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

Recompression after percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic decompression for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: risk factors and outcomes of two different reoperation procedures

Purpose

To determine the risk factors for recompression after percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic decompression (PTED) for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS) and compare the outcomes of PTED and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) as revision surgery.

Methods

We retrospectively evaluated 820 consecutive DLSS patients who underwent PTED at our institution. 26 patients developed postoperative recompression and underwent reoperation. In total, 208 patients with satisfactory clinical outcomes were enrolled in the control group. The demographic and imaging data of each patient were recorded. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to assess risk factors for recompression. Additionally, patients with recompression were divided into PTED and PLIF groups according to the reoperation procedure. The clinical outcomes of the two groups were compared using independent-sample t-tests.

Results

The grade of surgical-level disc degeneration [odds ratio (OR): 2.551, p = 0.045] and the number of disc degeneration levels (OR: 11.985, p < 0.001) were independent risk factors for recompression after PTED. There was no significant difference in the visual analog score (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) two weeks postoperatively between the PTED and PLIF groups for surgical treatment. However, the mean VAS of back pain (14.1 vs. 20.5, p = 0.016) and ODI (16.0 vs. 21.8, p = 0.016) of patients in the PLIF group were smaller than those in the PTED group at the final follow-up.

Conclusion

More severe degeneration and degenerated levels indicate a higher recompression rate after PTED. Although both PTED and PLIF could achieve immediate relief postoperatively in the treatment of recompression, the final follow-up results showed that the outcome of PLIF appeared better than that of PTED.

Transforaminal posterior lumbar interbody fusion microscopic safe operating area: a three-dimensional model study based on computed tomography imaging

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic spine lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-LIF) is well-regarded within the academic community. However, it presents challenges such as intraoperative disorientation, high rates of nerve damage, a steep learning curve, and prolonged surgical times, often occurring during the creation of the operative channel. Furthermore, the undefined safe operational zones under endoscopy continue to pose risks to surgical safety. We aimed to analyse the anatomical data of Kambin's triangle via CT imaging to define the parameters of the safe operating area for transforaminal posterior lumbar interbody fusion (TPLIF), providing crucial insights for clinical practice.

METHODS

We selected the L4-L5 intervertebral space. Using three-dimensional (3D), we identified Kambin's triangle and the endocircle within it, and recorded the position of point 'J' on the adjacent facet joint as the centre 'O' of the circle shifts by angle 'β.' The diameter of the inscribed circle 'd,' the abduction angle 'β,' and the distances 'L1' and 'L2' were measured from the trephine's edge to the exiting and traversing nerve roots, respectively.

RESULTS

Using a trephine with a diameter of 8 mm in TPLIF has a significant safety distance. The safe operating area under the TPLIF microscope was also clarified.

CONCLUSIONS

Through CT imaging research, combined with 3D simulation, we identified the anatomical data of the L4-L5 segment Kambin's triangle, to clarify the safe operation area under TPLIF. We propose a simple and easy positioning method and provide a novel surgical technique to establish working channels faster and reduce nerve damage rates. At the same time, according to this method, the Kambin's triangle anatomical data of the patient's lumbar spine diseased segments can be measured through CT 3D reconstruction of the lumbar spine, and individualised preoperative design can be conducted to select the appropriate specifications of visible trephine and supporting tools. This may effectively reduce the learning curve, shorten the time operation time, and improve surgical safety.

Long-term efficacy of Waveflex semi-rigid-dynamic-internal-fixation system in delaying intervertebral disc degeneration at adjacent segments and improving spinal sagittal imbalance

The Waveflex semi-rigid-dynamic-internal-fixation system shows good short-term effects in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases, but there are few long-term follow-up studies, especially for recovery of sagittal balance. Fifty patients with lumbar degenerative diseases treated from January 2016 to October 2017 were retrospectively analysed: 25 patients treated with Waveflex semi-rigid-dynamic-internal-fixation system (Waveflex group) and 25 patients treated with double-segment PLIF (PLIF group). Clinical efficacy was evaluated by Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Imaging data before surgery and at 3 months, 1 year, and 5 years postoperatively was used for imaging indicator assessment. Local disc degeneration of the cephalic adjacent segment (including disc height index (DHI), intervertebral foramen height (IFH), and range of motion (ROM)) and overall spinal motor function (including lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic incidence (PI), sacral slope (SS), pelvic tilt (PT), and |PI-LL|) were analysed. Regarding clinical efficacy, comparison of VAS and ODI scores between the Waveflex and PLIF groups showed no significant preoperative or postoperative differences. The comparison of the objective imaging indicators showed no significant differences in the DHI, IFH, LL, |PI-LL|, and SS values between the Waveflex and PLIF groups preoperatively and 3 months postoperatively (P > 0.05). These values were significantly different at 1 and 5 years postoperatively (P < 0.05), and the Waveflex group showed better ROM values than those of the PLIF group (P < 0.05). PI values were not significantly different between the groups, but PT showed a significant improvement in the Waveflex group 5 years postoperatively (P < 0.05). The Waveflex semi-rigid dynamic fixation system can effectively reduce the probability of intervertebral disc degeneration in upper adjacent segments. Simultaneously, patients in the Waveflex group showed postoperative improvements in LL, spinal sagittal imbalance, and quality of life.

Efficacy of PE-PLIF with a novel ULBD approach for lumbar degeneration diseases: a large-channel endoscopic retrospective study

PURPOSE

This study aims to assess the effectiveness of Percutaneous Endoscopic Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion (PE-PLIF) combined with a novel Unilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Decompression (ULBD) approach using a large-channel endoscope in treating Lumbar Degenerative Diseases (LDD).

METHODS

This retrospective analysis evaluates 41 LDD patients treated with PE-PLIF and ULBD from January 2021 to June 2023. A novel ULBD approach, called 'Non-touch Over-Top' technique, was utilized in this study. We compared preoperative and postoperative metrics such as demographic data, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score, surgical details, and radiographic changes.

RESULTS

The average follow-up duration was 14.41 ± 2.86 months. Notable improvements were observed postoperatively in VAS scores for back and leg pain (from 5.56 ± 0.20 and 6.95 ± 0.24 to 0.20 ± 0.06 and 0.12 ± 0.05), ODI (from 58.68 ± 0.80% to 8.10 ± 0.49%), and JOA scores (from 9.37 ± 0.37 to 25.07 ± 0.38). Radiographic measurements showed significant improvements in lumbar and segmental lordosis angles, disc height, and spinal canal area. A high fusion rate (97.56% at 6 months, 100% at 12 months) and a low cage subsidence rate (2.44%) were noted.

CONCLUSIONS

PE-PLIF combined with the novel ULBD technique via a large-channel endoscope offers significant short-term benefits for LDD management. The procedure effectively expands spinal canal volume, decompresses nerve structures, improves lumbar alignment, and stabilizes the spine. Notably, it improves patients' quality of life and minimizes complications, highlighting its potential as a promising LDD treatment option.

Surgical site infection rates in open versus endoscopic lumbar spinal decompression surgery: A retrospective cohort study

Background

Lumbar decompression is a commonly performed procedure for the operative management of several degenerative lumbar spinal pathologies. Although open approaches are considered the traditional method, endoscopic techniques represent a relatively novel, less-invasive option to achieve neural element decompression. Here within, we examine if the use of endoscopic techniques decreases the risk of post operative infections.

Methods

We performed a retrospective cohort analysis to directly compare patients who underwent either open or endoscopic lumbar decompression at a single institution. Rates of postoperative outcomes such as surgical site infection, hospital length of stay, estimated blood loss, and others were compared between the two treatment groups. A multivariate logistic regression model was constructed using patient comorbidities and procedural characteristics to identify the risk factors for surgical site infection.

Results

150 patients were identified as undergoing lumbar spine decompression surgeries that met inclusion criteria for the study, of whom 108 (72.0%) underwent open and 61 (28.0%) underwent endoscopic approaches. Unpaired analysis revealed positive associations between operative duration, estimated blood loss, drain placement rates. Multivariate logistic regression did not reveal an association between surgical approach (open versus endoscopic) and the development of surgical site infection.

Conclusions

Surgical site infections following endoscopic lumbar spine decompression are relatively uncommon, however, after adjusting for baseline differences between patient populations, surgical approach does not independently predict the development of postoperative infection.

Comparison analysis of safety outcomes and the rate of subsequent spinal procedures between interspinous spacer without decompression versus minimally invasive lumbar decompression

INTRODUCTION

Treatment for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) typically begins with conservative care and progresses to minimally invasive procedures, including interspinous spacer without decompression or fusion (ISD) or minimally invasive lumbar decompression (MILD). This study examined safety outcomes and the rate of subsequent spinal procedures among LSS patients receiving an ISD versus MILD as the first surgical intervention.

METHODS

100% Medicare Standard Analytical Files were used to identify patients with an ISD or MILD (first procedure=index date) from 2017 to 2021. ISD and MILD patients were matched 1:1 using propensity score matching based on demographics and clinical characteristics. Safety outcomes and subsequent spinal procedures were captured from index date until end of follow-up. Cox models were used to analyze rates of subsequent surgical interventions, LSS-related interventions, open decompression, fusion, ISD, and MILD. Cox models were used to assess postoperative complications during follow-up and logistic regression to analyze life-threatening complications within 30 days of index procedure.

RESULTS

A total of 3682 ISD and 5499 MILD patients were identified. After matching, 3614 from each group were included in the analysis (mean age=74 years, mean follow-up=20.0 months). The risk of undergoing any intervention, LSS-related intervention, open decompression, and MILD were 21%, 28%, 21%, and 81% lower among ISD compared with MILD patients. Multivariate analyses showed no significant differences in the risk of undergoing fusion or ISD, experiencing postoperative complications, or life-threatening complications (all p≥0.241) between the cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

These results showed ISD and MILD procedures have an equivalent safety profile. However, ISDs demonstrated lower rates of open decompression and MILD.

The Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Narrative Review, and Future Perspective

Lumbar interbody fusion stands as a preferred surgical solution for degenerative lumbar spine diseases. The procedure primarily aims to establish lumbar segment stability, directly addressing patient symptoms associated with spinal complications. Traditional open surgery, though effective, is linked with notable morbidities and extended recovery time. To mitigate these concerns, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has garnered significant popularity, presenting an appealing alternative with numerous benefits such as reduced soft tissue trauma, decreased blood loss, and expedited recovery. Among MIS procedures, full endoscopic spinal surgery, characterized by its minimal invasiveness, holds the potential to further minimize morbidities while enhancing surgical outcomes. Endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion, a novel procedure within this paradigm, has gained attention for offering advantages comparable to those of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. However, the safety, efficacy, and associated surgical techniques and instrument design of this method continue to be subjects of ongoing debate. This paper critically reviews current evidence on the safety, efficacy, and advantages of endoscopic lumbar spinal interbody fusion, examining whether it could indeed supersede existing mainstream techniques.

[Research progress of different minimally invasive spinal decompression in lumbar spinal stenosis]

Objective

To review the application and progress of different minimally invasive spinal decompression in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).

Methods

The domestic and foreign literature on the application of different minimally invasive spinal decompression in the treatment of LSS was extensively reviewed, and the advantages, disadvantages, and complications of different surgical methods were summarized.

Results

At present, minimally invasive spinal decompression mainly includes microscopic bilateral decompression, microendoscopic decompression, percutaneous endoscopic lumbar decompression, unilateral biportal endoscopy, and so on. Compared with traditional open surgery, different minimally invasive spinal decompression techniques can reduce the operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative pain of patients, thereby reducing hospital stay and saving treatment costs.

Conclusion

The indications of different minimally invasive spinal decompression are different, but there are certain advantages and disadvantages. When patients have clear surgical indications, individualized treatment plans should be formulated according to the symptoms and signs of patients, combined with imaging manifestations.

Complications and risk factors of percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis

Background

With the advancements in surgical methods, optical designs, and surgical instruments, percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy (PETD) has become an effective and minimally invasive procedure to treat lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) in recent years. Few studies have focused on the complications associated with the treatment of LSS using percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD). This study aimed to summarize the complications of PETD and identify the associated risk factors.

Methods

Complications in a total of 738 consecutive LSS patients who underwent single-level PETD were retrospectively recorded and analyzed between January 2016 and July 2020. In addition, a matched case-control study was designed, and according to the date of operation, the control group was matched with patients without complications, with a matching ratio of 1:3. Demographic parameters included age, sex, BMI, smoking and drinking status, comorbidity, and surgical level. The radiological parameters included grade of surgical-level disc degeneration, number of degenerative lumbar discs, grade of lumbar spinal stenosis, degenerative lumbar scoliosis, lumbar lordosis, disc angle, and disc height index. Univariate analysis was performed using independent samples t-test and chi-squared test.

Results

The incidence of different types of complications was 9.76% (72/738). The complications and occurrence rates were as follows: recurrence of LSS (rLSS), 2.30% (17/738); persistent lumbosacral or lower extremity pain, 3.79% (28/738); dural tear, 1.90% (14/738); incomplete decompression, 0.81% (6/738); surgical site infection, 0.41% (3/738); epidural hematoma, 0.27% (2/738); and intraoperative posterior neck pain, 0.27% (2/738). Univariate analysis demonstrated that age, the grade of surgical-level disc degeneration (P < 0.001) and the number of disc degeneration levels (P = 0.004) were significantly related to the complications.

Conclusion

Complications in the treatment of LSS using PELD included rLSS, persistent pain of the lumbosacral or lower extremity, dural tear, incomplete decompression, surgical site infection, epidural hematoma, and intraoperative posterior neck pain. In addition, old age, severe grade of surgical-level disc degeneration and more disc degeneration levels significantly increased the incidence of complications.

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.