Endoscopic Versus Open Laminectomy for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: An International, Multi-Institutional Analysis of Outcomes and Adverse Events

Initial experience of 3-dimensional exoscope in decompression of massive lumbar disc herniation

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effect of a three-dimensional (3D) exoscope for decompression of single-segment massive lumbar disc herniation (LDH).

METHODS

The study included 56 consecutive patients with single segment massive LDH who underwent decompression assisted by a 3D exoscope from October 2019 to October 2022 at a university hospital. The analysis was based on comparison of perioperative metrics including decompression time, estimated blood loss (EBL) during decompression and postoperative length of stay (PLS); clinical outcomes including assessment using the visual analogue scale (VAS) and the Oswestry disability index (ODI); and incidence of reoperation and complications.

RESULTS

The mean decompression time was 28.35 ± 8.93 min (lumbar interbody fusion (LIF)) and 15.50 ± 5.84 min (fenestration discectomy (LOVE surgery)), the mean EBL during decompression was 42.65 ± 12.42 ml (LIF) and 24.32 ± 8.61 ml (LOVE surgery), and the mean PLS was 4.56 ± 0.82 days (LIF) and 2.00 ± 0.65 days (LOVE surgery). There were no complications such as cerebrospinal fluid leakage, nerve root injury and epidural hematoma. All patients who underwent decompression assisted by a 3D exoscope were followed up for 6 months. At the last follow-up, the VAS and ODI scores were significantly improved from the preoperative period to the last follow-up (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

A 3D exoscope provides a visually detailed, deep and clear surgical field, which makes decompression safer and more effective and reduces short-term complications. A 3D exoscope may be a good assistance tool during decompression for single-segment massive LDH.

A Comparative Study of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Decompression and Percutaneous Transforaminal Endoscopic Decompression for Geriatric Patients with Lumbar Lateral Recess Stenosis

Purpose

The purpose of this research was to compare the efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression (UBE) and percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic decompression (PTED) in the treatment of elderly patients with single-level lumbar lateral recess stenosis (LRS).

Materials and Methods

Data from January 2020 to March 2022 were analyzed. Thirty-eight patients in the PTED group and thirty-nine patients in the UBE group completed the minimum 12-month follow-up. The demographic data and perioperative outcomes were reviewed. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using the VAS for back and leg pain, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the modified MacNab criteria.

Results

Both groups of patients completed surgery and a one-year follow-up. There was no significant difference between the two groups in demographics data. UBE has the advantage in operative duration and X-ray time; as far as incision length, blood loss, and drainage volume are concerned, PTED is advantageous. Under the modified MacNab criteria, UBE exhibited a good-to-excellent rate similar to that of PTED (84.6% vs 81.6%, P>0.05). There were no significant differences at any point in time between UBE and PTED with respect to ODI, VAS, or back pain scores (P>0.05). UBE and PTED did not differ significantly in terms of complications.

Conclusion

Both PTED and UBE achieved favorable outcomes in single-level LRS. For operative time and X-ray times, UBE is more advantageous, while PTED offers better estimates of blood loss, incision length, and drainage volume.

Endoscopic and Nonendoscopic Approaches to Single-Level Lumbar Spine Decompression: Propensity Score-Matched Comparative Analysis and Frailty-Driven Predictive Model

Objective: The endoscopic spine surgery (ESS) approach is associated with high levels of patient satisfaction, shorter recovery time, and reduced complications. The present study reports multicenter, international data, comparing ESS and non-ESS approaches for singlelevel lumbar decompression, and proposes a frailty-driven predictive model for nonhome discharge (NHD) disposition.Methods: Cases of ESS and non-ESS lumbar spine decompression were queried from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database (2017–2020). Propensity score matching was performed on baseline characteristics frailty score (measured by risk analysis index [RAI] and modified frailty index-5 [mFI-5]). The primary outcome of interest was NHD disposition. A predictive model was built using logistic regression with RAI as the primary driver.Results: Single-level nonfusion spine lumbar decompression surgery was performed in 38,686 patients. Frailty, as measured by RAI, was a reliable predictor of NHD with excellent discriminatory accuracy in receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis: C-statistic: 0.80 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65–0.94) in ESS cohort, C-statistic: 0.75 (95% CI, 0.73–0.76) overall cohort. After propensity score matching, there was a reduction in total operative time (89 minutes vs. 103 minutes, p = 0.049) and hospital length of stay (LOS) (0.82 days vs. 1.37 days, p < 0.001) in patients treated endoscopically. In ROC curve analysis, the frailty-driven predictive model performed with excellent diagnostic accuracy for the primary outcome of NHD (C-statistic: 0.87; 95% CI, 0.85–0.88).Conclusion: After frailty-based propensity matching, ESS is associated with reduced operative time, shorter hospital LOS, and decreased NHD. The RAI frailty-driven model predicts NHD with excellent diagnostic accuracy and may be applied to preoperative decisionmaking with a user-friendly calculator: nsgyfrailtyoutcomeslab.shinyapps.io/lumbar_decompression_dischargedispo.

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.

Full-endoscopic versus microscopic unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis at L4-L5: comparative study

PURPOSE

Full-endoscopic spine surgery for degenerative lumbar diseases is growing in popularity and has shown favourable outcomes. Lumbar endoscopic unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (LE-ULBD) has been used to treat lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). However, studies comparing LE-ULBD to microscopic ULBD are lacking. This study compared the clinical efficacy and radiological outcomes between the LE-ULBD and microscopic ULBD.

METHODS

The study retrospectively enrolled patients undergoing either LE-ULBD or microscopic ULBD for spinal stenosis at the L4-L5 level. The demographic data, operative details, radiological images, clinical outcomes, and complications of patients from the two groups were compared through matched-pairs analysis. The minimum follow-up duration was 24 months.

RESULTS

There were 93 patients undergoing either LE-ULBD (n = 42) or microscopic ULBD (n = 51). The patient demographics were similar between the two groups. The LE-ULBD group had significantly less estimated blood loss, less analgesic use, and shorter hospitalization duration (P < .05). The endoscopic group had a significantly lower visual analog scale for back pain at all follow-up intervals compared with the microscopic group (P < .05). There were no significant differences in leg pain or Oswestry Disability Index. The cross-section area of the spinal canal was significantly wider after microscopic ULBD. There were no significant differences in post-operative degenerative changes in disc height, translational motion, or facet preservation rate.

CONCLUSIONS

LE-ULBD is comparable in clinical and radiological outcomes with enhanced recovery for single-level LSS. The endoscopic approach might further minimize tissue injury and enhance post-operative recovery.

Learning Curve and Complications of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy: Cumulative Sum and Risk-Adjusted Cumulative Sum Analysis

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to investigate the learning curve and complications of unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH) and lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort analysis of 197 consecutive patients who received UBE unilateral laminotomy bilateral decompression (UBE-ULBD) or lumbar discectomy (UBE-LD) surgery, including 107 males and 90 females with an average age of 64.83 ± 14.29 years. Cumulative sum (CUSUM) and risk-adjusted cumulative sum analysis (RA-CUSUM) were used to evaluate the learning curve, with the occurrence of complications defined as surgical failure, and variables of different phase of the learning curve were compared.

RESULTS

The cutoff point of learning curve of UBE surgery was 54 cases according to CUSUM analysis. The learning curve of UBE-ULBD and UBE-LD were divided into 3 phases. The first cutoff points were 31 and 12 cases, and the second cutoff point were 67 and 32 cases respectively. With the progress of the learning curve, the operation time and postoperative hospital stays decreased. The visual analogue scale and Oswestry Disability Index at the last follow-up were significantly lower than that before surgery. The incidence of surgical failure was 6.11% and began to decrease after the 89th case based on RA-CUSUM analysis. The surgical failure rate decreased from 10.11% to 2.78 after the 89th case with significant different.

CONCLUSION

UBE surgery is effective in the treatment of LDH and LSS with low incidence of complications. But a learning curve of at least 54 cases still required for mastering UBE surgery.

Full-Endoscopic Ventral Facetectomy vs Open Laminectomy for Lumbar Lateral Recess Stenosis: A Comparative Study and Brief Literature Review

BACKGROUND

Lateral recess stenosis (LRS) represents a major etiology of pain and disability in recent years. The aim of the present study was to compare the clinical outcomes of full-endoscopic ventral facetectomy (FEVF) vs conventional open laminectomy (OL) for surgical treatment of lumbar LRS.

METHODS

Ninety individuals with diagnosed LRS according to clinical and radiological criteria were included in this study. Patients were appropriately classified into 2 distinct groups according to received treatment. Group A was constituted from 48 patients subjected to FEVF. Contrariwise, the 42 patients of Group B underwent OL. All patients were consecutively evaluated with particular clinical scores preoperatively and at 6 weeks, 3, months, 6 months, 12 months, and 2 years postoperatively. Clinical assessment was conducted with the visual analog scale for leg pain (VAS-LP) and back pain (VAS-BP) and with the Short-Form 36 (SF-36) medical questionnaire.

RESULTS

Values of all studied indices in both groups featured a major clinical improvement in 6 weeks with subsequent quantitatively minor albeit still statistically significant amelioration until the end of follow-up at 2 years. Comparative evaluation of recorded parameters between the 2 groups disclosed that VAS-BP, bodily pain, and role emotional indices of SF-36 were quantitatively and statistically differentiated in favor of Group A in 6 weeks, featuring an amelioration that persisted until the end of follow-up. Registered values of the other parameters were not found to demonstrate a quantitatively and clinically noteworthy differentiation between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

FEVF represents a feasible, safe, and beneficial alternative for surgical therapy of patients with LRS, featuring comparable outcomes with conventional OL.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Lumbar LRS represents a frequent entity with remarkable clinical sequelae. FEVF represents a novel, groundbreaking and minimally invasive technique that should be considered as a safe and efficacious alternative over conventional open surgery in specific patients with LRS.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3

Minimally invasive bilateral decompressive lumbar laminectomy with unilateral approach: patient series

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive bilateral decompressive lumbar laminectomy with a unilateral approach is a less destructive procedure compared to the traditional open bilateral laminectomy. The objective of this study is to report the authors’ experience with this technique. The first 26 cases performed using the unilateral approach for bilateral decompression are described. Baseline characteristics, operative time, blood loss, and intraoperative complications were collected retrospectively. No specific surgical equipment is needed for this technique.

OBSERVATIONS

Twenty-six patients and a total of 40 lumbar levels were treated. Mean operative time was 82 minutes per level and mean estimated blood loss was 40.4 mL per level. Mean length of hospitalization was 1.65 days. Cerebrospinal fluid leak occurred in 1 of 26 (3.85%) cases.

LESSONS

Although improved stabilization needs to be proven in future long-term studies to clearly show a decrease in need for fusion, the initial experience with a unilateral approach is positive and continued use in minimally invasive spine surgery seems promising.

Perspective on the integration of optical sensing into orthopedic surgical devices

SIGNIFICANCE

Orthopedic surgery currently comprises over 1.5 million cases annually in the United States alone and is growing rapidly with aging populations. Emerging optical sensing techniques promise fewer side effects with new, more effective approaches aimed at improving patient outcomes following orthopedic surgery.

AIM

The aim of this perspective paper is to outline potential applications where fiberoptic-based approaches can complement ongoing development of minimally invasive surgical procedures for use in orthopedic applications.

APPROACH

Several procedures involving orthopedic and spinal surgery, along with the clinical challenge associated with each, are considered. The current and potential applications of optical sensing within these procedures are discussed and future opportunities, challenges, and competing technologies are presented for each surgical application.

RESULTS

Strong research efforts involving sensor miniaturization and integration of optics into existing surgical devices, including K-wires and cranial perforators, provided the impetus for this perspective analysis. These advances have made it possible to envision a next-generation set of devices that can be rigorously evaluated in controlled clinical trials to become routine tools for orthopedic surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Integration of optical devices into surgical drills and burrs to discern bone/tissue interfaces could be used to reduce complication rates across a spectrum of orthopedic surgery procedures or to aid less-experienced surgeons in complex techniques, such as laminoplasty or osteotomy. These developments present both opportunities and challenges for the biomedical optics community.

Myocardial Infarction After Lumbar Surgery: A Critical Meta-Analysis of Cohort versus Database Studies for a Rare Complication

BACKGROUND

One potentially fatal complication of spine surgery is myocardial infarction (MI). There is still uncertainty of the true incidence of MI within subsets of spine surgeries. The aim of this study was to survey the contemporary spine literature and ascertain the true incidence of MI after lumbar spine surgery, as well as to provide commentary on the inherent assumptions made when interpreting cohort versus database studies on this topic.

METHODS

A systematic search of 4 electronic databases from inception to November 2020 was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Articles were screened against prespecified criteria. MI incidence was then estimated by random-effects meta-analyses of proportions based on cohort versus database studies.

RESULTS

A total of 34 cohort studies and 32 database studies describing 767,326 lumbar procedures satisfied all criteria for selection. There were 12,170 (2%) cases from cohort studies and 755,156 (98%) cases from database studies. Cohort studies reported a significantly older patient cohort (P < 0.01) and longer follow-up period than did database studies (P < 0.03). Using cohort studies only, the incidence of MI was 0.44% (P heterogeneity < 0.01), whereas using database studies only, the incidence of MI was 0.41% (P heterogeneity < 0.01). These 2 incidences were statistically different (P interaction = 0.01). Bias analysis indicated that cohort studies were more vulnerable to small-study biases than were database studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Although infrequent, the incidence of MI after lumbar spine surgery is unequivocally nonzero. Furthermore, the literature on this topic remains skewed based on study type, and translation of academic findings into practice should be wary of this.

Risk of reoperation and infection after percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy and open lumbar discectomy : a nationwide population-based study

AIMS

Open discectomy (OD) is the standard operation for lumbar disc herniation (LDH). Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD), however, has shown similar outcomes to OD and there is increasing interest in this procedure. However despite improved surgical techniques and instrumentation, reoperation and infection rates continue and are reported to be between 6% and 24% and 0.7% and 16%, respectively. The objective of this study was to compare the rate of reoperation and infection within six months of patients being treated for LDH either by OD or PELD.

METHODS

In this retrospective, nationwide cohort study, the Korean National Health Insurance database from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2018 was reviewed. Data were extracted for patients who underwent OD or PELD for LDH without a history of having undergone either procedure during the preceding year. Individual patients were followed for six months through their encrypted unique resident registration number. The primary endpoints were rates of reoperation and infection during the follow-up period. Other risk factors for reoperation and infection were also evalulated.

RESULTS

Out of 549,531 patients, 522,640 had undergone OD (95.11%) and 26,891 patients had undergone PELD (4.89%). Reoperation rates within six months were 2.28% in the OD group, and 5.38% in the PELD group. Infection rates were 1.18% in OD group and 0.83% in PELD group. The risk of reoperation was lower for patients with OD than for patients with PELD (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.38). The risk of infection was higher for patients with OD than for patients undergoing PELD (HR, 1.325).

CONCLUSION

Compared with the OD group, the PELD group showed higher reoperation rates and lower infection rates. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(8):1392-1399.