Five-year clinical outcomes with endoscopic transforaminal outside-in foraminoplasty techniques for symptomatic degenerative conditions of the lumbar spine

Personalized Interventional Surgery of the Lumbar Spine: A Perspective on Minimally Invasive and Neuroendoscopic Decompression for Spinal Stenosis

Pain generator-based lumbar spinal decompression surgery is the backbone of modern spine care. In contrast to traditional image-based medical necessity criteria for spinal surgery, assessing the severity of neural element encroachment, instability, and deformity, staged management of common painful degenerative lumbar spine conditions is likely to be more durable and cost-effective. Targeting validated pain generators can be accomplished with simplified decompression procedures associated with lower perioperative complications and long-term revision rates. In this perspective article, the authors summarize the current concepts of successful management of spinal stenosis patients with modern transforaminal endoscopic and translaminar minimally invasive spinal surgery techniques. They represent the consensus statements of 14 international surgeon societies, who have worked in collaborative teams in an open peer-review model based on a systematic review of the existing literature and grading the strength of its clinical evidence. The authors found that personalized clinical care protocols for lumbar spinal stenosis rooted in validated pain generators can successfully treat most patients with sciatica-type back and leg pain including those who fail to meet traditional image-based medical necessity criteria for surgery since nearly half of the surgically treated pain generators are not shown on the preoperative MRI scan. Common pain generators in the lumbar spine include (a) an inflamed disc, (b) an inflamed nerve, (c) a hypervascular scar, (d) a hypertrophied superior articular process (SAP) and ligamentum flavum, (e) a tender capsule, (f) an impacting facet margin, (g) a superior foraminal facet osteophyte and cyst, (h) a superior foraminal ligament impingement, (i) a hidden shoulder osteophyte. The position of the key opinion authors of the perspective article is that further clinical research will continue to validate pain generator-based treatment protocols for lumbar spinal stenosis. The endoscopic technology platform enables spine surgeons to directly visualize pain generators, forming the basis for more simplified targeted surgical pain management therapies. Limitations of this care model are dictated by appropriate patient selection and mastering the learning curve of modern MIS procedures. Decompensated deformity and instability will likely continue to be treated with open corrective surgery. Vertically integrated outpatient spine care programs are the most suitable setting for executing such pain generator-focused programs.

Determination of Work Related to Endoscopic Decompression of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

Background: Effective 1 January 2017, single-level endoscopic lumbar discectomy received a Category I Current Procedural Terminology (CPT®) code 62380. However, no work relative value units (wRVUs) are currently assigned to the procedure. A physician’s payment needs to be updated to commensurate with the work involved in the modern version of the lumbar endoscopic decompression procedure with and without the use of any implants to stabilize the spine. In the United States, the American Medical Association (AMA) and its Specialty Society Relative Value Scale Update Committee (RUC) proposes to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) what wRVUs to assign for any endoscopic lumbar surgery codes. Methods: The authors conducted an independent survey between May and June 2022 which reached 210 spine surgeons using the TypeForm survey platform. The survey link was sent to them via email and social media. Surgeons were asked to assess the endoscopic procedure’s technical and physical effort, risk, and overall intensity without focusing just on the time required to perform the surgery. Respondents were asked to compare the work involved in modern comprehensive endoscopic spine care with other commonly performed lumbar surgeries. For this purpose, respondents were provided with the verbatim descriptions of 12 other existing comparator CPT® codes and associated wRVUs of common spine surgeries, as well as a typical patient vignette describing an endoscopic lumbar decompression surgery scenario. Respondents were then asked to select the comparator CPT® code most reflective of the technical and physical effort, risk, intensity, and time spent on patient care during the pre-operative, peri- and intra-operative, and post-operative periods of a lumbar endoscopic surgery. Results: Of the 30 spine surgeons who completed the survey, 85.8%, 46.6%, and 14.3% valued the appropriate wRVU for the lumbar endoscopic decompression to be over 13, over 15, and over 20, respectively. Most surgeons (78.5%; <50th percentile) did not think they were adequately compensated. Regarding facility reimbursement, 77.3% of surgeons reported that their healthcare facility struggled to cover the cost with the received compensation. The majority (46.5%) said their facility received less than USD 2000, while another 10.7% reported less than USD 1500 and 17.9% reported less than USD 1000. The professional fee received by surgeons was <USD 1000 for 21.4%, <USD 2000 for 17.9%, and <USD 1500 for 10.7%, resulting in a fee less than USD 2000 for 50% of responding surgeons. Most responding surgeons (92.6%) recommended an endoscopic instrumentation carveout to pay for the added cost of the innovation. Discussion and Conclusions: The survey results indicate that most surgeons associate CPT® 62380 with the complexity and intensity of a laminectomy and interbody fusion preparation, considering the work in the epidural space using the contemporary outside-in and interlaminar technique and the work inside the interspace using the inside-out technique. Modern endoscopic spine surgery goes beyond the scope of a simple soft-tissue discectomy. The current iterations of the procedure must be considered to avoid undervaluing its complexity and intensity. Additional undervalued payment scenarios could be created if technological advances continue to replace traditional lumbar spinal fusion protocols with less burdensome, yet no less complex, endoscopic surgeries that necessitate a high surgeon effort in terms of time required to perform the operation and its intensity. These undervalued payment scenarios of physician practices, as well as the facility and malpractice expenses, should be further discussed to arrive at updated CPT® codes reflective of modern comprehensive endoscopic spine care.

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.

Clinical Consequences of Incidental Durotomy during Full-Endoscopic Lumbar Decompression Surgery in Relation to Intraoperative Epidural Pressure Measurements

Background: Seizures, neurological deficits, bradycardia, and, in the worst cases, cardiac arrest may occur following incidental durotomy during routine lumbar endoscopy. Therefore, we set out to measure the intraoperative epidural pressure during lumbar endoscopic decompression surgery. Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study to obtain intraoperative epidural measurements with an epidural catheter-pressure transducer assembly through the spinal endoscope on 15 patients who underwent lumbar endoscopic decompression of symptomatic lumbar herniated discs and spinal stenosis. The endoscopic interlaminar technique was employed. Results: There were six (40.0%) female and nine (60.0%) male patients aged 49.0667 ± 11.31034, ranging from 36 to 72 years, with an average follow-up of 35.15 ± 12.48 months. Three of the fifteen patients had seizures with durotomy and one of these three had intracranial air on their postoperative brain CT. Another patient developed spinal headaches and diplopia on postoperative day one when her deteriorating neurological function was investigated with a brain computed tomography (CT) scan, showing an intraventricular hemorrhage consistent with a Fisher Grade IV subarachnoid hemorrhage. A CT angiogram did not show any abnormalities. Pressure recordings in the epidural space in nine patients ranged from 20 to 29 mm Hg with a mean of 24.33 mm Hg. Conclusion: Most incidental durotomies encountered during lumbar interlaminar endoscopy can be managed without formal repair and supportive care measures. The intradural spread of irrigation fluid and intraoperatively used drugs and air entrapment through an unrecognized durotomy should be suspected if patients deteriorate in the recovery room. Ascending paralysis may cause nausea, vomiting, upper and lower motor neuron symptoms, cranial nerve palsies, hypotension, bradycardia, and respiratory and cardiac arrest. The recovery team should be prepared to manage these complications.

A Proposed Personalized Spine Care Protocol (SpineScreen) to Treat Visualized Pain Generators: An Illustrative Study Comparing Clinical Outcomes and Postoperative Reoperations between Targeted Endoscopic Lumbar Decompression Surgery, Minimally Invasive TLIF and Open Laminectomy

Background: Endoscopically visualized spine surgery has become an essential tool that aids in identifying and treating anatomical spine pathologies that are not well demonstrated by traditional advanced imaging, including MRI. These pathologies may be visualized during endoscopic lumbar decompression (ELD) and categorized into primary pain generators (PPG). Identifying these PPGs provides crucial information for a successful outcome with ELD and forms the basis for our proposed personalized spine care protocol (SpineScreen). Methods: a prospective study of 412 patients from 7 endoscopic practices consisting of 207 (50.2%) males and 205 (49.8%) females with an average age of 63.67 years and an average follow-up of 69.27 months was performed to compare the durability of targeted ELD based on validated primary pain generators versus image-based open lumbar laminectomy, and minimally invasive lumbar transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF) using Kaplan-Meier median survival calculations. The serial time was determined as the interval between index surgery and when patients were censored for additional interventional and surgical treatments for low back-related symptoms. A control group was recruited from patients referred for a surgical consultation but declined interventional and surgical treatment and continued on medical care. Control group patients were censored when they crossed over into any surgical or interventional treatment group. Results: of the 412 study patients, 206 underwent ELD (50.0%), 61 laminectomy (14.8%), and 78 (18.9%) TLIF. There were 67 patients in the control group (16.3% of 412 patients). The most common surgical levels were L4/5 (41.3%), L5/S1 (25.0%), and L4-S1 (16.3%). At two-year f/u, excellent and good Macnab outcomes were reported by 346 of the 412 study patients (84.0%). The VAS leg pain score reduction was 4.250 ± 1.691 (p < 0.001). No other treatment during the available follow-up was required in 60.7% (125/206) of the ELD, 39.9% (31/78) of the TLIF, and 19.7% (12/61 of the laminectomy patients. In control patients, only 15 of the 67 (22.4%) control patients continued with conservative care until final follow-up, all of which had fair and poor functional Macnab outcomes. In patients with Excellent Macnab outcomes, the median durability was 62 months in ELD, 43 in TLIF, and 31 months in laminectomy patients (p < 0.001). The overall survival time in control patients was eight months with a standard error of 0.942, a lower boundary of 6.154, and an upper boundary of 9.846 months. In patients with excellent Macnab outcomes, the median durability was 62 months in ELD, 43 in TLIF, and 31 months in laminectomy patients versus control patients at seven months (p < 0.001). The most common new-onset symptom for censoring was dysesthesia ELD (9.4%; 20/206), axial back pain in TLIF (25.6%;20/78), and recurrent pain in laminectomy (65.6%; 40/61) patients (p < 0.001). Transforaminal epidural steroid injections were tried in 11.7% (24/206) of ELD, 23.1% (18/78) of TLIF, and 36.1% (22/61) of the laminectomy patients. The secondary fusion rate among ELD patients was 8.8% (18/206). Among TLIF patients, the most common additional treatments were revision fusion (19.2%; 15/78) and multilevel rhizotomy (10.3%; 8/78). Common follow-up procedures in laminectomy patients included revision laminectomy (16.4%; 10/61), revision ELD (11.5%; 7/61), and multilevel rhizotomy (11.5%; 7/61). Control patients crossed over into ELD (13.4%), TLIF (13.4%), laminectomy (10.4%) and interventional treatment (40.3%) arms at high rates. Most control patients treated with spinal injections (55.5%) had excellent and good functional outcomes versus 40.7% with fair and poor (3.7%), respectively. The control patients (93.3%) who remained in medical management without surgery or interventional care (14/67) had the worst functional outcomes and were rated as fair and poor. Conclusions: clinical outcomes were more favorable with lumbar surgeries than with non-surgical control groups. Of the control patients, the crossover rate into interventional and surgical care was 40.3% and 37.2%, respectively. There are longer symptom-free intervals after targeted ELD than with TLIF or laminectomy. Additional intervention and surgical treatments are more often needed to manage new-onset postoperative symptoms in TLIF- and laminectomy compared to ELD patients. Few ELD patients will require fusion in the future. Considering the rising cost of surgical spine care, we offer SpineScreen as a simplified and less costly alternative to traditional image-based care models by focusing on primary pain generators rather than image-based criteria derived from the preoperative lumbar MRI scan.

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

Functional outcomes of full-endoscopic spine surgery for high-grade migrated lumbar disc herniation: a prospective registry-based cohort study with more than 5 years of follow-up

BACKGROUND

Full-endoscopic lumbar discectomy (FELD) is an alternative to posterior open surgery to treat a high-grade migrated herniated disc. However, because of the complexity of the surgery, success is dependent on the surgeon's skill. Therefore, patients are frequently treated using open discectomy. Anatomical constraints and technical difficulties can lead to the incomplete removal of high-grade migrated discs.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patients who had undergone FELD performed by a single surgeon between January 2010 and January 2014 from a prospective spine registry in an institute. Perioperative records and data of the Oswestry Disability Index, visual analog scale scores (preoperatively and 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, and 5 years after the operation), and MacNab criteria were collected.

RESULTS

Of 58 patients with a follow-up duration of > 5 years, (41 and 17 patients had undergone transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy [TELD] and interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy [IELD], respectively), the satisfaction rate was 87.8% (five unsatisfactory cases) for TELD and 100% for IELD. The overall percentage of patients with good to excellent results according to modified MacNab criteria was 91.3% (53/58 patients). Two patients had residual discs. Two patients needed an open discectomy due to recurrent disc herniation. One IELD patient received spinal fusion surgery due to segmental instability after 5 years.

CONCLUSION

FELD has a high success rate for the management of high-grade migrated herniated discs. In patients with high-grade disc migration from L1 to L5, TELD is effective and safe. However, for L4-L5 and L5-S1 high-grade upward and downward disc migration, IELD is the favorable option and provides high patient satisfaction.

Artificial Intelligence Comparison of the Radiologist Report With Endoscopic Predictors of Successful Transforaminal Decompression for Painful Conditions of the Lumber Spine: Application of Deep Learning Algorithm Interpretation of Routine Lumbar Magnetic Resonance Imaging Scan

BACKGROUND

Identifying pain generators in multilevel lumbar degenerative disc disease is not trivial but is crucial for lasting symptom relief with the targeted endoscopic spinal decompression surgery. Artificial intelligence (AI) applications of deep learning neural networks to the analysis of routine lumbar MRI scans could help the primary care and endoscopic specialist physician to compare the radiologist's report with a review of endoscopic clinical outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze and compare the probability of predicting successful outcome with lumbar spinal endoscopy by using the radiologist's MRI grading and interpretation of the radiologic image with a novel AI deep learning neural network (Multus Radbot™) as independent prognosticators.

METHODS

The location and severity of foraminal stenosis were analyzed using comparative ordinal grading by the radiologist, and a contiguous grading by the AI network in patients suffering from lateral recess and foraminal stenosis due to lumbar herniated disc. The compressive pathology definitions were extracted from the radiologist lumbar MRI reports from 65 patients with a total of 383 levels for the central canal - (0) no disc bulge/protrusion/canal stenosis, (1) disc bulge without canal stenosis, (2) disc bulge resulting in canal stenosis, and (3) disc herniation/protrusion/extrusion resulting in canal stenosis. Both neural foramina were assessed with either - (0) neural foraminal stenosis absent, or (1) neural foramina are stenosis present. Reporting criteria for the pathologies at each disc level and, when available, the grading of severity were extracted and assigned into two categories: "Normal," and "Stenosis." Clinical outcomes were graded using dichotomized modified Macnab criteria considering Excellent and Good results as "Improved," and Fair and Poor outcomes as "Not Improved." Binary logistic regression analysis was used to predict the probability of the AI- and radiologist grading of stenosis at the 88 foraminal decompression sites to result in "Improved" outcomes.

RESULTS

The average age of the 65 patients was 62.7 +/- 12.7 years. They consisted of 51 (54.3%) males and 43 (45.7%) females. At an average final follow-up of 57.4 +/- 12.57, Macnab outcome analysis showed that 86.4% of the 88 foraminal decompressions resulted in Excellent and Good (Improved) clinical outcomes. The stenosis grading by the radiologist showed an average severity score of 4.71 +/- 2.626, and the average AI severity grading was 5.65 +/- 3.73. Logit regression probability analysis of the two independent prognosticators showed that both the grading by the radiologist (86.2%; odds ratio 1.264) and the AI grading (86.4%; odds ratio 1.267) were nearly equally predictive of a successful outcome with the endoscopic decompression.

CONCLUSIONS

Deep learning algorithms are capable of identifying lumbar foraminal compression due to herniated disc. The treatment outcome was correlated to the decompression of the directly visualized corresponding pathology during the lumbar endoscopy. This research should be extended to other validated pain generators in the lumbar spine.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Validity, clinical teaching, evaluation study.

Transforaminal Endoscopic Discectomy Combined With an Interspinous Process Distraction System for Spinal Stenosis

BACKGROUND

The combination of the percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic decompression (PTED) with an interspinous process distraction system (IPS) may offer additional benefit in the treatment of spinal stenosis in patients who have failed nonsurgical treatment.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 33 patients diagnosed with lumbar stenosis and radiculopathy and treated them with transforaminal endoscopic lumbar decompression between 2013 and 2017. Primary outcome measures were modified Macnab as well as preoperative and postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) criteria and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Only patients with a minimum follow-up of 2 years were included.

RESULTS

A total of 28 patients were treated with a combination of PTED and percutaneous IPS (group A), and 5 patients were treated with PTED and mini-open IPS (group B). In group A patients, there was a 4.48 reduction in the VAS score. The ODI changed from 50.25 preoperatively to 18.2 postoperatively, and excellent and good Macnab outcomes were obtained in 78% of patients. In group B patients, the mean VAS reduction was 5.2 points. The ODI changed from 44.34 preoperatively to 14.62 postoperatively, and 80% of group B patients achieved excellent and good Macnab outcomes. No complications related to PTED or IPS were observed throughout the 2-year follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of IPS to the PTED procedure in select patients may offer additional benefits to patients being treated for lumbar lateral stenosis and foraminal stenosis with low-grade spondylolisthesis.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Feasibility study.

Feasibility of Using Intraoperative Neuromonitoring in the Prophylaxis of Dysesthesia in Transforaminal Endoscopic Discectomies of the Lumbar Spine

(1) Background: Postoperative nerve root injury with dysesthesia is the most frequent sequela following lumbar endoscopic transforaminal discectomy. At times, it may be accompanied by transient and rarely by permanent motor weakness. The authors hypothesized that direct compression of the exiting nerve root and its dorsal root ganglion (DRG) by manipulating the working cannula or endoscopic instruments may play a role. (2) Objective: To assess whether intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring can help prevent nerve root injury by identifying neurophysiological events during the initial placement of the endoscopic working cannula and the directly visualized video endoscopic procedure. (3) Methods: The authors performed a retrospective chart review of 65 (35 female and 30 male) patients who underwent transforaminal endoscopic decompression for failed non-operative treatment of lumbar disc herniation from 2012 to 2020. The patients’ age ranged from 22 to 86 years, with an average of 51.75 years. Patients in the experimental group (32 patients) had intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring recordings using sensory evoked (SSEP), and transcranial motor evoked potentials (TCEP), those in the control group (32 patients) did not. The SSEP and TCMEP data were analyzed and correlated to the postoperative course, including dysesthesia and clinical outcomes using modified Macnab criteria, Oswestry disability index (ODI), visual analog scale (VAS) for leg and back pain. (4) Results: The surgical levels were L4/L5 in 44.6%, L5/S1 in 23.1%, and L3/L4 in 9.2%. Of the 65 patients, 56.9% (37/65) had surgery on the left, 36.9% (24/65) on the right, and the remaining 6.2% (4/65) underwent bilateral decompression. Postoperative dysesthesia occurred in 2 patients in the experimental and six patients in the control group. In the experimental neuromonitoring group, there was electrodiagnostic evidence of compression of the exiting nerve root’s DRG in 24 (72.7%) of the 32 patients after initial transforaminal placement of the working cannula. A 5% or more decrease and a 50% or more decrease in amplitude of SSEPs and TCEPs recordings of the exiting nerve root were resolved by repositioning the working cannula or by pausing the root manipulation until recovery to baseline, which typically occurred within an average of 1.15 min. In 15 of the 24 patients with such latency and amplitude changes, a foraminoplasty was performed before advancing the endoscopic working cannula via the transforaminal approach into the neuroforamen to avoid an impeding nerve root injury and postoperative dysesthesia. (5) Conclusion: Neuromonitoring enabled the intraoperative diagnosis of DRG compression during the initial transforaminal placement of the endoscopic working cannula. Future studies with more statistical power will have to investigate whether employing neuromonitoring to avoid intraoperative compression of the exiting nerve root is predictive of lower postoperative dysesthesia rates in patients undergoing videoendoscopic transforaminal discectomy.

Lumbar Endoscopic Bony and Soft Tissue Decompression With the Hybridized Inside-Out Approach: A Review And Technical Note

This study aimed to showcase the authors' preferred technique of a hybrid of modern "inside-out" and "outside-in" endoscopic decompression. A case series of 411 patients consisting of 192 females (46.7%) and 219 males (53.3%) with an average age of 54.84 ± 16.32 years and an average of 43.2 ± 26.53 months are presented. Patients underwent surgery for low-grade spondylolisthesis (13 of 411, 3.2%), herniated disc (135 of 411, 32.8%), foraminal spinal stenosis (101 of 411, 24.6%), or a combination of the latter 2 conditions (162 of 411, 39.4%). The preoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analogue scale (VAS) for leg pain were 49.8 ± 17.65 and 7.9 ± 1.55, respectively. Postoperative ODI and VAS leg were 12.2 ± 9.34 and 2.41 ± 5 1.55 at final follow-up (p < 0.0001). MacNab outcomes were excellent in 134 (32.6%), good in 228 (55.5%), fair in 40 (9.7%), and poor in 9 patients (2.2%), respectively. There was end-stage degenerative vacuum disc disease in 304 of the 411 patients (74%) of which had 37.5% had excellent and 50% good MacNab outcomes. Patients without vacuum discs had excellent and good 18.7% and 71.0% of the time. Direct visualization of pain generators in the epidural- and intradiscal space is the authors' preferred transforaminal decompression technique and is supported by their reliable clinical outcomes.

Dysethesia due to irritation of the dorsal root ganglion following lumbar transforaminal endoscopy: Analysis of frequency and contributing factors

BACKGROUND

New onset of acute dysethetic leg pain due to irritation of the dorsal root ganglion (DRG) following uneventful recovery from an expertly executed lumbar transforaminal endoscopic decompression is a common problem. Its incidence and relation to any risk factors that could be mitigated preoperatively are not well understood.

METHODS

We performed a multicenter frequency analysis of DRG irritation dysesthesia in 451 patients who underwent lumbar transforaminal endoscopic decompression for herniated disc and foraminal stenosis. The 451 patients consisted of 250 men and 201 women with an average age of 55.77 ± 15.6 years. The average follow-up of 47.16 months. The primary clinical outcome measures were the modified Macnab criteria. Chi-square testing was employed to analyze statistically significant associations between increased dysesthesia rates, preoperative diagnosis, the surgical level(s), and surgeon technique.

RESULTS

At final follow-up, Excellent (183/451; 40.6 %) and Good (195/451; 43.2 %) Macnab outcomes were observed in the majority of patients (378/451; 83.8 %). The majority of study patients (354; 78.5 %) had an entirely uneventful postoperative recovery without any DRG irritation, but 21.5 % of patients were treated for it in the immediate postoperative recovery period with supportive care measures including activity modification, transforaminal epidural steroid injections, non-steroidal anti-inflammatories, gabapentin, or pregabalin. There was no statistically significant difference in dysesthesia rates between lumbar levels from L1 to S1, or between single (DRG rate 21.8 %) or two-level (DRG rate 20.2 %) endoscopic decompression (p = 0.742). A statistically significantly higher incidence of postoperative dysesthesia was observed in patients who underwent decompression for foraminal stenosis (38/103; 27 %), and recurrent herniated disc (7/10; 41.2 %; p = 0.039). There were also statistically significant variations in dysesthesia rates between the seven participating clinical study sites ranging from 11.6%-33% (p = 0.002). Unrelenting postoperative dysesthetic leg pain due to DRG irritation was statistically associated with less favorable long-term clinical outcomes with DRG rates as high as 45 % in patients with a Fair and 61.3 % in patients with Poor Macnab outcomes (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Postoperative dysesthesia following transforaminal endoscopic decompression should be expected in one-fifth of patients. There was no predilection for any lumbar level. Foraminal stenosis and recurrent herniated disc surgery are risk factors for higher dysesthesia rates. There was a statistically significant variation of dysesthesia rates between participating centers suggesting that the surgeon skill level is of significance. Severe postoperative dysesthesia may be a predictor of Fair of Poor long-term Macnab outcomes.