 95% CI (- 1.82, - 0.57), P = 0.0002].

CONCLUSION

Compared with MIS-TLIF, BE-TLIF for lumbar degenerative diseases has the advantages of less intraoperative blood loss, less early postoperative low back and leg pain, shorter postoperative hospital length stay, and faster early functional recovery.

Ten-step minimally invasive slalom unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (sULBD) with navigation

BACKGROUND

Unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) is a MIS surgical technique that offers safe and effective decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) with a long-term resolution of symptoms. Advantages over conventional open laminectomy include reduced expected blood loss, muscle damage, mechanical instability, and less postoperative pain. The slalom technique combined with navigation is used in multi-segmental LSS to improve the workflow and effectiveness of the procedure.

METHODS

We outline ten technical steps to achieve a slalom unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (sULBD) with navigation. In a retrospective case series, we included patients with multi-segmental LSS operated in our institution using the sULBD between 2020 and 2022. The primary outcome was a reduction in pain measured by Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for back pain and leg pain and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI).

RESULTS

In our case series (N = 7), all patients reported resolution of initial symptoms on an average follow-up of 20.71 ± 9 months. The average operative time and length of hospital stay were 196.14 min and 1.67 days, respectively. On average, VAS (back pain) was 4.71 pre-operatively and 1.50 on long-term follow-up of an average of 19.05 months. VAS (leg pain) decreased from 4.33 to 1.21. ODI was reported as 33% pre-operatively and 12% on long-term follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The sULBD with navigation is a safe and effective MIS surgical procedure and achieves the resolution of symptoms in patients presenting with multi-segmental LSS. Herein, we demonstrate the ten key steps required to perform the sULBD technique. Compared to the standard sULBD technique, the incorporation of navigation provides anatomic localization without exposure to radiation to staff for a higher safety profile along with a fast and efficient workflow.

Severe Symptomatic Epidural Hematoma Following Percutaneous Endoscopic Unilateral Laminectomy for Bilateral Decompression (Endo-ULBD)-Series Report and Management Strategies

OBJECTIVES

Severe symptomatic epidural hematoma (SSEH) is one of the most severe complications following percutaneous endoscopic unilateral laminectomy for bilateral decompression (Endo-ULBD). Considering that this technique has been performed for a short time, no detailed reports have been recently published. Thus, it is critical to gain a better understanding of SSEH occurring in its postoperative period with regard to its incidence, possible causes, outcome, etc., in order to identify relevant management strategies.

METHODS

Patients with spinal stenosis who had undergone Endo-ULBD in our department from May 2019 to May 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. Of which, patients with postoperative epidural hematoma were followed-up. The preoperative and postoperative physical conditions of each patient were recorded, and the information related to hematoma removal surgery was recorded in detail. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI), and the results were classified into "excellent," "good," "fair," or "poor" based on the modified MacNab criteria. The incidence of hematoma with different factors was calculated, and a bar graph was used to compare the difference of the indexes related to hematoma removal between cases, and a line graph was used to reflect the trend of the outcome of each patient within 6 months to evaluate the effect of the treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 461 patients with spinal stenosis who underwent Endo-ULBD were enrolled in the study. SSEH occurred in four cases, with an incidence rate of 0.87% (4/461). All these four patients underwent decompression of multiple segments, and three of them had a history of hypertension comorbid with diabetes. Notably, one patient had a past history of hypertension and coronary artery disease and was on postoperative low molecular heparin due to lower extremity venous thrombosis. According to the conditions of the four patients, three types of treatment were used. And with timely treatment, all patients recovered well.

CONCLUSION

Despite being a minimally invasive technique, postoperative epidural hematoma remains a severe complication of Endo-ULBD. Therefore, during percutaneous endoscopic surgery, it is essential to enhance the comprehensive perioperative management of patients with Endo-ULBD. Signs related to postoperative hematoma must be recognized and promptly managed. If necessary, satisfactory results can be achieved by using percutaneous endoscopy along the original surgical channel to remove the hematoma.

Complications and Management of Endoscopic Spinal Surgery

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

Comparison of the short-term effects of lumbar endoscopic and microscopic tubular unilateral laminotomy with bilateral decompression in the treatment of elderly patients with lumbar spinal stenosis

Objective

To compare the clinical efficacy of lumbar endoscopic Delta large channel and microscopic tubular Quadrant channel unilateral laminotomy with bilateral decompression in the treatment of elderly patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.

Methods

A total of 40 patients aged above 75 years with lumbar spinal stenosis admitted from June 2019 to August 2021 were reviewed, in which the observation group was treated with the Delta large channel technique and the control group was treated with Quadrant channel open decompression. The general data, duration of illness, operation time, intraoperative bleeding, VAS score preoperatively, 3 days postoperatively, 3 months postoperatively and 6 months postoperatively, and ODI index of the two groups were recorded in the two groups.

Results

The observation group had significantly shorter operation time (59.93 ± 10.46 min vs 77.66 ± 12.44 min, P < 0.001) and less intraoperative bleeding (21.06 ± 4.59 mL vs 51.00 ± 10.02 mL, P < 0.001) than the control group. There were no significant differences between the two groups in the duration of illness (11.85 ± 5.08 years vs 13.80 ± 7.40 years, P = 0.337), VAS score preoperatively (6.05 ± 1.19 vs 6.40 ± 1.47, P = 0.412), 3 days postoperatively (1.90 ± 0.85 vs 2.00 ± 1.08, P = 0.746), 3 months postoperatively (1.10 ± 0.31 vs 1.20 ± 0.41, P = 0.389) and 6 months postoperatively (1.25 ± 0.44 vs 1.30 ± 0.57, P = 0.759), and ODI index preoperatively (0.78 ± 0.07 vs 0.74 ± 0.07, P = 0.09), 3 months postoperatively (0.28 ± 0.06 vs 0.30 ± 0.05, P = 0.189) and 6 months postoperatively (0.21 ± 0.07 vs 0.22 ± 0.04, P = 0.444) (P > 0.05). The ODI index 3 days postoperatively in the observation group was significantly lower than that in the control group (0.33 ± 0.06 vs 0.37 ± 0.05, P = 0.022).

Conclusion

Both surgical methods had good clinical outcomes for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. However, Delta large channel endoscopy had a clearer vision, less trauma and lower incidence of early postoperative back pain than that of Quadrant channel open decompression.

Fully Endoscopic 360° Decompression for Central Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Combined with Disc Herniation: Technical Note and Preliminary Outcomes of 39 Cases

Purpose

To evaluate the outcomes, feasibility, and safety of endoscopic unilateral laminectomy, bilateral decompression and discectomy (Endo-ULBDD) for central lumbar spinal stenosis (CLSS) combined with disc herniation (DH).

Methods

This study includes 39 patients diagnosed with CLSS combined with DH who met the inclusion criteria and underwent surgery for Endo-ULBDD from April 2020 to March 2021. The mean age of the patients, operation time, hospitalization time, time in bed, and complications were recorded. Patients were followed up for at least 12 months. Visual analog scale (VAS) scores for low-back and lower-limb pain and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores were evaluated preoperatively, before discharge, and at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. To evaluate clinical effectiveness 12 months postoperatively, the modified MacNab criteria were used.

Results

The mean age of the patients was 59.9 years, the mean operation time was 82.1 minutes, the mean hospitalization time was 3.7 days, and the mean time in bed was 20.9 hours. The mean VAS scores of low-back and lower-limb pain improved from 5.9 and 7.2 to 2.0 and 1.6, respectively (P < 0.05). The ODI score improved from 56.0 to 16.7 (P < 0.05). The overall excellent-good rate of the modified MacNab criteria was 89.7%. Two kinds of complications occurred in 4 patients (10.3%), including 1 patient whose inferior articular process was excessively removed and 3 patients who suffered from postoperative dysesthesia. No other severe complications were noted.

Conclusion

Endo-ULBDD is a safe, feasible, efficient, and minimally invasive approach to treating CLSS combined with DH.

Clinical Application of Large Channel Endoscopic Systems with Full Endoscopic Visualization Technique in Lumbar Central Spinal Stenosis: A Retrospective Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION

Recently, large channel endoscopic systems and full endoscopic visualization technique have been used to perform unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) treatment for lumbar central spinal stenosis (LCSS). However, various endoscopic systems possess different design parameters, which may affect the technical points and treatment outcomes. The object of this retrospective study was to compare the efficiency, safety, and effectiveness of ULBD under the iLESSYS Delta system versus the Endo-Surgi Plus system.

METHODS

In the period from October 2020 to April 2021, ULBD was performed using the iLESSYS Delta system or Endo-Surgi Plus system to treat LCSS. Patients were classified into two groups based on the endoscopy system employed. Patient demographics, perioperative indexes, complications, and imaging characteristics were reviewed. Clinical outcomes were quantified using back and leg visual analog scale (VAS) scores and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at the time points of follow-up.

RESULTS

Thirty-two patients were assigned to the iLESSYS Delta system group and 37 to the Endo-Surgi Plus system group. In the comparison between the two groups, the Endo-Surgi Plus system possessed a shorter incision length and operation time (p < 0.005), and no statistical differences in other aspects were observed. The dural sacs of both groups were significantly expanded postoperatively compared to preoperatively (p < 0.001). Both groups experienced improvements in VAS and ODI scores at all time points (p < 0.001) and equally low frequency of complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Current research suggests that both the Endo-Surgi Plus system and iLESSYS Delta system achieved favorable high safety and clinical outcomes in ULBD for treatment of LCSS. The use of a fully visualized trephine may have increased the efficiency of the Endo-Surgi Plus system. Moreover, the Endo-Surgi Plus system may be associated with a wider decompression range and indications.

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.

Percutaneous Endoscopic Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Unilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Decompression Vs. Open Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

Background

Endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion is a new technology that is mostly used for single-segment and unilateral lumbar spine surgery. The purpose of this study is to introduce percutaneous endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PE-PLIF) with unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) for lumbar spondylolisthesis and evaluate the efficacy by comparing it with open posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF).

Methods

Twenty-eight patients were enrolled in PE-PLIF with the ULBD group and the open PLIF group. The perioperative data of the two groups were compared to evaluate the safety of PE-PLIF with ULBD. The visual analog scale (VAS) back pain, VAS leg pain, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores of the two groups preoperatively and postoperatively were compared to evaluate clinical efficacy. Preoperative and postoperative imaging data were collected to evaluate the effectiveness of the operation.

Results

No differences in baseline data were found between the two groups (p > 0.05). The operation time in PE-PLIF with the ULBD group (221.2 ± 32.9 min) was significantly longer than that in the PLIF group (138.4 ± 25.7 min) (p < 0.05), and the estimated blood loss and postoperative hospitalization were lower than those of the PLIF group (p < 0.05). The postoperative VAS and ODI scores were significantly improved in both groups (p < 0.05), but the postoperative VAS back pain score in the PE-PLIF group was significantly lower than that in the PLIF group (p < 0.05). The excellent and good rates in both groups were 96.4% according to MacNab’s criteria. The disc height and cross-sectional area of the spinal canal were significantly improved in the two groups after surgery (p < 0.05), with no difference between the groups (p > 0.05). The fusion rates in PE-PLIF with the ULBD group and the PLIF group were 89.3% and 92.9% (p > 0.05), respectively, the cage subsidence rates were 14.3% and 17.9% (p > 0.05), respectively, and the lumbar spondylolisthesis reduction rates were 92.72 ± 6.39% and 93.54 ± 5.21%, respectively (p > 0.05).

Conclusion

The results from this study indicate that ULBD can be successfully performed during PE-PLIF, and the combined procedure is a safe and reliable treatment method for lumbar spondylolisthesis.

Clinical Efficacy of Posterior Percutaneous Endoscopic Unilateral Laminotomy with Bilateral Decompression for Symptomatic Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy

Objective

To compare the clinical efficacy of posterior percutaneous endoscopic unilateral laminotomy (PPEUL) and anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF) in the treatment of single‐segment spondylotic myelopathy (CSM).

Methods

This is a retrospective research, from January 2017 to December 2019, 30 cases were included in the PPEUL group and 32 cases were included in the ACDF group. The operative duration, blood loss, length of stay, complications, Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, visual analogue scale (VAS) score, MacNab classification and imaging data were collected preoperatively, postoperative 1‐week, final follow‐up and statistically analyzed.

Results

The surgery was completed successfully on all patients, and there were no serious complications, such as nerve or spinal cord injury or infection. In the PPEUL and ACDF groups, the operative duration were 56.63 ± 1.40 and 65.21 ± 2.45 min, the intraoperative blood loss were 51.69 ± 3.23 and 50.51 ± 5.48 mL, and the hospitalization duration was 5.75 ± 1.43 and 6.38 ± 2.16 days. The follow‐up period in the PPEUL and ACDF groups was 24.96 ± 1.12 months and 25.65 ± 1.45 months, respectively. There was no significant difference in intraoperative blood loss between the two groups, but the hospitalization and operative durations in the PPEUL group were significantly shorter than those in the ACDF group (P < 0.05). The VAS scores at postoperative 1 week and final follow‐up were significantly improved compared with those before surgery. The JOA scores at postoperative 1 week and final follow‐up were significantly improved compared with those before surgery, but there was no significant difference between the two groups at the last follow‐up. The intervertebral disc height of the adjacent segment at the last follow‐up was significantly lower in the ACDF group than in the PPEUL group (P < 0.05), but there was no significant difference between the two groups in the intervertebral disc height of the surgical segment (P > 0.05). The rate of excellent and good results was 90.0% and 87.5%, respectively. Postoperative cervical CT and MRI showed that the spinal canal was fully decompressed and spinal cord compression was relieved.

Conclusion

PPEUL has the advantages of reduced trauma, rapid recovery and remarkable curative efficacy, so it is a new choice for the treatment of CSM.