Regional variations in acceptance, and utilization of minimally invasive spinal surgery techniques among spine surgeons: results of a global survey

Full-Endoscopic Sacroiliac Joint Denervation for Painful Sacroiliac Joint Dysfunction: A Prospective 2-Year Clinical Outcomes and Predictors for Improved Outcomes

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Full-endoscopic sacroiliac joint denervation (FE-SJD) is a novel technique for the management of pain secondary to sacroiliac joint dysfunction. The aim of this study was to assess the long-term efficacy, safety, clinical outcomes, and outcome predictors of uniportal full-endoscopic sacroiliac joint denervation.

METHODS

From 2019 to 2021, a total of 47 consecutive patients with pain secondary to sacroiliac joint dysfunction underwent uniportal FE-SJD through posterior approach by a single fellowship-trained spine surgeon. A retrospective analysis of perioperative parameters, complications, and clinical outcomes were obtained prospectively.

RESULTS

The patient cohort had a mean age of 59.4 ± 14.0 years, with 63.8% females. Symptom duration averaged 62.1 ± 53.7 months. The mean operative time was 57.1 ± 16.8 minutes. All patients were discharged on the same day of surgery. Significant improvement was noted in preoperative visual analog score (back) and Oswestry Disability Index scores at 3, 6, 12 months, and 2 years (P < .001). Thirty-four patients (72.3%) returned to normal functioning with an average of 82% pain relief and a satisfaction rate of 78.7% at a mean follow-up of 18.2 ± 13.1 months. There were no intraoperative complications. One patient had postoperative right L5 dysesthesia. Seven patients (14.9%) underwent contralateral FE-SJD due to satisfaction with the index procedure but residual pain on the contralateral side. Concomitant lumbar issues correlated with less functional improvement at 2 years (P = .009).

CONCLUSION

The long-term clinical results of FE-SJD are favorable. Endoscopic denervation of the dorsal rami branches supplying the sacroiliac joint represents a safe, effective, and durable option to address pain secondary to sacroiliac joint dysfunction. A significant factor that influences outcomes is the presence of concomitant lumbar pathology. Further research is needed to compare this technique with current available treatment options.

Advances and Challenges in Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery

Minimally invasive spine surgery continues to grow and develop. Over the past 50 years, there has been immense growth within this subspecialty of neurosurgery. A deep understanding of the historical context and future directions of this subspecialty is imperative to developing safe adoption and targeted innovation. This review aims to describe the advancements, and challenges that we face today in minimally invasive spine surgery.

Prospective Study of the Assessment of Anxiety Symptoms after Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression

Objective  To analyze associations between anxiety and postsurgical clinical outcomes in patients who underwent minimally invasive lumbar decompression surgery in addition to comparing symptoms of anxiety and depression before and after surgery. Methods  This prospective cohort study of patients who underwent minimally invasive lumbar decompression surgery. Clinical outcomes were measured before and 6 months after surgery using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Global Perceived Effect of Change (GPE), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Based on the presurgical anxiety score, patients were categorized into anxious and non-anxious patients, and the outcomes were compared. Results  The patients of both groups obtained similar results concerning the clinical outcomes evaluated. Preoperative HADS scores decreased significantly 6 months after surgery in both anxiety (8.70 ± 3.48 vs. 5.75 ± 3.91) and depression (6.95 ± 3.54 vs. 5.50 ± 2.99). The VAS scale for the back (-2.8 ± 3.64) and legs (-5.5 ± 3.5) showed a reduction in pain. Conclusion  Minimally invasive lumbar decompression surgery promoted clinical and functional improvement, not being affected by preoperative anxiety symptoms. Mental health indicators showed a significant reduction in symptoms 6 months after surgery.

AI-powered real-time annotations during urologic surgery: The future of training and quality metrics

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE

Real-time artificial intelligence (AI) annotation of the surgical field has the potential to automatically extract information from surgical videos, helping to create a robust surgical atlas. This content can be used for surgical education and qualitative initiatives. We demonstrate the first use of AI in urologic robotic surgery to capture live surgical video and annotate key surgical steps and safety milestones in real-time.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

While AI models possess the capability to generate automated annotations based on a collection of video images, the real-time implementation of such technology in urological robotic surgery to aid surgeon and training staff it is still pending to be studied.

METHODS

We conducted an educational symposium, which broadcasted 2 live procedures, a robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and a robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN). A surgical AI platform system (Theator, Palo Alto, CA) generated real-time annotations and identified operative safety milestones. This was achieved through trained algorithms, conventional video recognition, and novel Video Transfer Network technology which captures clips in full context, enabling automatic recognition and surgical mapping in real-time.

RESULTS

Real-time AI annotations for procedure #1, RARP, are found in Table 1. The safety milestone annotations included the apical safety maneuver and deliberate views of structures such as the external iliac vessels and the obturator nerve. Real-time AI annotations for procedure #2, RAPN, are found in Table 1. Safety milestones included deliberate views of structures such as the gonadal vessels and the ureter. AI annotated surgical events included intraoperative ultrasound, temporary clip application and removal, hemostatic powder application, and notable hemorrhage.

CONCLUSIONS

For the first time, surgical intelligence successfully showcased real-time AI annotations of 2 separate urologic robotic procedures during a live telecast. These annotations may provide the technological framework for send automatic notifications to clinical or operational stakeholders. This technology is a first step in real-time intraoperative decision support, leveraging big data to improve the quality of surgical care, potentially improve surgical outcomes, and support training and education.

The future of minimally invasive spine surgery in low-income Latin American countries

Treatment of spinal disorders can be managed conservatively or surgically. With the trend toward minimalistic approaches, minimally invasive spinal surgery (MISS) has gained much more importance over the last decade. Its use along with the required training has tremendously increased in developed countries. However, the availability of MISS today is uneven in different regions due to the development and availability of technology, as well as the level of training and qualifications of surgeons who are able to perform such operations on the spine. The purpose of this article is to analyze the prospects for minimally invasive spine surgery in Latin America in comparison with higher income countries.

Time to achievement of minimum clinically important difference after lumbar decompression

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to examine factors associated with delayed time to achieve minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in patients undergoing lumbar decompression (LD) for the Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) of Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) back, and VAS leg pain.

METHODS

Patients undergoing LD with preoperative and postoperative ODI, VAS back, and VAS leg scores were retrospectively reviewed from April 2016 to January 2021. MCID values from previously established studies were utilized to determine MCID achievement. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis determined the time to achieve MCID. Hazard ratios from multivariable Cox regression were utilized to determine the preoperative factors predictive of MCID achievement.

RESULTS

Three-hundred and forty-three patients were identified undergoing LD. Overall MCID achievement rates were 67.4% for ODI, 67.1% for VAS back, and 65.0% for VAS leg. The mean time in weeks for MCID achievement was 22.52 ± 30.48 for ODI, 18.90 ± 27.43 for VAS back, and 20.96 ± 29.81 for VAS leg. Multivariable Cox regression revealed active smoker status, preoperative Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function (PROMIS-PF), ODI, VAS Back, and VAS Leg (HR 1.03-2.14) as predictors of early MCID achievement, whereas an American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) classification of 2, Black ethnicity, workers' compensation, private insurance, and diagnosis of foraminal stenosis were predictors of late MCID achievement (HR 0.34-0.58).

CONCLUSION

Most patients undergoing LD achieved MCID within 6 months of surgery. Significant factors for early MCID achievement were active smoking status and baseline PROs. Significant factors for late MCID achievement were ASA = 2, Black ethnicity, type of insurance, and foraminal stenosis diagnosis. These factors may be considered by surgeons in setting patient expectations.

Comparative analysis of perioperative characteristics and early outcomes in transforaminal endoscopic lumbar diskectomy: general anesthesia versus conscious sedation

PURPOSE

To better understand how anesthesia type impacts patient selection and recovery in TELD, we conducted a multicenter prospective study which evaluates the differences in perioperative characteristics and outcomes between patients who underwent TELD with either general anesthesia (GA) or conscious sedation (CS).

METHODS

We prospectively collected data from all TELD performed by five neurosurgeons at five different medical centers between February and October of 2022. The study population was dichotomized by anesthesia scheme, creating CS and GA cohorts. This study's primary outcomes were the Oswetry Disability Index (ODI) and the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, assessed preoperatively and at 2-week follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 52 patients underwent TELD for symptomatic lumbar disk herniation. Twenty-three patients received conscious sedation with local anesthesia, and 29 patients were operated on under general anesthesia. Patients who received CS were significantly older (60.0 vs. 46.7, p < 0.001) and had lower BMI (28.2 vs. 33.4, p = 0.005) than patients under GA. No intraoperative or anesthetic complications occurred in the CS and GA cohorts. Improvement at 2-week follow-up in ODI, VAS-back, and VAS-leg was greater in patients receiving CS relative to patients under GA, but these differences were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

In our multicenter prospective analysis of 52 patients undergoing TELD, we found that patients receiving CS were significantly older and had significantly lower BMI compared to patients under GA. On subgroup analysis, no statistically significant differences were found in the improvement of PROMs between patients in the CS and GA group.

Minimally Invasive Tubular Lumbar Discectomy Versus Conventional Open Lumbar Discectomy: An Observational Study From the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the effectiveness of minimally invasive (MIS) tubular discectomy in comparison to conventional open surgery among patients enrolled in the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network (CSORN).

METHODS

We performed an observational analysis of data that was prospectively collected. We implemented Minimum Clinically Important Differences (MCIDs), and we adjusted for potential confounders with multiple logistic regression. Adverse events were collected according to the Spinal Adverse Events Severity (SAVES) protocol.

RESULTS

Three hundred thirty-nine (62%) patients underwent MIS tubular discectomy and 211 (38%) underwent conventional open discectomy. There were no significant differences between groups for improvement of leg pain and disability, but the MIS technique was associated with reduced odds of achieving the MCID for back pain (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.99, P < 0.05). We identified statistically significant differences in favor of MIS for each of operating time (MIS mean (SD) 72.2 minutes (30.0) vs open 93.5 (40.9)), estimated blood loss (MIS 37.9 mL (36.7) vs open 76.8 (71.4)), length of stay in hospital (MIS 73% same-day discharge vs open 40%), rates of incidental durotomy (MIS 4% vs open 8%), and wound-related complications (MIS 3% vs open 9%); but not for overall rates of reoperation.

CONCLUSIONS

Open and MIS techniques yielded similar improvements of leg pain and disability at up to 12 months of follow-up, but MIS patients were less likely to experience improvement of associated back pain. Small differences favored MIS for operating time, blood loss, and adverse events but may have limited clinical importance.

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.

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.

USE OF THE uCentrum SYSTEM IN THE SURGICAL TREATMENT OF DISEASES OF THE VERTEBRAL SPINE

ABSTRACT Objectives: Evaluate the treatment outcome and the performance of the uCentum spinal fixation system in treating traumatic, degenerative, and tumoral diseases of the spine. Methods: This is a therapeutic study to investigate treatment outcomes and level of evidence III, including twenty-three adult patients of both sexes undergoing surgical treatment of degenerative (13 patients), traumatic (04 patients), or tumor diseases (06 patients). Patients were prospectively evaluated using clinical parameters: pain (visual analog scale), clinical and functional assessment questionnaires (SF-36, Oswestry and Roland-Morris), and radiological criteria (arthrodesis consolidation, loosening, breakage or deformation of the implants). Results: Twenty patients were followed for a period of 01 month to 12 month (mean 6,5±7,77). Three patients died due to complications unrelated to the primary disease (traumatic brain injury, septicemia, and lung tumor). Improvements were observed in clinical parameters and scores of the evaluation questionnaires used. No implant-related complications (breakage, loosening, deformation) were observed. Conclusion: the uCentum fixation system showed great versatility for performing the surgical treatment, allowing the performance of open, percutaneous procedures, the introduction of acrylic cement inside the implants, and conversion of polyaxial screws into monoaxial screws intraoperatively. Level of Evidence III; Therapeutic Studies - Investigating the Results of Treatment.

[Decompression fusion surgery and minimally invasive microsurgical decompression in patients with single-segment lumbar spinal stenosis]

There are few studies comparing clinical efficacy of decompression/fusion surgery (transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) + transpedicular interbody fusion) and minimally invasive microsurgical decompression (MMD) in patients with single-segment lumbar spinal stenosis.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the results of TLIF + transpedicular interbody fusion and MMD in patients with single-segment lumbar spinal stenosis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective observational cohort study included medical records of 196 patients (100 (51%) men, 96 (49%) women). Age of patients ranged from 18 to 84 years. Mean postoperative follow-up period was 20.1±6.7 months. Patients were divided into 2 groups: group I (control) included 100 patients who underwent TLIF + transpedicular interbody fusion, group II (study) included 96 patients who underwent MMD. We analyzed pain syndrome and working capacity using visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), respectively.

RESULTS

Analysis of pain syndrome in both groups after 3, 6, 9, 12 and 24 months clearly demonstrated stable relief of pain syndrome (VAS score) in the lower extremities. In group II, VAS score of lower back and leg pain was significantly higher in long-term follow-up period (after 9 months or more) compared to the 1st group (p<0.05). In long-term follow-up period (after 12 months), there was significant decrease in degree of disability (ODI score) in both groups (p<0.001) without between-group differences. We assessed achievement of treatment goal in 12 and 24 months after surgery in both groups. The result was significantly better in the 2nd group. At the same time, some respondents failed to achieve the final clinical goal of treatment in both groups (group I - 8 (12.1%), group II - 2 (3%) patients).

CONCLUSION

Analysis of postoperative outcomes in patients with single-segment degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis revealed similar clinical effectiveness of TLIF + transpedicular interbody fusion and MMD regarding decompression quality. However, MMD was associated with less traumatization of paravertebral tissues, blood loss, fewer unwanted phenomena and earlier recovery.

Training to be a spinal endoscopic surgeon: What matters?

Objective

Spinal endoscopic surgery has been promoted rapidly in the past decade, attracting an increasing number of young, dedicated surgeons. However, it has long been denounced for its long learning curve as a factor impeding the development of this state-of-the-art technique. The aim of the present study was to discover what really matters in the educational process of becoming a spinal endoscopic surgeon.

Methods

An online survey consisting of 14 compulsory questions was distributed in April and May 2022 through the First Chinese Spinal Endoscopic Surgeons Skills Competition. Reminders were sent to increase response rates.

Results

Of the 893 emails that were sent, we received 637 responses. A total of 375 (76.7%) surgeons most frequently used endoscopic techniques in their practices. Regardless of their different backgrounds, 284 (75.7%) surgeons thought it would be necessary for a young spinal endoscopic surgeon to perform 300 cases independently in order to become proficient, followed by 500 (n=43, 11.5%), 100 (n=40, 10.7%), and 1,000 (n=8, 2.1%) cases. According to the surgeons, the most difficult aspect of mastering the endoscopic technique is a disparate surgical view (n=255, 68%), followed by adaption to new instruments (n=86, 22.9%) and hand-eye coordination (n=34, 9.1%). The most helpful training method for helping the spinal endoscopic surgeons of younger generations improve is operating on simulation models or cadaver courses (n=216, 57.6%), followed by online or offline theoretical courses (n=67, 17.9%), acquiring opportunities during surgeries (n=51, 13.6%), and frequently participating in surgeries as an assistant (n=41, 10.9%).

Conclusion

From the perspective of surgeons, to be skilled in spinal endoscopic surgery means overcoming a steep learning curve. However, training systems should be given more attention to make them more accessible to younger surgeons so they can work on simulation models or take cadaver courses.

Computer vision in surgery: from potential to clinical value

Hundreds of millions of operations are performed worldwide each year, and the rising uptake in minimally invasive surgery has enabled fiber optic cameras and robots to become both important tools to conduct surgery and sensors from which to capture information about surgery. Computer vision (CV), the application of algorithms to analyze and interpret visual data, has become a critical technology through which to study the intraoperative phase of care with the goals of augmenting surgeons' decision-making processes, supporting safer surgery, and expanding access to surgical care. While much work has been performed on potential use cases, there are currently no CV tools widely used for diagnostic or therapeutic applications in surgery. Using laparoscopic cholecystectomy as an example, we reviewed current CV techniques that have been applied to minimally invasive surgery and their clinical applications. Finally, we discuss the challenges and obstacles that remain to be overcome for broader implementation and adoption of CV in surgery.

Microendoscopic Decompression for Lumbar Disc Herniations: An Analysis of Short and Long Term Patient Reported Outcome Measures

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic spine surgery is increasingly being used, and techniques, platforms, and applications are rapidly evolving. Despite substantial enthusiasm surrounding these techniques, there is a dearth of longer term patient-reported clinical outcomes. Within the United States in particular, there are yet to be reported large cohort studies with a notable follow-up. We sought to characterize the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing microendoscopic decompression (MED) for lumbar disk herniations.

METHODS

The records of patients with symptomatic lumbar disk herniations who underwent MED from May 2018 to February 2021 within a single practice were reviewed. Paired outcomes scores were evaluated using Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System parameters. Basic perioperative data including length of stay, estimated blood loss, mean opioid use, complication rate, and rate of revision were tabulated. Paired sample Student t-tests and paired Wilcoxon sign tests were used to compare normally distributed and nonparametric data, respectively.

RESULTS

Thirty-five patients with complete paired patient-reported outcome measures data and a minimum 6-month follow-up were included; 65.7% of the patients were male with a mean age of 47.1 years (SE 1.8). The mean follow-up was 590.6 days (SE 47.7). In total, 34 of the 35 patients (97.1%) were discharged on the day of their procedure. The estimated blood loss was <25 mL for each procedure. The mean opioid use after extubation and before discharge was 10.4 morphine milligram equivalents. At the 2-week follow-up, there were notable improvements in pain metrics and global health components. At the final follow-up, nearly all parameters showed notable improvement that exceeded minimally clinical important difference values. For most parameters, preoperative values outside of the "normal" range were within normal limits on postoperative testing.

DISCUSSION

MED resulted in sustained notable improvement in patient-reported outcome measures that exceeded minimally clinical important difference values at the average follow-up approximating 2 years. These findings substantiate the utility of this technique and additional investment in endoscopic spine technology.

DATA AVAILABILITY

Not publicly available; available upon request.

Comparison of Patient Preference, Understanding, and Sentiment for Minimally Invasive Versus Open Spine Surgery

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective questionnaire analysis.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to analyze patients' understanding and preferences for minimally invasive spine (MIS) versus open spine surgery.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

MIS surgery is increasing in prevalence. However, there is insufficient literature to evaluate how the availability of MIS surgery influences the patients' decision-making process and perceptions of spine procedures.

METHODS

A survey was administered to patients who received a microdiscectomy or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion between 2016 and 2020. All eligible patients were stratified into two cohorts based on the use of minimally invasive techniques. Each cohort was administered a survey that evaluated patient preferences, perceptions, and understanding of their surgery.

RESULTS

One hundred fifty two patients completed surveys (MIS: 88, Open: 64). There was no difference in time from surgery to survey (MIS: 2.1 ± 1.4 yrs, Open: 1.9 ± 1.4 yrs; P = 0.36) or sex (MIS: 56.8% male, Open: 53.1% male; P = 0.65). The MIS group was younger (MIS: 53.0 ± 16.9 yrs, Open: 58.2 ± 14.6 yrs; P = 0.05). More MIS patients reported that their technique influenced their surgeon choice (MIS: 64.0%, Open: 37.5%; P  < 0.00001) and increased their preoperative confidence (MIS: 77.9%, Open: 38.1%; P  < 0.00001). There was a trend towards the MIS group being less informed about the intraoperative specifics of their technique (MIS: 35.2%, Open: 23.4%; P = 0.12). More of the MIS cohort reported perceived advantages to their surgical technique (MIS: 98.8%, Open: 69.4%; P < 0.00001) and less reported disadvantages (MIS: 12.9%, Open: 68.8%; P < 0.00001). 98.9% and 87.1% of the MIS and open surgery cohorts reported a preference for MIS surgery in the future.

CONCLUSION

Patients who received a MIS approach more frequently sought out their surgeons, were more confident in their procedure, and reported less perceived disadvantages following their surgery compared with the open surgery cohort. Both cohorts would prefer MIS surgery in the future. Overall, patients have positive perceptions of MIS surgery.Level of Evidence: 3.

[Degenerative lumbar spine stenosis: minimally invasive microsurgical methods of treatment]

Degenerative lumbar spine stenosis is one of the main causes of chronic pain and radiculopathy in advanced age people. Along with increase in average life expectancy, degenerative lumbar spine stenosis becomes the most common indication for spinal surgery. There is still no consensus regarding the most optimal surgical approach due to the variety of modern surgical methods. In recent years, minimally invasive spinal surgery has become a more advisable alternative to open surgery due to its advanced technical features combined with less soft tissue damage, lower risk of complications and shorter postoperative recovery.

Dural Tears During Lumbar Spinal Endoscopy: Surgeon Skill, Training, Incidence, Risk Factors, and Management

BACKGROUND

Incidental dural tears during lumbar endoscopy can be challenging to manage. There is limited literature on their appropriate management, risk factors, and the clinical consequences of this typically uncommon complication.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

To improve the statistical power of studying durotomy with lumbar endoscopy, we performed a retrospective survey study among endoscopic spine surgeons by email and chat groups on social media networks, including WhatsApp and WeChat. Descriptive and correlative statistics were done on the surgeons' recorded responses to multiple-choice questions. Surgeons were asked about their clinical experience with spinal endoscopy, training background, the types of lumbar endoscopic decompression they perform by approach, the decompression instruments they use, and incidental durotomy incidence with routine lumbar endoscopy.

RESULTS

There were 689 dural tears in 64 470 lumbar endoscopies, resulting in an incidental durotomy incidence of 1.07%. Seventy percent of the durotomies were reported by 20.4% of the surgeons. Eliminating these 19 outlier surgeons yielded an adjusted durotomy rate of 0.32. Endoscopic stenosis decompression (54.8%; P < .0001), rather than endoscopic discectomy (44.1%; 41/93), was significantly more associated with durotomy. Medium-sized dural tears (1-10 mm) were the most common (52.2%; 48/93). Small pinhole durotomies (less than 1 mm) were the second most common type (46.7%; 43/93). Rootlet herniations were seen by 46.2% (43/93) of responding surgeons. The posterior dural sac injury during the interlaminar approach (57%; 53/93) occurred more frequently than traversing nerve-root injuries (31.2%) or anterior dural sac (23.7%; 22/93). Exiting nerve-root injuries (10.8%;10/93) were less common. Over half of surgeons did not attempt any repair or closure (52.2%; 47/90). Forty percent (36/90) used sealants. Only 7.8% (7/90) of surgeons attempted an endoscopic repair or sutures (11.1%; 10/90). DuralSeal was the most commonly used brand of commercially available sealant used (42.7%; 35/82). However, other sealants such as Tisseal (15.9%; 13/82), Evicel (2.4%2/82), and additional no-brand sealants (38; 32/82) were also used. Nearly half of the patients (48.3%; 43/89) were treated with 24-48 hours of bed rest. The majority of participating surgeons (64%; 57/89) reported that the long-term outcome was unaffected. Only 18% of surgeons reported having seen the development of a postoperative cerebrospinal fluid (CSF)-fistula (18%;16/89). However, the absolute incidence of CSF fistula was only 0.025% (16/64 470). Severe radiculopathy with dysesthesia; sensory loss; and motor weakness in association with an incidental durotomy were reported by 12.4% (11/89), 3.4% (3/89), and 2.2% (2/89) of surgeons, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of dural tears with lumbar endoscopy is about 1%. The incidence of durotomy is higher with the use of power drills and the interlaminar approach. Stenosis decompression that typically requires the more aggressive use of these power instruments has a slightly higher incidence of dural tears than does endoscopic decompression for a herniated disc. Most dural tears are small and can be successfully managed with mechanical compression with Gelfoam and sealants. Two-thirds of patients with incidental dural tears had an entirely uneventful postoperative course. The remaining one-third of patients may develop a persistent CSF leak, radiculopathy with dysesthesia, sensory loss, or motor function loss. Patients should be educated preoperatively and reassured.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

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.