Clinical Comparison of Full-Endoscopic and Microscopic Unilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Decompression in the Treatment of Elderly Lumbar Spinal stenosis: A Retrospective Study with 12-Month Follow-Up

Full-endoscopic versus microscopic spinal decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review & meta-analysis

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis is routinely treated with spinal decompression surgery, with an increasing trend towards minimally invasive techniques. Endoscopic decompression has emerged as a technique which minimizes approach-related morbidity while achieving similar clinical outcomes to conventional open or microscopic approaches.

PURPOSE

To assess the safety and efficacy of endoscopic versus microscopic decompression for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

A systematic review on randomized and nonrandomized studies comparing endoscopic versus microscopic decompression was conducted, in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Treatment effects were computed using pairwise random-effects meta-analysis. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk-of-bias and ROBINS-I tools for randomized and nonrandomized trials respectively. Quality of the overall body of evidence was appraised using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system.

RESULTS

A total of 19 primary references comprising 1,997 patients and 2,132 spinal levels were included. Endoscopic decompression was associated with significantly reduced intraoperative blood-loss (weighted mean differences [WMD]=-33.29 mL, 95% CI:-51.80 to -14.78, p=.0032), shorter duration of hospital stay (WMD=-1.79 days, 95% CI: -2.63 to 0.95, p=.001), rates of incidental durotomy (RR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.43 to 0.91, p=.0184) and surgical site infections (RR=0.23, 95% CI: 0.10 to-0.51, p=.001), and a nonsignificant trend towards less back pain, leg pain, and better functional outcomes compared to its microscopic counterpart up to 2-year follow up.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic and microscopic decompression are safe and effective techniques for treatment of symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis. Prospective studies of larger power considering medium to long-term outcomes and rates of iatrogenic instability are warranted to compare potential alignment changes and destabilization from either techniques.

Early Clinical and Radiologic Evaluation of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Unilateral Laminotomy and Bilateral Decompression in Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

 The aim of this study is to evaluate the changes in radiologic parameters and clinical outcomes following unilateral biportal endoscopic unilateral laminotomy and bilateral decompression (UBE ULBD) for treatment of central lumbar spinal stenosis.

METHODS

 Forty-one central lumbar spinal stenosis patients who underwent UBE ULBD were enrolled from April 2021 to February 2023. Visual analog scale (VAS) for back pain and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score, and the modified MacNab criteria were assessed preoperatively and postoperatively. The preoperative and postoperative cross-sectional area of the spinal canal (CSAC), anteroposterior diameter, horizontal width, and ipsilateral and contralateral lateral recess height were calculated from axial computed tomography (CT) scans. Percentage of facet joint preservation measured on axial CT scans was obtained preoperation and postoperation.

RESULTS

 The VAS for back and leg pain improved from 7.24 ± 0.80 and 7.59 ± 0.59 preoperatively to 2.41 ± 0.55 and 2.37 ± 0.62 (p < 0.05) postoperatively and 1.37 ± 0.54 and 1.51 ± 0.55 at the last follow-up (p < 0.05). For ODI, improvement from 60.37 ± 4.44 preoperatively to 18.90 ± 4.66 (p < 0.05) at the last follow-up was observed. CT scans demonstrated that the postoperative CSAC increased significantly from 287.84 ± 87.81 to 232.97 ± 88.42 mm (p < 0.05). The mean postoperative anteroposterior diameter and horizontal width increased significantly from 18.01 ± 3.13 and 19.57 ± 3.80 to 22.19 ± 4.56 and 21.04 ± 3.72 mm, respectively (p < 0.05). The ipsilateral lateral recess height and contralateral lateral recess height were 3.39 ± 1.12 and 3.20 ± 1.14 mm preoperatively and 4.03 ± 1.37 and 3.83 ± 1.32 mm (p < 0.05) postoperatively, with significant differences. The ipsilateral and contralateral facet joint preservations were 88.17 and 93.18%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

 The UBE ULBD surgery is a safe and effective treatment for central lumbar spinal stenosis, associated with significant improvement in clinical outcomes and radiologic parameters. Studies with larger samples and longer follow-up periods are needed for further research.

Unilateral laminotomy with bilateral spinal canal decompression: systematic review of outcomes and complications

BACKGROUND

Unilateral laminotomy with bilateral spinal canal decompression has gained popularity recently.

AIM

To systematically review the literature of unilateral laminotomy with bilateral spinal canal decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) aiming to assess outcomes and complications of the different techniques described in literature.

METHODS

On August 7, 2022, Pubmed and EMBASE were searched by 2 reviewers independently, and all the relevant studies published up to date were considered based on predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The subject headings "unilateral laminotomy", "bilateral decompression" and their related key terms were used. The Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement was used to screen the articles.

RESULTS

A total of seven studies including 371 patients were included. The mean age of the patients was 69.0 years (range: 55-83 years). The follow up duration ranged from 1 to 3 years. Rate of postoperative pain and functional improvement was favorable based on VAS, JOA, JOABPEQ, RMDW, ODI and SF-36, for example improved from a range of 4.2-7.5 preoperatively on the VAS score to a range of 1.4-3.0 postoperatively at the final follow up. Insufficient decompression was noted in 3% of the reported cases. The overall complication rate was reported at 18-20%, with dural tear at 3.6-9% and hematoma at 0-4%.

CONCLUSION

Unilateral laminotomy with bilateral decompression has favorable short- and mid-term pain and functional outcomes with low recurrence and complication rates. This, however, needs to be further confirmed in larger, long-term follow-up, prospective, comparative studies between open, and minimally invasive techniques.

Comparative Analysis of Non-Full and Full Endoscopic Spine Technique via Interlaminar Approach for the Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Retrospective, Single Institute, Propensity Score-Matched Study

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical efficacy of posterior lumbar laminectomy decompression under full endoscopic technique (Endo-LOVE) and percutaneous endoscopic medial foraminal decompression (PE-MFD) in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS).

METHODS

Between April 2017 and April 2018, 96 patients with DLSS underwent Endo-LOVE or PE-MFD, including 58 with Endo-LOVE and 38 with PE-MFD. After propensity score matching (PSM), patient characteristics, operation time, intraoperative fluoroscopy times, postoperative bedridden time, hospital stay and postoperative complications were recorded and compared. The clinical efficacy was evaluated according to Oswestry disability index (ODI), visual analogue scale (VAS), lumbar disease JOA and modified MacNab criteria.

RESULTS

A total of 96 patients with DLSS were included in the study. After PSM, the 2 groups were comparable in patient demographic and baseline characteristics. The operation time and intraoperative fluoroscopy times in PE-MFD group were significantly more than those in Endo-LOVE group (P < .05). The operation time in PE-MFD group was significantly less than that in Endo-LOVE group (P < .05).The intraoperative fluoroscopy times in PE-MFD group were significantly more than that in Endo-LOVE group (P < .05). The ODI, VAS and lumbar disease JOA in the 2 groups were significantly improved comparing with those before operation (P < .05). According to the modified MacNab criteria, the excellent and good rates of the 2 groups were 93.5% in Endo-LOVE group and 87.1% in PE-MFD group (P > .05).

CONCLUSION

Endo-LOVE and PE-MFD technique can both effectively treat DLSS, and the short-term follow-up results are positive. Endo-LOVE technique has the advantages of fast puncture positioning, less radiation exposure and wider indications. However, PE-MFD needs more radiation exposure and has the possibility of incomplete decompression for complex multiplanar spinal stenosis.

Clinical Results of 10-mm Endoscopic Minimally Invasive Interlaminar Decompression in the Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis with Degenerative Lumbar Scoliosis and Simple Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

Purpose

The number of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) with degenerative lumbar scoliosis (DLS) is gradually increasing as the population ages. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of 10-mm endoscopic minimally invasive interlaminar decompression for LSS with DLS and simple LSS.

Material and Methods

The clinical data of 175 consecutive elderly patients with LSS were retrospectively analyzed. They were divided into LSS group and LSS with DLS group based on whether they were accompanied by DLS. Patient demographics, perioperative indicators, and clinical outcomes were recorded. Lumbar spine stability was assessed by imaging data. Meanwhile, visual analog scale (VAS) scores, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, and the modified Macnab criteria were used to assess clinical outcomes.

Results

There were 129 patients in the LSS group and 46 patients in the LSS with DLS group. Both groups had similar VAS and ODI scores preoperatively, and both were significantly lower postoperatively (P < 0.05). However, patients combined with DLS showed higher VAS scores for low back pain at 3 months and 1 year postoperatively (P < 0.05). In addition, postoperative LL and PI-LL were significantly improved in both groups (P < 0.05). However, patients in LSS with DLS group showed higher PT, PI and PI-LL before and after surgery. According to the modified Macnab criteria, the excellent and good rates were 92.25% and 89.13% in the LSS group and LSS with DLS group at the last follow-up, respectively.

Conclusion

10-mm endoscopic minimally invasive interlaminar decompression for LSS with or without DLS has shown satisfactory clinical outcomes. However, patients with DLS may have higher residual low back pain after surgery.

Case-matched radiological and clinical outcome evaluation of interlaminar versus microsurgical decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis

PURPOSE

Endoscopic spine surgery is a globally expanding technique advocated as less invasive for spinal stenosis treatment compared to the microsurgical approach. However, evidence on the efficiency of interlaminar full-endoscopic decompression (FED) vs. conventional microsurgical decompression (MSD) in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis is still scarce. We conducted a case-matched comparison for treatment success with consideration of clinical, laboratory, and radiologic predictors.

METHODS

We included 88 consecutive patients (FED: 36/88, 40.9%; MSD: 52/88, 59.1%) presenting with lumbar central spinal stenosis. Surgery-related (operation time, complications, length of stay (LOS), American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status (ASA) score, C-reactive protein (CRP), white blood cell count, side of approach (unilateral/bilateral), patient-related outcome measures (PROMs) (Oswestry disability index (ODI), numeric rating scale of pain (NRS; leg-, back pain), EuroQol questionnaire (eQ-5D), core outcome measures index (COMI)), and radiological (dural sack cross-sectional area, Schizas score (SC), left and right lateral recess heights, and facet angles, respectively) parameters were extracted at different time points up to 1-year follow-up. The relationship of PROMs was analyzed using Spearman's rank correlation. Surgery-related outcome parameters were correlated with patient-centered and radiological outcomes utilizing a regression model to determine predictors for propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Complication (most often residual sensorimotor deficits and restenosis due to hematoma) rates were higher in the FED (33.3%) than MSD (13.5%) group (p < 0.05), while all complications in the FED group were observed within the first 20 FED patients. Operation time was higher in the FED, whereas LOS was higher in the MSD group. Age, SC, CRP revealed significant associations with PROMs. We did not observe significant differences in the endoscopic vs. microsurgical group in PROMs. The correlation between ODI and COMI was significantly high, and both were inversely correlated with eQ-5D, whereas the correlations of these PROMs with NRS findings were less pronounced.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis was similarly successful as the conventional microsurgical approach. Although FED was associated with higher complication rates in our single-center study experience, the distribution of complications indicated surgical learning curves to be the main factor of these findings. Future long-term prospective studies considering the surgical learning curve are warranted for reliable comparisons of these techniques.

Unilateral microscopic approach for lumbar spinal stenosis decompression: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Microscopic unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) is a minimally invasive technique used in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis and could limit spinal instability and be associated with better clinical outcomes. However, there is ongoing debate regarding its utility compared to conventional laminectomy (CL). The primary objective was to collate and describe the current evidence base for ULBD, including perioperative parameters, functional outcomes, and complications. The secondary objective was to identify operative techniques.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted between January 1990 and August 2022 according to the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. Major databases were searched for full text English articles reporting on outcomes following microscopic unilateral laminotomy in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.

RESULTS

Seventeen articles met the inclusion criteria. Two studies were randomised controlled trials. Two studies were prospective data collection and the rest were retrospective analysis. Three studies compared ULBD with CL. ULBD preserves the osteoligamentous complex and may be associated with shorter operative time, less blood loss, and similar clinical outcomes when compared to CL.

CONCLUSION

This review highlights that ULBD aims to minimise disruption to the normal posterior spinal anatomy and may have acceptable clinical outcomes. It also highlights that it is difficult to draw valid conclusions given there are limited data available as most studies identified were retrospective or did not have a comparator group.

Delta large-channel technique versus microscopy-assisted laminar fenestration decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: a one-year prospective cohort study

PURPOSE

When it comes to treating lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), a procedure known as microscope-assisted fenestration decompression has expediently become the gold standard. With the advancement of spinal endoscopy, the Delta large-channel approach has shown promising clinical outcomes in the management of lumbar spinal stenosis. However, case studies of this method being used to treat lumbar spinal stenosis are still uncommon. The purpose of this research was to examine how well microscopy-assisted laminectomy and the Delta large-channel approach work in treating LSS in the clinic.

METHODS

From May 2018 to June 2020, 149 patients diagnosed with LSS were divided into 80 patients in Delta large-channel technique groups (FE group) and 69 patients in microscope groups (Micro group). Lower back and lower limb pain were measured using the visual analogue scale (VAS-LBP and VAS-LP), while lower limb numbness was evaluated using the 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS-LN); modified Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) was used to evaluate the quality of life, and modified MacNab criteria were used to assess the clinical efficacy before surgery and at one week, three months, six months, and 12 months after surgery. All patients had single-level lumbar spinal stenosis, and clinical data such as hospital stay, operation time, intraoperative blood loss were statistically analyzed.

RESULTS

Finally, 111 patients (62 in FE group and 49 in Micro group) completed follow-up. Compared with preoperative results, postoperative VAS-LBP, VAS-LP, NRS-LN score and modified ODI score were significantly improved in 2 groups (P < 0.05), but there was no significant difference in postoperative follow-up at each time point (P > 0.05), Except 1 week after surgery, VAS-LBP in FE group was lower than that in Micro group (P < 0.05). It is noteworthy that the FE group had a shorter hospital stay, less intraoperative blood loss, and a quicker time of getting out of bed when compared with the microscope group，but the operation time was just the opposite (P < 0.05). The excellent and good rate was 83.87% in FE group and 85.71% in Micro group (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Both microscope-assisted laminar fenestration decompression and Delta large-channel procedures provide satisfactory treatment outcomes, however the Delta large-channel approach has some potential advantages for the treatment of LSS, including quicker recovery and sooner reduced VAS-LBP. Long-term consequences, however, will necessitate additional follow-up and research.

Clinical efficacy and imaging outcomes of unilateral biportal endoscopy with unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression in the treatment of severe lumbar spinal stenosis

Objective

To investigate the clinical efficacy and imaging outcomes of unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) with unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) in the treatment of severe lumbar spinal stenosis (SLSS).

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 50 patients with SLSS treated with UBE-ULBD from October 2018 to March 2021. Visual analog scale (VAS) for back and legs pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), modified Macnab criteria, complications, hospital stay, preoperative and postoperative dural sac cross-sectional area (DSCA) and Schizas grade, mean angle of facetectomy and osseous lateral recess decompression rate were examined.

Results

The mean follow-up period was 10.7 months. The mean hospital stay was 2.76 ± 1.02 days. At the final follow-up, VAS for back pain and legs pain decreased from 7.22 ± 0.95 to 1.26 ± 0.44 and from 7.88 ± 0.69 to 1.18 ± 0.39, respectively; ODI decreased from 69.88 ± 6.32% to 14.96 ± 2.75%. According to the modified Macnab criteria, the results were excellent in 24 (48%), good in 22 (44%), and fair in 4 (8%). Excellent or good results (a satisfactory outcome) were obtained in 92% of the patients. There were 2 cases of complications of dural sac tear. The postoperative DSCA was significantly enlarged compared with that before surgery, from 44.74 ± 9.85 to 126.86 ± 14.81 mm². According to Schizas grade, the stenosis grade changes from preoperative grade C in 16 cases, grade D in 34 cases, to postoperative grade A in 40 cases, and grade B in 10 cases. The mean angle of facetectomy of the ipsilateral facet joint was 70.87 ± 5.68 ∘ , contralateral was 65.07 ± 4.98 ∘ . The decompression rate was 70.81 ± 4.43% (ipsilateral side) and 71.22 ± 3.68% (contralateral).

Conclusions

UBE-ULBD has a good clinical effect in the treatment of SLSS, and has achieved satisfactory results in spinal canal enlargement, undercutting of facet joints, and decompression effect. It is a safe and effective surgical for SLSS.

Microscopic Unilateral Approach for Bilateral Decompression of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

BACKGROUND

This is a study based on single-surgeon data on spinal stenosis surgery via microscopic approach. The aim is to evaluate the effectiveness of the unilateral approach to bilateral decompression and the usage of Taylor retractors and brain spatula in patients with spinal stenosis.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study on bilateral decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis using a microscopic unilateral approach by a single surgeon, between April 2015 and March 2018. In total, 50 patients were operated due to single level lumbar spinal stenosis. All patients were evaluated by preoperative and postoperative plain radiographs and magnetic resonance (MR) images. Walking distance (WD), visual analog scale (VAS) for pain and Odom's criteria were evaluated for follow-up.

RESULTS

One level of the lumbar spine was surgically decompressed in all patients. The median age of patients was 64.6 (51- 82). Of the patients, 72% (36) were women, and 28% (14) were men. Most patients had refractory low back pain (96%) after conservative treatment. The stenotic levels of the cases were as follows: L3-4, 23(46%); L4-5, 24(48%); and L5-S1, 3 (6%). VAS scores decreased in all patients after surgery. According to Odom's criteria, an excellent or good score was found in 43 patients at the 12th follow-up examination. WDs increased up to 1000 meters for 41 patients.

CONCLUSION

The microscopic unilateral approach to bilateral decompression is an effective method for decompression in spinal stenosis. Via this approach, surgical trauma is reduced and surgically induced instability is avoided as much as possible.

Case Report: Five-Level Unilateral Laminectomy Bilateral Decompression (ULBD) by Two-Stage Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy (UBE)

Introduction

Unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) is a relatively new yet common minimally invasive procedure in spine surgery, capable of achieving adequate decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis through unilateral laminectomy bilateral decompression (ULBD). Neither additional fusion nor rigid fixation is required, as UBE-ULBD rarely causes iatrogenic lumbar instability. However, to our knowledge, five-level ULBD via two-stage UBE without lumbar fusion has been yet to be reported in the treatment of multilevel lumbar spinal stenosis.

Case description

We present a case of an 80-year-old female patient who developed progressive paralysis of the lower extremities. Radiographic examinations showed multilevel degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis and extensive compression of the dural sac and nerve roots from L1-2 to L5-S1. The patient underwent five-level ULBD through two-stage UBE without lumbar fusion or fixation. One week after the final procedure, the patient could ambulate with walking aids and braces. Moreover, no back pain or limited lumbar motion was observed at the 6-month follow-up.

Conclusion

Multilevel ULBD through UBE may provide elderly patients with an alternative, minimally invasive procedure for treating spinal stenosis. This procedure could be achieved by staging surgeries. In this case, we reported complaints of little back pain, despite not needing to perform lumbar fusion or fixation.

Endoscopic decompression for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Lumbar stenosis treatment has evolved with the introduction of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) techniques. Endoscopic methods take the concepts applied to MIS a step further, with multiple studies showing that endoscopic techniques have outcomes that are similar to those of more traditional approaches. The aim of this study was to perform an updated meta-analysis and systematic review of studies comparing the outcomes between endoscopic (uni- and biportal) and microscopic techniques for the treatment of lumbar stenosis.

METHODS

Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic search was performed using the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Ovid Embase, and PubMed databases from their dates of inception to December 14, 2020. All identified articles were then systematically screened against the following inclusion criteria: 1) studies comparing endoscopic (either uniportal or biportal) with minimally invasive approaches, 2) patient age ≥ 18 years, and 3) diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis. Bias was assessed using quality assessment criteria and funnel plots. Meta-analysis using a random-effects model was used to synthesize the metadata.

RESULTS

From a total of 470 studies, 14 underwent full-text assessment. Of these 14 studies, 13 comparative studies were included for quantitative analysis, totaling 1406 procedures satisfying all criteria for selection. Regarding postoperative back pain, 9 studies showed that endoscopic methods resulted in significantly lower pain scores compared with MIS (mean difference [MD] -1.0, 95% CI -1.6 to -0.4, p < 0.01). The length of stay data were reported by 7 studies, with endoscopic methods associated with a significantly shorter length of stay versus the MIS technique (MD -2.1 days, 95% CI -2.7 to -1.4, p < 0.01). There was no significant difference with respect to leg visual analog scale scores, Oswestry Disability Index scores, blood loss, surgical time, and complications, and there were not any significant quality or bias concerns.

CONCLUSIONS

Both endoscopic and MIS techniques are safe and effective methods for treating patients with symptomatic lumbar stenosis. Patients who undergo endoscopic surgery seem to report less postoperative low-back pain and significantly reduced hospital stay with a trend toward less perioperative blood loss. Future large prospective randomized trials are needed to confirm the findings in this study.

Uniportal Full-Endoscopic versus Minimally Invasive Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

 In this study, we systematically analyze the effectiveness of the uniportal full-endoscopic (UPFE) and minimally invasive (MIS) decompression for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis patients.

METHODS

 We performed a systematic search in Medline, Embase, Europe PMC, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane databases, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, China national knowledge infrastructure, and Wanfang Data databases for all relevant studies. All statistical analyses were performed using Review Manager version 5.3.

RESULTS

 A total of 9 articles with 522 patients in the UPFE group and 367 patients in the MIS group were included. The results of the meta-analysis showed that the UPFE group had significantly better results in hospital stay time (mean difference [MD]: -2.05; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -2.87 to -1.23), intraoperative blood loss (MD: -36.56; 95% CI: -54.57 to -18.56), and wound-related complications (MD: -36.56; 95%CI: -54.57 to -18.56) compared with the MIS group, whereas the postoperative clinical scores (MD: -0.66; 95%CI: -1.79 to 0.47; MD: -0.75; 95%CI: -1.86 to 0.36; and MD: -4.58; 95%CI: -16.80 to 7.63), satisfaction rate (odds ratio [OR] = 1.24; 95%CI: 0.70-2.20), operation time (MD: 30.31; 95%CI: -12.55 to 73.18), complication rates for dural injury (OR = 0.60; 95%CI: 0.29-1.26), epidural hematoma (OR = 0.60; 95%CI: 0.29-1.26), and postoperative transient dysesthesia and weakness (OR = 0.73; 95%CI: 0.36-1.51) showed no significant differences between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

 The UPFE decompression is associated with shorter hospital stay time and lower intraoperative blood loss and wound-related complications compared with MIS decompression for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis patients. The postoperative clinical scores, satisfaction rate, operation time, complication rates for dural injury, epidural hematoma, and postoperative transient dysesthesia and weakness did not differ significantly between two groups.

Innovative Percutaneous Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis with Degenerative Instability: A Non-Randomized Clinical Trial

Purpose

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) with instability is most common lumbar degenerative diseases for people with low back pain. The objective of this study was to compared the clinical effects for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) with degenerative instability between the innovative percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (PE-TLIF) technique and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) technique.

Patients and Methods

Between April 2019 and April 2020, 114 patients with single-segment LSS were prospectively included in our study (ChiCTR1900022492). Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) on lumbar and leg pain (VAS-LBP, VAS-LP), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), serum creatine kinase (CK), the maximal cross-sectional area of multifidus muscle (Max-CSA) and the peak intensity of sulphur hexafluoride microbubble contrast agent (PI) around the surgical incision by contrast-enhanced ultrasonography were evaluated preoperatively, post-operatively and at regular follow-up.

Results

All patients were followed up. The VAS-LBP, VAS-LP, ODI after operation were improved significantly compared to these data before operation in all the patients (P<0.05). The VAS-LBP at 1 weeks, 3 months after operation in PE-TLIF group were significantly lower than these in PLIF group (P<0.05). The injury degree of multifidus muscle evaluated by MAX-CSA and PI was significantly less in PE-TLIF group after operation (P<0.05). There was no significant difference on the complication rate between these two groups (P>0.05).

Conclusion

Our results presented PE-TLIF technique could obtain comparable effective outcomes as conventional PLIF for the treatment of LSS with degenerative instability. The patients with PE-TLIF had less muscle injury, less pain and quicker postoperative rehabilitation.

Full-Endoscopic Lumbar Decompression versus Open Decompression and Fusion Surgery for the Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A 3-Year Follow-Up Study

Purpose

Compare the efficacy of full-endoscopic lumbar decompression surgery (FELDS) and open decompression and fusion surgery (ODFS) for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).

Patients and Methods

A retrospective analysis of 358 LSS patients treated by FELDS (“FELD” group) or ODFS (“open” group) was undertaken. There were 177 patients in the FELDS group with a mean age of 65.47±9.26 years and 181 patients in the open group with a mean age of 64.18±10.24 years. Duration of follow-up was 38.63±11.88 months in the FELDS group and 38.56±12.29 months in the open group. Visual analog scale (VAS) score, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Modified MacNab criteria were used to access clinical outcomes. Surgical outcomes (duration of surgical procedure, blood loss, complications, duration of postoperative hospital stay (DOPHS), prevalence of revision procedures) were evaluated. Magnetic resonance imaging was used to evaluate the change in the Pfirrmann grade at adjacent segments.

Results

VAS score (leg and back) and ODI improved significantly in both groups (P<0.001). Success rate reached 86.55% and 90.60% in the FELDS group and open group (P>0.05), respectively. Procedure duration (84.12 vs 112.08 min), blood loss (7.97 vs 279.67 mL), and DOPHS (2.68 vs 4.78 days) of the FELDS group were significantly better than those of the open group (P<0.05). Total prevalence of complications and procedure revisions was 14.69% and 10.73% in the FELD group, respectively, but did not show a significant difference with that in the open group (12.15% and 9.39%, respectively). The Pfirrmann grade increased in 13.04% of adjacent segments in the FELDS group, significantly better than that in the open group (32.67%) (P<0.05).

Conclusion

FELDS had the same efficacy as ODFS for LSS treatment. FELDS had the advantages of minimal invasiveness, less surgical trauma, rapid recovery, and lower risk of degeneration of adjacent segments compared with that of ODFS.