The MIST Guidelines: The Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Consensus Group Guidelines for Minimally Invasive Spine Treatment

Longitudinal Analysis of the Care Pathway of Patients with Lumbar Spinal Stenosis in the US

Background

Evidence regarding the frequency and timing of treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) fails to offer clear consensus. We describe the LSS care journey from initial diagnosis to first surgical intervention.

Methods

Using Medicare claims database from 2009 through 2020, we identified patients who were diagnosed with LSS. The use and timing of conservative and surgical treatments during the entire follow-up from the initial diagnosis were reported.

Results

Of the 143,849 patients identified, 68% received conservative care within 8.4 months and 25.3% received a surgical or minimally invasive intervention over 5.7 years following initial diagnosis, with 12.6% undergoing open decompression alone, 10.2% undergoing open decompression with fusion, and 5.1% undergoing fusion surgery alone. Fewer than 1% were provided with interspinous spacers or a percutaneous image-guided lumbar decompression.

Conclusion

Approximately three-quarters of patients in the study received no surgical or non-invasive interventions for approximately six years following diagnosis with LSS.

Pacific Spine and Pain Society (PSPS) Evidence Review of Surgical Treatments for Lumbar Degenerative Spinal Disease: A Narrative Review

INTRODUCTION

Interventional treatment options for the lumbar degenerative spine have undergone a significant amount of innovation over the last decade. As new technologies emerge, along with the surgical specialty expansion, there is no manuscript that utilizes a review of surgical treatments with evidence rankings from multiple specialties, namely, the interventional pain and spine communities. Through the Pacific Spine and Pain Society (PSPS), the purpose of this manuscript is to provide a balanced evidence review of available surgical treatments.

METHODS

The PSPS Research Committee created a working group that performed a comprehensive literature search on available surgical technologies for the treatment of the degenerative spine, utilizing the ranking assessment based on USPSTF (United States Preventative Services Taskforce) and NASS (North American Spine Society) criteria.

RESULTS

The surgical treatments were separated based on disease process, including treatments for degenerative disc disease, spondylolisthesis, and spinal stenosis.

CONCLUSIONS

There is emerging and significant evidence to support multiple approaches to treat the symptomatic lumbar degenerative spine. As new technologies become available, training, education, credentialing, and peer review are essential for optimizing patient safety and successful outcomes.

Preference Sensitive Care and Shared Decision-Making in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Scoping Review

STUDY DESIGN

Scoping review.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to conduct a scoping review exploring the extent to which preference sensitivity has been studied in treatment decisions for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), utilizing shared decision-making (SDM) as a proxy.

BACKGROUND

Preference-sensitive care involves situations where multiple treatment options exist with significant tradeoffs in cost, outcome, recovery time, and quality of life. LSS has gained research focus as a preference-sensitive care scenario.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A scoping review protocol in accordance with "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews" regulations was registered with the Open Science Framework (ID: 9ewup) and conducted across multiple databases from January 2000 to October 2022. Study selection and characterization were performed by 3 independent reviewers and an unbiased moderator.

RESULTS

The search resulted in the inclusion of 16 studies varying in design and sample size, with most published between 2016 and 2021. The studies examined variables related to SDM, patient preferences, surgeon preferences, and decision aids (DAs). The outcomes assessed included treatment choice, patient satisfaction, and patient understanding. Several studies reported that SDM influenced treatment choice and patient satisfaction, while the impact on patient understanding was less clear. DAs were used in some studies to facilitate SDM.

CONCLUSION

The scoping review identified a gap in comprehensive studies analyzing the preference sensitivity of treatment for LSS and the role of DAs. Further research is needed to better understand the impact of patient preferences on treatment decisions and the effectiveness of DAs in LSS care. This review provides a foundation for future research in preference-sensitive care and SDM in the context of lumbar stenosis treatment.

Bioactive Moldable Click Chemistry Polymer Cement with Nano-Hydroxyapatite and Growth Factor-Enhanced Posterolateral Spinal Fusion in a Rabbit Model

Spinal injuries or diseases necessitate effective fusion solutions, and common clinical approaches involve autografts, allografts, and various bone matrix products, each with limitations. To address these challenges, we developed an innovative moldable click chemistry polymer cement that can be shaped by hand and self-cross-linked in situ for spinal fusion. This self-cross-linking cement, enabled by the bioorthogonal click reaction, excludes the need for toxic initiators or external energy sources. The bioactivity of the cement was promoted by incorporating nanohydroxyapatite and microspheres loaded with recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 and vascular endothelial growth factor, fostering vascular induction and osteointegration. The release kinetics of growth factors, mechanical properties of the cement, and the ability of the scaffold to support in vitro cell proliferation and differentiation were evaluated. In a rabbit posterolateral spinal fusion model, the moldable cement exhibited remarkable induction of bone regeneration and effective bridging of spine vertebral bodies. This bioactive moldable click polymer cement therefore presents a promising biomaterial for spinal fusion augmentation, offering advantages in safety, ease of application, and enhanced bone regrowth.

1. Lumbosacral radicular pain

INTRODUCTION

Patients suffering lumbosacral radicular pain report radiating pain in one or more lumbar or sacral dermatomes. In the general population, low back pain with leg pain extending below the knee has an annual prevalence that varies from 9.9% to 25%.

METHODS

The literature on the diagnosis and treatment of lumbosacral radicular pain was reviewed and summarized.

RESULTS

Although a patient's history, the pain distribution pattern, and clinical examination may yield a presumptive diagnosis of lumbosacral radicular pain, additional clinical tests may be required. Medical imaging studies can demonstrate or exclude specific underlying pathologies and identify nerve root irritation, while selective diagnostic nerve root blocks can be used to confirm the affected level(s). In subacute lumbosacral radicular pain, transforaminal corticosteroid administration provides short-term pain relief and improves mobility. In chronic lumbosacral radicular pain, pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) treatment adjacent to the spinal ganglion (DRG) can provide pain relief for a longer period in well-selected patients. In cases of refractory pain, epidural adhesiolysis and spinal cord stimulation can be considered in experienced centers.

CONCLUSIONS

The diagnosis of lumbosacral radicular pain is based on a combination of history, clinical examination, and additional investigations. Epidural steroids can be considered for subacute lumbosacral radicular pain. In chronic lumbosacral radicular pain, PRF adjacent to the DRG is recommended. SCS and epidural adhesiolysis can be considered for cases of refractory pain in specialized centers.

Awake Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Decompression Under Local Anesthesia for Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis in the Elderly: A Feasibility Study with Technique Note

Purpose

Here, we introduce a novel strategy of awake unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) decompression, which applies conscious sedation combined with stepwise local anesthesia (LA) as an alternative to general anesthesia (GA). The study aims to evaluate the feasibility of awake UBE decompression for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS) in elderly patients.

Patients and Methods

This retrospective study included 31 consecutive patients who received awake UBE decompression for DLSS in our institution from January 2021 to March 2022. Clinical results were evaluated using patient-reported outcomes measures (PROM) including visual analog scale for leg pain (VAS-LP), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and modified MacNab criteria. The anesthesia effectiveness and intraoperative experience were evaluated by intraoperative VAS and satisfaction rating system.

Results

UBE decompression was successfully performed in all patients under LA combined with conscious sedation. 26 (83.9%) patients rated the intraoperative experience as satisfactory (excellent or good) and 5 (16.1%) as fair. The mean intraoperative VAS was 3.41±1.26. The VAS and ODI at each follow-up stage after surgery were significantly improved compared to preoperative scores (p < 0.01). At the last follow-up, 28 patients (90.3%) classified the surgical outcome as good or excellent, and 3 (9.7%) as fair. There were no serious complications or adverse reactions observed in the study.

Conclusion

Our preliminary results suggest that awake UBE decompression is a feasible and promising alternative for elderly patients with DLSS.

The MOTION study: Two-year results of a real-world randomized controlled trial of the mild® procedure for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis

OBJECTIVE

The MOTION study is designed to measure the impact of percutaneous image-guided lumbar decompression as a first-line therapy on patients otherwise receiving real-world conventional medical management for lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication secondary to hypertrophic ligamentum flavum. This prospective, multicenter randomized controlled trial uses objective and patient-reported outcome measures to compare the combination of the mild® percutaneous treatment and nonsurgical conventional medical management (CMM) to CMM-Alone.

METHODS

Test group patients received the mild procedure after study enrollment. Test and control groups were allowed conventional conservative therapies and low-risk interventional therapies as recommended by their physicians. Subjective outcomes included the Oswestry Disability Index, Numeric Pain Rating Scale, and Zurich Claudication Questionnaire. Objective outcomes included a validated Walking Tolerance Test, the rate of subsequent lumbar spine interventions, and safety data.

RESULTS

Two-year follow-up included 64 mild + CMM and 67 CMM-Alone patients. All outcome measures showed significant improvement from baseline for mild + CMM, whereas the majority of CMM-Alone patients had elected to receive mild treatment or other lumbar spine interventions by 2 years, precluding valid 2-year between-group comparisons. Neither group reported any device- or procedure-related adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

The durability of mild + CMM for this patient population was demonstrated for all efficacy outcomes through 2 years. Improvements in walking time from baseline to 2 years for patients treated with mild + CMM were significant and substantial. The lack of reported device or procedure-related adverse events reinforces the strong safety profile of the mild procedure. These results provide support for early interventional treatment of symptomatic LSS with the mild procedure.

Lumbar Epidural Hematoma as a Rare Complication From Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a common and debilitating pathology globally. Conservative and surgical treatment options exist for patients. Recently, minimally invasive lumbar decompression (MILD) has been described as a less invasive technique for the treatment of early spinal stenosis ≥2.5mm ligamentum thickening or in patients at high risk for general anesthesia. Often, MILD is performed by interventional pain providers and shows low complication rates. We describe a 76-year-old woman who presented to the emergency department immediately after undergoing a MILD procedure at an outside surgery center with lower back/sacral pain resulting from an acute epidural hematoma extending from T12-L3. Early recognition and surgical evacuation resulted in a good outcome with no complications. Our goal is to increase awareness of this rare complication and encourage multidisciplinary approaches to managing LSS between spine surgeons and pain providers.

Lumbar Spinal Stenosis and Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression: A Narrative Review

Background

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a common pain condition that causes lumbar back pain, radiating leg pain, and possible functional impairment. MILD is an emerging minimally invasive treatment for LSS. It is an image-guided percutaneous procedure designed to debulk hypertrophied ligamentum flavum. However, the exact short- and long-term efficacy, safety profile, indication criteria, and certain procedure details reported in medical literature vary.

Objective

This narrative review was to elucidate efficacy, safety profile, certain procedure details, advantages, and limitations of MILD.

Study Design

This is a narrative review.

Setting

All included articles are clinic trials including analytic studies and descriptive studies.

Methods

PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus were searched. Only clinical trials of MILD procedure were included. Information of indications, contraindications, VAS scores, ODI scores, effective rate, efficacy durations, and certain procedure details was focused on.

Results

According to the literature, for the MILD procedure, the VAS score could be reduced from a pre-treatment level of 6.3-9.6 to a post-treatment level of 2.3-5.8. The ODI score could be reduced from a pre-treatment level of 38.8-55.3 to a post-treatment level of 27.4-39.8. The effective rate of the MILD procedure was reported to be 57.1%-88%. A 2-year postoperative stability of efficacy was also supported. One RCT study testified superior efficacy of MILD over epidural steroid injection.

Limitations

There is few high-quality literature in the review. Moreover, the long-term efficacy of MILD cannot be revealed according to the current literature.

Conclusion

Based on the reviewed literature, MILD is an effective and safe procedure. MILD can reduce pain intensity and improve functional status significantly. Therefore, it is a preferable option for LSS patients who failed conservative treatments, but not for those who require immediate invasive decompression surgery.

Comparative efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopy and micro-endoscopic discectomy in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Given the inconclusive literature on operative time, pain relief, functional outcomes, and complications, this meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy (UBE) and Micro-Endoscopic Discectomy (MED) in treating Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis (DLSS).

METHODS

A thorough literature search was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines and based on the PICO framework. The study interrogated four primary databases-PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library-on August 16, 2023, without time restrictions. The search employed a strategic selection of keywords and was devoid of language barriers. Studies were included based on strict criteria, such as the diagnosis, surgical intervention types, and specific outcome measures. Quality assessment was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and statistical analysis was executed through Stata version 17.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis incorporated 9 articles out of an initial yield of 1,136 potential studies. Considerable heterogeneity was observed in surgical duration, but no statistically significant difference was identified (MD = - 2.11, P = 0.56). For VAS scores assessing lumbar and leg pain, UBE was statistically superior to MED (MD = - 0.18, P = 0.013; MD = - 0.15, P = 0.006, respectively). ODI scores demonstrated no significant difference between the two surgical methods (MD = - 0.57, P = 0.26). UBE had a lower incidence of complications compared to those receiving MED (OR = 0.54, P = 0.036).

CONCLUSIONS

UBE and MED exhibited comparable surgical durations and disability outcomes as measured by ODI. However, UBE demonstrated superior efficacy in alleviating lumbar and leg pain based on VAS scores. The findings present an intricate evaluation of the two surgical interventions for DLSS, lending valuable insights for clinical decision-making.

Effectiveness of X-stop Interspinous Distractor Device Versus Laminectomy for Treatment of Lumbar Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Lumbar spinal stenosis refers to the narrowing of the spinal canal in the lumbar region. There is an increasing need to determine the treatment modality for lumbar spinal stenosis by comparing the outcomes of X-stop interspinous distractors and laminectomy. The objective of this study is to determine the effectiveness of the X-stop interspinous distractor compared to laminectomy. This systematic review fundamentally abides by the procedures delineated in the Cochrane methodology while the reporting is done according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Three databases searched generated a total of 943 studies, with PubMed being the source for the bulk of the articles. Six studies were selected for inclusion in this study. The effectiveness of the interspinous distractor devices and laminectomy can be determined through their impact on the quality of life, rates of complications, and the amount of money utilized. This meta-analysis fundamentally emphasizes that laminectomy is a more effective intervention for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis as it is more cost-effective and results in fewer complications in the long term.

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

Purpose

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

More than one third of clinical practice guidelines on low back pain overlap in AGREE II appraisals. Research wasted?

Background

Systematic reviews can apply the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II tool to critically appraise clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for treating low back pain (LBP); however, when appraisals differ in CPG quality rating, stakeholders, clinicians, and policy-makers will find it difficult to discern a unique judgement of CPG quality. We wanted to determine the proportion of overlapping CPGs for LBP in appraisals that applied AGREE II. We also compared inter-rater reliability and variability across appraisals.

Methods

For this meta-epidemiological study we searched six databases for appraisals of CPGs for LBP. The general characteristics of the appraisals were collected; the unit of analysis was the CPG evaluated in each appraisal. The inter-rater reliability and the variability of AGREE II domain scores for overall assessment were measured using the intraclass correlation coefficient and descriptive statistics.

Results

Overall, 43 CPGs out of 106 (40.6%) overlapped in seventeen appraisals. Half of the appraisals (53%) reported a protocol registration. Reporting of AGREE II assessment was heterogeneous and generally of poor quality: overall assessment 1 (overall CPG quality) was rated in 11 appraisals (64.7%) and overall assessment 2 (recommendation for use) in four (23.5%). Inter-rater reliability was substantial/perfect in 78.3% of overlapping CPGs. The domains with most variability were Domain 6 (mean interquartile range [IQR] 38.6), Domain 5 (mean IQR 28.9), and Domain 2 (mean IQR 27.7).

Conclusions

More than one third of CPGs for LBP have been re-appraised in the last six years with CPGs quality confirmed in most assessments. Our findings suggest that before conducting a new appraisal, researchers should check systematic review registers for existing appraisals. Clinicians need to rely on updated CPGs of high quality and confirmed by perfect agreement in multiple appraisals.

Trial Registration

Protocol Registration OSF: https://osf.io/rz7nh/

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-022-01621-w.

Diagnosis and Management of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Review

IMPORTANCE

Lumbar spinal stenosis is a prevalent and disabling cause of low back and leg pain in older persons, affecting an estimated 103 million persons worldwide. Most are treated nonoperatively. Approximately 600 000 surgical procedures are performed in the US each year for lumbar spinal stenosis.

OBSERVATIONS

The prevalence of the clinical syndrome of lumbar spinal stenosis in US adults is approximately 11% and increases with age. The diagnosis can generally be made based on a clinical history of back and lower extremity pain that is provoked by lumbar extension, relieved by lumbar flexion, and confirmed with cross-sectional imaging, such as computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Nonoperative treatment includes activity modification such as reducing periods of standing or walking, oral medications to diminish pain such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and physical therapy. In a series of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis followed up for up to 3 years without operative intervention, approximately one-third of patients reported improvement, approximately 50% reported no change in symptoms, and approximately 10% to 20% of patients reported that their back pain, leg pain, and walking were worse. Long-term benefits of epidural steroid injections for lumbar spinal stenosis have not been demonstrated. Surgery appears effective in carefully selected patients with back, buttock, and lower extremity pain who do not improve with conservative management. For example, in a randomized trial of 94 participants with symptomatic and radiographic degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis, decompressive laminectomy improved symptoms more than nonoperative therapy (difference, 7.8 points; 95% CI, 0.8-14.9; minimum clinically important difference, 10-12.8) on the Oswestry Disability Index (score range, 0-100). Among persons with lumbar spinal stenosis and concomitant spondylolisthesis, lumbar fusion increased symptom resolution in 1 trial (difference, 5.7 points; 95% CI, 0.1 to 11.3) on the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey physical dimension score (range, 0-100), but 2 other trials showed either no important differences between the 2 therapies or noninferiority of lumbar decompression alone compared with lumbar decompression plus spinal fusion (MCID, 2-4.9 points). In a noninferiority trial, 71.4% treated with lumbar decompression alone vs 72.9% of those receiving decompression plus fusion achieved a 30% or more reduction in Oswestry Disability Index score, consistent with the prespecified noninferiority hypothesis. Fusion is associated with greater risk of complications such as blood loss, infection, longer hospital stays, and higher costs. Thus, the precise indications for concomitant lumbar fusion in persons with lumbar spinal stenosis and spondylolisthesis remain unclear.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Lumbar spinal stenosis affects approximately 103 million people worldwide and 11% of older adults in the US. First-line therapy is activity modification, analgesia, and physical therapy. Long-term benefits from epidural steroid injections have not been established. Selected patients with continued pain and activity limitation may be candidates for decompressive surgery.

Best Practices for Minimally Invasive Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Treatment 2.0 (MIST): Consensus Guidance from the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN)

Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion

Meta-Analysis of the Clinical Effect of MIS-TLF Surgery in the Treatment of Minimally Invasive Surgery of the Orthopaedic Spine

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has already had a significant impact on surgical treatment (spine). Because they are less invasive, minimally invasive treatments are often preferred over open spine surgery. MIS and open spine surgery in terms of posterior lumbar fusion (PLF), lumbar disc herniation (LDH), and cervical disc herniation (CDH) were all observational studies based on randomized controlled trials. Seventeen RCTs and six observational studies were conducted. Chemotherapy had no effect on the long-term alleviation of the neck or arm pain in patients with CDH. In LDH, MIS was superior in terms of pain relief, rehospitalization rates, and improvement in quality of life. At the expense of increased perioperative endoscopic, readmission, and revision rates, MIS achieved a significant reduction in 2-year expenditures, fewer medical problems, and improved Oswestry score ratings. There is no evidence to support the use of MIS over open surgery for lumbar or cervical process disc herniation. In comparison, MIS-TLIF has several advantages, in addition to lower revision/readmission rates. However, MIS significantly increases the surgeon's radiation exposure, regardless of the patient's sign. However, the effect on patients is unknown. These findings could help patients make better decisions when comparing open spine surgery to minimally invasive spine surgery, especially given how much advertising is out there for MIS.

OUP accepted manuscript

Objective

The purpose of this study is to provide Level-1 objective, real-world outcome data for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis suffering from neurogenic claudication secondary to hypertrophic ligamentum flavum.

Design

The MOTION Study is a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial comparing the mild^® Procedure (minimally invasive lumbar decompression; Vertos Medical, Aliso Viejo, CA, USA) as a first-line therapy in combination with nonsurgical conventional medical management (CMM) vs CMM alone as the active control.

Methods

Patients in the test group received the mild Procedure at baseline. Both the mild+CMM group and the control group were allowed unrestricted access to conventional real-world therapies. Patient-reported outcomes included the Oswestry Disability Index, the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire, and the Numeric Pain Rating Scale. A validated Walking Tolerance Test, the incidence of subsequent lumbar spine interventions, and the occurrence of adverse events were used to measure objective outcomes.

Results

Sixty-nine patients in each group were analyzed at 1-year follow-up. No device- or procedure-related adverse events were reported in either group. Results from all primary and secondary outcome measures showed statistical significance in favor of mild+CMM.

Conclusions

One-year results of this Level-1 study demonstrated superiority of mild+CMM over CMM alone for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis who were suffering from neurogenic claudication secondary to hypertrophic ligamentum flavum. Use of the validated Walking Tolerance Test to objectively measure increased ability to walk without severe symptoms provided evidence of statistically significantly better outcomes for mild+CMM than for CMM alone. With no reported device or procedure-related adverse events, the long-standing safety profile of the mild Procedure was reaffirmed. mild is a safe, durable, minimally invasive procedure that has been shown to be effective as an early interventional therapy for patients suffering from symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis.

Thread Embedding Acupuncture and Complex Korean Medicine Treatment for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis with Degenerative Scoliosis: A Clinical Case Report

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a common degenerative spinal condition that can have unpredictable improvement and worsening of symptoms which include low back pain, radiating pain, claudication, and degenerative lumbar scoliosis affecting quality of life. In this study, thread embedding acupuncture (TEA) was used as a conservative treatment for LSS in combination with complex Korean medicine treatments (acupuncture, herbal medicines, and physical therapy). The treatment was evaluated using the numerical rating scale, walking distance and duration, and inclination of radiological lumbar scoliosis according to antalgic posture. TEA was performed 27 times between June 8, 2020, and March 16, 2021. The patient showed improvement in numerical rating scale score from 7 to 2, pain-free walking distance from 10 m to 900 m, and scoliosis inclination following treatment. The findings of this study suggest that TEA may be helpful in the treatment of LSS.

Approach to Radiculopathy

Low back pain and neck pain, often with associated radiculopathy, are two of the most common reasons for referral to the outpatient neurology clinic. A thorough clinical evaluation remains paramount in establishing an accurate diagnosis and subsequently an appropriate treatment plan. In this article, we review anatomic considerations for spondylotic radiculopathy; outline the clinical approach for the evaluation of these patients, including discussion of electrodiagnostic and imaging modalities; and address treatment options based on a stratified treatment approach.

Minimally invasive direct decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: impact of multiple prior epidural steroid injections

Background: A modified algorithm for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with hypertrophic ligamentum flavum using minimally-invasive lumbar decompression (mild^®)was assessed, with a focus on earlier intervention. Patients & methods: Records of 145 patients treated with mild after receiving 0-1 epidural steroid injections (ESIs) or 2+ ESIs were retrospectively reviewed. Pain assessments as measured by visual analog scale (VAS) scores were recorded at baseline and 1-week and 3-month follow-ups. Results: Improvements in VAS scores at follow-ups compared with baseline were significant in both groups. No statistically significant differences were found between the two groups. Conclusion: Multiple ESIs prior to mild showed no benefit. A modified algorithm to perform mild immediately upon diagnosis or after the failure of the first ESI is recommended.

A Retrospective, Single-Center, Quantitative Analysis of Adverse Events in Patients Undergoing Spinal Stenosis with Neurogenic Claudication Using a Novel Percutaneous Direct Lumbar Decompression Strategy

Introduction

Low-back pain with accompanying neurogenic claudication is a common diagnosis in pain and spine centers around the world, with an evolving algorithm of treatment. One option for the treatment of neurogenic claudication by decompressive strategies centers on percutaneous direct decompressive techniques. Although commonly employed in clinical practice, there have been no formal investigations looking at safety of percutaneous direct decompression without the use of an epidurogram and relying on osteal landmarks. The purpose of this study was to investigate the safety of percutaneous direct decompression performed without the use of the epidurogram.

Methods

After an IRB exemption had been obtained from the Western Investigational Review Board, data were retrospectively analyzed from July 2018 to August 2020 on patients that had undergone percutaneous direct decompression using the Mild procedure in a single center by a single physician. Data were analyzed quantitatively for reported complications within 3 months of the procedure, including nerve injury, hematoma, infection, death, or allergic reaction to contrast use.–

Results

Chart review yielded 147 individual patients who had undergone percutaneous direct decompression from July 2018 to August 2020. In this data set, women outnumbered men, with an average age of 76 years, with L4–L5 followed by L3–L4 being the most common levels decompressed. Of the 147 patients was performed, utilizing an epidurogram versus no epidurogram for decompression, with no complications. These data are the first to describe the safety of percutaneous direct lumbar decompression without the use of contrast.

Conclusion

This study strongly suggests the use of an epidurogram is not necessary for the safe decompression of a patient with symptomatic spinal stenosis and neurogenic claudication utilizing percutaneous direct decompression.

Objective Real-World Outcomes of Patients Suffering from Painful Neurogenic Claudication Treated with the mild® Procedure: Interim 6-Month Report of a Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a serious degenerative condition of the spine that can cause significant functional disability. Therapies for these patients generally begin with conservative management, since more invasive interventions such as open surgery and spinal implants are associated with higher complication rates. Early in the treatment algorithm for LSS patients, multiple conventional medical management (CMM) therapies are often combined as an initial low-risk treatment strategy. This composite first-line treatment plan may include conservative care together with early interventional treatment options such as epidural steroid injections, radiofrequency ablation and the mild^® Procedure.

Methods

This prospective randomized controlled trial evaluates patients aged 50 to 80 years treated with mild plus CMM, compared to those treated with CMM alone, as the active control. Walking tolerance test outcomes and incidence of subsequent disallowed procedures provided objective real-world outcome data. The incidence of device or procedure-related adverse events was analyzed. Follow-up includes 6-month, 1-year and 2-year assessments, with 1-year being primary. Patients in the mild+CMM group are followed at 3, 4, and 5 years. This is a report of interim 6-month outcomes.

Results

Of 155 patients enrolled at 19 US interventional pain management centers, 78 were allocated to CMM-Alone, and 77 to mild+CMM. At 6-months, the validated walking tolerance test demonstrated statistical superiority of mild+CMM versus CMM-Alone (p<0.001). The incidence of patients receiving a subsequent disallowed procedure, and thereby considered treatment failures in their study group, was statistically significantly higher in CMM-Alone versus mild+CMM (p<0.001). There were no device or procedure-related adverse events in either group.

Conclusion

At 6-months, the mild Procedure combined with CMM provided statistically superior objective real-world outcomes versus CMM-Alone. There were no device or procedure-related adverse events reported in either study group. With its excellent safety profile and superior efficacy, mild is uniquely positioned as early first-line therapy.

Real world adverse events of interspinous spacers using Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience data

Background

Lumbar spinal stenosis is a condition of progressive neurogenic claudication that can be managed with lumbar decompression surgery or less invasive interspinous process devices after failed conservative therapy. Popular interspinous process spacers include X-Stop, Vertiflex and Coflex, with X-Stop being taken off market due to its adverse events profile.

Methods

A disproportionality analysis was conducted to determine whether a statistically significant signal exists in the three interspinous spacers and the reported adverse events using the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database maintained by the US Food and Drug Administration.

Results

Statistically significant signals were found with each of the three interspinous spacer devices (Coflex, Vertiflex, and X-Stop) and each of the following adverse events: fracture, migration, and pain/worsening symptoms.

Conclusions

Further studies such as randomized controlled trials are needed to validate the findings.

A critical appraisal of clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the review was to appraise clinical practice guidelines and their recommendations for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis.

METHODS

PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched up until 25/01/2020 for clinical practice guidelines on the management of lumbar spinal stenosis with a systematic process to generate recommendations and were publicly available.

RESULTS

Ten guidelines were included, with a total of 76 recommendations for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. Only 4 of the 10 guidelines were of satisfactory methodological quality according to the AGREE II instrument. Around three-quarters of recommendations (72.4%) were presented with poor evidence, with the remaining 21 presenting (27.6%) fair evidence. No recommendation presented good evidence. Recommendations were made on four types of interventions: surgery, injections, medications, and other nonsurgical treatments, with supporting evidence similar for all four treatment types. Positive recommendations were more common for injections (12/13=92.3%) and surgery (10/15=66%) than for nonsurgical treatments (6/21=28.6%) or medications (1/27=3.75%).

CONCLUSIONS

Ten guidelines on the management of lumbar spinal stenosis were identified in the systematic review, but only four were of adequate methodological quality. While the evidence underpinning the various types of interventions was similar, guidelines tended to endorse surgery and injections but not nonsurgical interventions and medicines. These results support the need for greater rigor and inclusion of steps to minimize bias in the production of guidelines.

Sex and gender considerations in low back pain clinical practice guidelines: a scoping review

Objective

The purpose of this scoping review is to determine if and how sex and gender have been incorporated into low back pain (LBP) clinical practice guidelines (CPG), and if sex and gender terms have been used properly.

Methods

CPGs were searched on MEDLINE, Embase, NICE, TRIP and PEDro from 2010 to 2020. The inclusion criteria were English language, CGPs within physiotherapy scope of practice and for adult population with LBP of any type or duration. Three pairs of independent reviewers screened titles, abstracts and full texts. Guidelines were searched for sex/gender-related terms and recommendations were extracted. The AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II) was used to evaluate the quality of the CPGs.

Results

Thirty-six CPGs were included, of which 15 were test-positive for sex or gender terms. Only 33% (n=5) of CPGs incorporated sex or gender into diagnostic or management recommendations. Sixty percent of guidelines (n=9) only referenced sex or gender in relation to epidemiology, risk factors or prognostic data, and made no specific recommendations. Overall, there was no observable relationship between guideline quality and likeliness of integrating sex or gender terms. The majority of guidelines used sex and gender terms interchangeably, and no guidelines defined sex or gender.

Conclusion

CPGs did not consistently consider sex and gender differences in assessment, diagnosis or treatment of LBP. When it was considered, sex and gender terms were used interchangeably, and considerations were primarily regarding pregnancy. Researchers should consider the importance of including sex-based and/or gender-based recommendations into future LBP CPGs.

Degenerative Lumbar Spine Stenosis Consensus Conference: the Italian job. Recommendations of the Spinal Section of the Italian Society of Neurosurgery

In the modern era evidence-based medicine, guidelines and recommendations represent a key-point of daily activity. The Spinal Section of the Italian Society of Neurosurgery introduced some recommendations regarding Degenerative Lumbar Spine Stenosis based on those of the Spine Committee of World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies, revising them on the basis of Italian common practice. In June 2019, a Committee of 21 spine surgeons met in Rome to validate the recommendations of the WFNS. Furthermore, they decided to review the ones that did not reach a consensus to create Italian Recommendations on Degenerative Lumbar Spine Stenosis. A literature review of the last ten years was performed and the statements were voted using the Delphi method. Forty-one statements were discussed, and 7 statements were voted again to reach a consensus with respect to those of the WFNS. A total of 40 statements reached a consensus, of which 36 reached a positive consensus and 4 a negative consensus, while no consensus was reached in 1 case. Conservative multimodal therapy, tailored on the patient, is a reasonable and effective first option choice for the treatment of LSS patients with tolerable moderate symptoms. Surgical treatment is reserved for symptomatic patients non-responding to conservative treatment or with neurological deficits. The best surgical technique to use depends on personal experience; modern MISS techniques are equivalent to open decompressive surgery with some advantages and higher cost-effectiveness. Fusion surgery and mobility preserving surgery only have a marginal role in the treatment of DLSS without instability.

Minimally invasive lumbar decompression: a review of indications, techniques, efficacy and safety

Lumbar spinal stenosis is a common degenerative spine condition. In properly selected patients, minimally invasive lumbar decompression ( mild®) may be an option to improve outcomes. This review provides an in-depth description of the mild procedure and a comprehensive examination of safety and efficacy. Two randomized controlled trials, together with 11 other controlled clinical studies, have established the efficacy of mild, which is a minimally invasive procedure that does not involve implants and has demonstrated excellent efficacy and safety. With an established safety profile equivalent to epidural steroid injections, and efficacy that has been shown to be superior to such injections, mild can reasonably be positioned early in the treatment algorithm for these patients. Based on extensive review of the literature, robust safety and efficacy through 2 years, and in accordance with minimally invasive spine treatment guidelines, mild is recommended as the first intervention after failure of conservative measures for lumbar spinal stenosis patients with neurogenic claudication and ligamentum flavum hypertrophy.

Differential Regulation of the Glucocorticoid Receptor in a Rat Model of Inflammatory Pain

BACKGROUND

Anti-inflammatory corticosteroids are a common treatment for different conditions involving chronic pain and inflammation. Clinically used steroids target the glucocorticoid receptor (GR) for its anti-inflammatory effects. We previously reported that GR in sensory neurons may play central roles in some pain models and that GR immunoreactivity signal in dorsal root ganglia (DRG) decreased after local inflammation of the DRG (a model of low back pain). In the current study, we aimed to determine if similar changes in GR signal also exist in a skin inflammation model, the complete Freund's adjuvant (CFA) model (a model of peripheral inflammatory pain), in which the terminals of the sensory neurons rather than the somata are inflamed.

METHODS

A low dose of CFA was injected into the hind paw to establish the peripheral inflammation model in Sprague-Dawley rats of both sexes, as confirmed by measurements of behavior and paw swelling. Immunohistochemical and western blotting techniques were used to determine the expression pattern of the GR in the inflamed hind paw and the DRGs. Plasma corticosterone levels were measured with radioimmunoassay.

RESULTS

The immunohistochemical staining revealed that GR is widely expressed in the normal DRG and skin tissues. Paw injection with CFA caused upregulation of the GR in the skin tissue on postinjection day 1, mostly detected in the dermis area. However, paw inflammation significantly reduced the GR signal in the L5 DRG 1 day after the injection. The GR downregulation was still evident 14 days after CFA inflammation. On day 1, western blotting confirmed this downregulation and showed that it could also be observed in the contralateral L5 DRG, as well as in the L2 DRG (a level which does not innervate the paw). Plasma corticosterone levels were elevated in both sexes on day 14 after CFA compared to day 1, suggesting autologous downregulation of the GR by corticosterone may have contributed to the downregulation observed on day 14 but not day 1.

CONCLUSIONS

There are distinctive patterns of GR activation under different pain conditions, depending on the anatomical location. The observed downregulation of the GR in sensory neurons may have a significant impact on the use of steroids as treatment in these conditions and on the regulatory effects of endogenous glucocorticoids.

Conservative Treatment and Percutaneous Pain Relief Techniques in Patients with Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: WFNS Spine Committee Recommendations

BACKGROUND

Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a progressive disease with potentially dangerous consequences that affect quality of life. Despite the detailed literature, natural history is unpredictable. This uncertainty presents a challenge making the correct management decisions, especially in patients with mild to moderate symptoms, regarding conservative or surgical treatment. This article focused on conservative treatment for degenerative LSS.

METHODS

To standardize clinical practice worldwide as much as possible, the World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies Spine Committee held a consensus conference on conservative treatment for degenerative LSS. A team of experts in spinal disorders reviewed the literature on conservative treatment for degenerative LSS from 2008 to 2018 and drafted and voted on a number of statements.

RESULTS

During 2 consensus meetings, 14 statements were voted on. The Committee agreed on the use of physical therapy for up to 3 months in cases with no neurologic symptoms. Initial conservative treatment could be applied without major complications in these cases. In patients with moderate to severe symptoms or with acute radicular deficits, surgical treatment is indicated. The efficacy of epidural injections is still debated, as it shows only limited benefit in patients with degenerative LSS.

CONCLUSIONS

A conservative approach based on therapeutic exercise may be the first choice in patients with LSS except in the presence of significant neurologic deficits. Treatment with instrumental modalities or epidural injections is still debated. Further studies with standardization of outcome measures are needed to reach high-level evidence conclusions.

The Impact of Age on the Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

Background and Purpose

Minimally invasive lumbar decompression (mild^®) is an effective long-term therapy for patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) resulting primarily from hypertrophic ligamentum flavum (HLF). Most subjects in clinical studies of the mild procedure have been older adults (age≥65). While the incidence of LSS increases with age, a substantial number of adults (age<65) also suffer from neurogenic claudication secondary to HLF. In this report, outcomes of mild were compared between adults and older adults.

Patients and Methods

All prospective studies of the mild procedure with a 1-year follow-up completed since the beginning of 2012 that allowed the inclusion of adult patients of all ages were reviewed. Outcomes of visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Pain Disability Index (PDI), Roland Morris Low Back Pain and Disability Questionnaire (RMQ), standing time and walking distance were compared for adults and older adults.

Results

Four studies met the inclusion criteria, resulting in an analysis of 49 adults and 160 older adults. Patients in both age groups experienced significant mean improvements in all but one outcome measure at 6- and 12-month follow-up. Differences between the two age groups in all scores at 6 and 12 months were not statistically significant.

Conclusion

Analysis of the four studies indicated that symptom improvements for adults and older adults were significant from baseline, and no statistically significant difference was observed between the two age groups. These results illustrate that mild can be an effective treatment for LSS due primarily to HLF, regardless of the adult patient age.

An Algorithmic Approach to Treating Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: An Evidenced-Based Approach

OBJECTIVE

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) can lead to compression of the neural and vascular elements and is becoming more common due to degenerative changes that occur because of aging processes. Symptoms may manifest as pain and discomfort that radiates to the lower leg, thigh, and/or buttocks. The traditional treatment algorithm for LSS consists of conservative management (physical therapy, medication, education, exercise), often followed by epidural steroid injections (ESIs), and when nonsurgical treatment has failed, open decompression surgery with or without fusion is considered. In this review, the variables that should be considered during the management of patients with LSS are discussed, and the role of each treatment option to provide optimal care is evaluated.

RESULTS

This review leads to the creation of an evidence-based practical algorithm to aid clinicians in the management of patients with LSS. Special emphasis is directed at minimally invasive surgery, which should be taken into consideration when conservative management and ESI have failed.

A Review of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis with Intermittent Neurogenic Claudication: Disease and Diagnosis

Objective

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a degenerative spinal condition affecting nearly 50% of patients presenting with lower back pain. The goal of this review is to present and summarize the current data on how LSS presents in various populations, how it is diagnosed, and current therapeutic strategies. Properly understanding the prevalence, presentation, and treatment options for individuals suffering from LSS is critical to providing patients the best possible care.

Results

The occurrence of LSS is associated with advanced age. In elderly patients, LSS can be challenging to identify due to the wide variety of presentation subtleties and common comorbidities such as degenerative disc disease. Recent developments in imaging techniques can be useful in accurately identifying the precise location of the spinal compression. Treatment options can range from conservative to surgical, with the latter being reserved for when patients have neurological compromise or conservative measures have failed. Once warranted, there are several surgical techniques at the physician’s disposal to best treat each individual case.

Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Introduction to the World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies (WFNS) Spine Committee Recommendations

Introduction

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a common degenerative disease that every spine surgeon will come across in daily practice. Despite this, the natural history and treatment have not been well established and standardized as yet, and there have been few guidelines published on this topic to date. The aim of the World Federation of Neurosurgical Society Spine Committee Consensus Conference is to define evidence-based and expert-based recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of LSS, considering the different possibilities and facilities in countries worldwide.

Methods

An international committee of spinal surgeons reunited to perform the Consensus Conference on the topic of LSS. The Delphi method was applied to administer a questionnaire and obtain a consensus on various topics. A multidisciplinary committee defined 6 panels: 1) natural course and diagnosis of LSS; 2) conservative treatment and follow-up; 3) percutaneous techniques; 4) decompressive surgery; 5) fusion surgery; 6) mobility preserving surgery. The statements and the literature review were presented and voted.

Results

A total of 44 statements were stated and then voted by 16 experienced spine surgeons to obtain the final results. A total of 36 statements reached a consensus, of which 34 reached a positive consensus and 2 a negative consensus, whereas no consensus was reached in 8 cases.

Conclusions

In the absence of evidence-based medicine, these recommendations offer support for all practitioners, independent from economic resources and personal experience. Obviously, further studies are needed and will be well accepted to support or modify these recommendations.

Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression and Interspinous Process Device for the Management of Symptomatic Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: a Literature Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a condition affecting a growing number of individuals resulting in significant disability and pain. Traditionally, treatment options have consisted of conservative measures such as physical therapy, medication management, epidural injections and percutaneous adhesiolysis, or surgery. There exists a treatment gap for patients failing conservative measures who are not candidates for surgery. Minimally invasive lumbar decompression (MILD®) and interspinous process device (IPD) with Superion® represent minimally invasive novel treatment options that may help fill this gap in management. We performed a literature review to separately evaluate these procedures and assess the effectiveness and safety.

RECENT FINDINGS

The available evidence for MILD and Superion has been continuously debated. Overall, it is considered that while the procedures are safe, there is only modest evidence for effectiveness. For both procedures, we have reviewed 13 studies. Based on the available evidence, MILD and Superion are safe and modestly effective minimally invasive procedures for patients with symptomatic LSS. It is our recommendation that these procedures may be incorporated as part of the continuum of treatment options for patients meeting clinical criteria.

Successful use of percutaneous interspinous spacers and adjunctive spinoplasty in a 9 year cohort of patients

Purpose

Lumbar spinal canal stenosis and lumbar spinal foraminal stenosis are common, degenerative pathologies which can result in neurogenic claudication and have a negative impact on function and quality of life. Percutaneous interspinous devices (PIDs) are a recently-developed, minimally-invasive, alternative treatment option. This study details a 9 year single-centre experience with PIDs and examines the complementary use of spinous process augmentation (spinoplasty) to reduce failure rates.

Methods

A retrospective cohort assessment of 800 consecutive patients who presented to a specialized spine hospital was performed with 688 receiving treatment. Inclusion was based on high-grade stenosis, failure of conservative management and electromyography. 256 had a PID alone while 432 had concurrent polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) augmentation of the adjacent spinous processes. The patients were followed up at 3 and 12 months using the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI).

Results

Both groups showed marked improvement in the patients’ ZCQ scores (3.2 to 1.3) and ODI scores (32 to 21), with strong satisfaction results (1.7). The symptom recurrence rate from complications for the group which received concurrent spinous process augmentation was reduced when compared with the PID alone cohort (<1% vs 11.3%).

Conclusion

This study demonstrates the efficacy of percutaneous interspinous devices in treating lumbar spinal stenosis. It also provides evidence that concurrent spinous process augmentation reduces the rate of symptom recurrence.

Advanced Image-Guided Procedures for Painful Spine

In addition to basic image-guided injections, there are many advanced procedures to address the challenges of spine pain. Patients with debilitating symptoms are offered relief, a shorter recovery period, and fewer potential complications. Pain arises from numerous sites along the spine, presenting as spine pain or radiculopathy. This article is an overview of advanced techniques in this rapidly progressing field, including neuromodulation, radiofrequency thermocoagulation, discography, intradiscal thermocoagulation, and percutaneous image-guided lumbar decompression; and it highlights etiologic factors and their relationship to therapeutic technique and clinical evidence.

The Use of Vertiflex® Interspinous Spacer Device in Patients With Lumbar Spinal Stenosis and Concurrent Medical Comorbidities

The use of the Vertiflex® interspinous spacer is a recent minimal invasive procedure useful in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). It is used mostly by interventional pain physicians who can also perform the minimally invasive lumbar decompression (MILD procedure). Previously when a patient had clinical symptomatic neurogenic claudication (NC) and radiologic findings of lumbar stenosis and had failed conservative treatment, the options were decompressive laminectomy, laminectomy with pedicle fixation at one or more levels or laminotomy combined with interlaminar stabilization (Coflex® implant). These procedures were performed by neurosurgeons and orthopedic spine surgeons. However, the majority of patients with LSS are elderly and have multiple comorbidities that can make open spinal surgery, even when limited to one level, an anesthesia risk as well as vulnerable to the risk associated with hospitalization and recovery after spine surgery. The minimally invasive approaches to interspinous stabilization make it possible to treat localized symptomatic stenosis in a broader group of patients that do not want or cannot, have general anesthesia or extensive lumbar surgery, especially in the prone position. This article examines the use of the Vertiflex® implant in an elderly population with significant comorbidities that underwent successful outpatient implantation at one or two levels. In addition, it serves to familiarize spine surgeons about the possibility of using more minimal approaches to treat LSS.

Radiologic Evaluation Of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: The Integration Of Sagittal And Axial Views In Decision Making For Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures

Radiologic findings in combination with clinical symptoms are critical in the diagnosis and evaluation of the severity of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) as well as the need for surgical treatment. Dynamic radiographs, computerized tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) each provide different but interrelated pieces of information in the patient with lumbar spinal stenosis. Making a treatment decision based only on one of the radiographic studies may negatively affect the treatment outcome. Minimal procedures are predicated on identifying and performing surgery on a limited segment of the lumbar spinal canal affected by the stenosis compared to what occurs during open surgery where the judgment of the spine surgeon often expanded the decompression area based on real-time intra-operative findings correlated with radiologic findings of stenosis. As newer, less invasive procedures are gaining acceptance for surgical treatment of spinal stenosis with symptomatic claudication, radiologic studies become more critical in selecting the correct procedure since there may be no or minimal surgical visual confirmation of the pathology. This article will review how the finding of spinal deformity and motion, canal dimensions, viewed in multiple planes and the presence of facet fluid impact treatment decisions. Differences in these abnormal radiologic findings can affect the selection of surgical procedures ranging from open decompression with pedicle fixation, decompression with interlaminar stabilization, minimally invasive lumbar decompression, and percutaneous interspinous implants providing distraction without decompression. With the development of less invasive procedures, lumbar spinal stenosis is being evaluated and treated not only by spine surgeons but also by interventional pain and neuroradiology physicians that may not be totally familiar with the complexity of the pathology and neuro-radiology of LSS. Each radiologic study provides different information. The goal of this report is to provide a framework for the use of studies such as plain X-rays, dynamic films, MRI, and CT scans as well as the importance of different views, and how to use them in evaluating the abnormal radiologic anatomy seen with LSS and in selecting the most appropriate procedure.