Comparison of full-endoscopic and minimally invasive decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis in the setting of degenerative scoliosis and spondylolisthesis

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.

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.

Limited Intervention in Adult Scoliosis-A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Adult scoliosis is traditionally treated with long-segment fusion, which provides strong radiographic correction and significant improvements in health-related quality of life but comes at a high morbidity cost. This systematic review seeks to examine the literature behind limited interventions in adult scoliosis patients and examine the best approaches to treatment.

METHODS

This is a MEDLINE- and PubMed-based literature search that ultimately included 49 articles with a total of 21,836 subjects.

RESULTS

Our search found that long-segment interventions had strong radiographic corrections but also resulted in high perioperative morbidity. Limited interventions were best suited to patients with compensated deformity, with decompression best for neurologic symptoms and fusion needed to treat neurological symptoms secondary to up-down stenosis and to provide stability across unstable segments. Decompression can consist of discectomy, laminotomy, and/or foraminotomy, all of which are shown to provide symptomatic relief of neurologic pain. Short-segment fusion has been shown to provide improvements in patient outcomes, albeit with higher rates of adjacent segment disease and concerns for correctional loss. Interbody devices can provide decompression without posterior element manipulation. Future directions include short-segment fusion in uncompensated deformity and dynamic stabilization constructs.

CONCLUSIONS

Limited interventions can provide symptomatic relief to adult spine deformity patients, with indications mostly in patients with balanced deformities and neurological pain.

Consecutive Case Series of Uniportal Full-endoscopic Unilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Decompression in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Relationship between Decompression Range and Functional Outcomes

OBJECTIVE

Uniportal full-endoscopic unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (UFE-ULBD) has been used to treat lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) with satisfactory outcomes. However, a limited number of studies have investigated the relationship between decompression range and clinical outcomes. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of UFE-ULBD for single-segment LSS and to explore the relationship between the decompression range and functional outcomes.

METHODS

Single-segment LSS patients who had undergone UFE-ULBD using an interlaminar approach between November 2021 and February 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. Patient demographics, visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for leg and back pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores, modified MacNab grades, and radiological outcomes, including the decompression ratio of the disc-flava ligament space and osseous lateral recess, the enlargement ratio of superior articular process interval, lamina interval dural sac cross-sectional area (DSCA), were collected. The independent sample t-tests, paired sample t-tests, chi-square tests, Fisher's exact tests, and Pearson's and Spearman's correlation analyses were used.

RESULTS

Forty patients (23 males, and 17 females) were retrospectively enrolled in this study. The mean follow-up period was 12 months. At the last follow-up, VAS scores for leg pain and back pain decreased from 6.0 ± 0.8 to 1.0 ± 1.9 (p < 0.001), and from 6.0 ± 0.8 to 1.2 ± 1.8 (p < 0.001) respectively; ODI score decreased from 71.7 ± 6.2 to 24.3 ± 21.3 (p < 0.001). According to the modified MacNab criteria, the results were excellent in 28 (70%), good in 5 (12.5%), fair in 6 (15%), and poor in 1 (2.5%), with an excellent-good rate of 82.5%. The postoperative DSCA enlarged from 57.69 ± 21.86 to 150.75 ± 39.33 mm2 (p < 0.001), with an enlargement ratio of 189.43 ± 107.83%. No difference in clinical or radiological parameters was detected between patients with excellent, good, fair, or poor outcomes based on the modified MacNab criteria.

CONCLUSION

UFE-ULBD can provide satisfactory clinical and radiological outcomes in single-segment LSS patients. With sufficient exposure to the dural sac boundary, the functional outcome was not related to the radiological decompression range in LSS patients who had undergone UFE-ULBD.

Ambulatory uniportal versus biportal endoscopic unilateral laminotomy with bilateral decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis-cohort study using a prospective registry

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic spine surgery has been established as a practical, minimally invasive technique for decompression in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. However, there remains a paucity of studies prospective cohort study comparing uniportal lumbar endoscopic unilateral laminotomy with bilateral decompression and unilateral biportal endoscopic unilateral laminotomy with bilateral decompression with open spinal decompression-both viable techniques with satisfactory clinical outcomes in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis.

OBJECTIVE/AIM

To compare the efficacy of UPE and BPE lumbar decompression surgery for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.

METHODS

A prospective registry of patients who had undergone spinal decompression for lumbar stenosis via UPE or BPE under a single fellowship trained spine surgeon was studied. Baseline characteristics, initial clinical presentation, and operative details including complications were recorded for all included patients. Clinical outcomes, such as visual analogue scale and Oswestry Disability Index, were recorded at preoperative, immediate postoperative, 2-week, 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up periods.

RESULTS

A total of 62 patients underwent endoscopic decompression surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis (29 UPE, 33 BPE). No significant baseline differences were found between uniportal and biportal decompression, when comparing operative duration (130 vs. 140 min; p = 0.30), intraoperative blood loss (5.4 vs. 6mLs; p = 0.05), and length of hospital stay (23.6 vs. 20.3 h; p = 0.35). Two patients (7%) who underwent uniportal endoscopic decompression required conversion to open surgery due to inadequate decompression. Intraoperative complication rates were significantly higher in the UPE group (13.4% vs. 0%, p < 0.05). VAS score (leg & back) and ODI improved significantly (p < 0.001) in both endoscopic decompression groups across all follow-up time points, with no appreciable statistical differences between both groups.

CONCLUSION

UPE has the same efficacy as BPE in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. While UPE surgery enjoys added aesthetic benefits of only one wound, BPE had potentially lower risks of intraoperative complication, inadequate decompression, and conversion to open surgery during early period of learning curve.

Full endoscopic spine surgery

Background

With a dramatic increase in elderly population worldwide, the prevalence of degenerative spine disease is steadily rising. Even though the entire spinal column is affected the problem is more commonly seen in the lumbar, cervical spine and to some extent the thoracic spine. The treatment of symptomatic lumbar disc or stenosis is primarily conservative with analgesics, epidural steroids and physiotherapy. Surgery is advised only if conservative treatment is ineffective. Conventional open microscopic procedures even though are still a gold standard, have the disadvantages of excessive muscle damage and bone resection, epidural scarring along with prolonged hospital stay and increased need of postoperative analgesics. Minimal access spine surgeries minimize surgical access related injury by minimizing soft tissue and muscle damage and also bony resection thus preventing iatrogenic instability and unnecessary fusions. This leads to good functional preservation of the spine and enhances early postoperative recovery and early return to work. Full endoscopic spine surgeries are one of the more sophisticated and advanced form of MIS surgeries.

Purpose

Full endoscopy has definitive benefits over conventional microsurgical techniques. These include better and clear vision of the pathology due to presence of irrigation fluid channel, minimal soft tissue and bone trauma, better and relatively easy approach to deep seated pathologies like thoracic disc herniations and a possibility to avoid fusion surgeries. The purpose of this article is to describe these benefits, give an overview of the two main approaches - transforaminal and interlaminar, their indications, contraindications and their limitations. The article also describes about the challenges in overcoming the learning curve and its future prospectives.

Conclusion

Full endoscopic spine surgery is one of the fastest growing technique in the field of modern spine surgery. Better intraoperative visualization of the pathology, lesser incidence of complications, faster recovery time, less postoperative pain, better relief of symptoms and early return to activity are the main reasons behind this rapid growth. With better patient outcomes and reduced medical costs, the procedure is going to be more accepted, relevant and popular procedure in future.

Full-endoscopic foraminotomy in low-grade degenerative and isthmic spondylolisthesis: a patient-specific tailored approach

PURPOSE

To describe the surgical technique and methodology to successfully plan and execute an endoscopic foraminotomy in patients with isthmic or degenerative spondylolisthesis, according to each patient's unique characteristics.

METHODS

Thirty patients with degenerative or isthmic spondylolisthesis (SL) with radicular symptoms were included from March 2019 to September 2022. Treating physician registered patients' baseline and imaging characteristics, as well as preoperative back pain VAS, leg pain VAS and ODI. Subsequently, authors treated the included patients with an endoscopic foraminotomy according to a "patient-specific" tailored approach.

RESULTS

Nineteen patients (63.33%) had isthmic SL and 11 patients (36.67%) had degenerative SL. 75.86% of the cases had a Meyerding Grade 1 listhesis. One of the transforaminal foraminotomies with lateral recess decompression in degenerative SL had to be aborted because of intense osseous bleeding. Of the remaining 29 patients, one patient experienced recurrence of the sciatica pain that required subsequent reintervention and fusion. No other intraoperative or post-operative complications were observed. None of the patients developed post-operative dysesthesia. In 86.67% of the patients, the foraminotomy was implemented using a transforaminal approach. In the remaining 13.33% of the cases, an interlaminar contralateral approach was used. Lateral recess decompression was performed in half of the cases. Mean follow-up time was 12.69 months, reaching a maximum of 40 months in some patients. Outcome variables such as VAS for leg and back pain, as well as ODI, showed statistically significant reduction since the 3-month follow-up visit.

CONCLUSION

In the presented case series, endoscopic foraminotomy achieved satisfactory outcomes without sacrificing segmental stability. The proposed patient-specific "tailored" approach allowed to successfully design and execute the surgical strategy to perform an endoscopic foraminotomy through transforaminal or interlaminar contralateral approaches.

Comparison of the Tubular Approach and Uniportal Interlaminar Full-Endoscopic Approach in the Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Our 3-Year Results

BACKGROUND

To report the long-term results of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), for whom we applied the tubular and endoscopic approaches and previously published the short-term results.

METHODS

A multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-blind study was carried out to evaluate 2 groups of patients with LSS who underwent microsurgery via a tubular retractor with a unilateral approach (T group) and bilateral spinal decompression using uniportal interlaminar endoscopic approaches (E group). Dural sac cross-sectional and spinal canal cross-sectional areas were measured with the patients' preoperative and postoperative magnetic resonance images. The visual analog scale, Oswestry Disability Index, and Japanese Orthopedic Association scores in the preoperative period and the first, second, and third years after surgery were evaluated.

RESULTS

Twenty patients met the inclusion criteria for the research (T group; n = 10, E group; n = 10). The groups' visual analog scale (respectively; P = 0.315, P = 0.529, and P = 0.853), Oswestry Disability Index (respectively; P = 0.529, P = 0.739, and P = 0.912), and Japanese Orthopedic Association (respectively; P = 0.436, P =0.853, and P = 0.684) scores from the first, second, and third postoperative years were quite good compared with the preoperative period, but there was no statistically significant difference. A significant difference was found in the E group, with less blood loss (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The long-term results of the patients with LSS treated with tubular and endoscopic approaches were similar and very good. Bilateral decompression with minimally invasive spinal surgery methods can be completed with less tissue damage, complications, and blood loss with the unilateral approach.

Current Indications for Spinal Endoscopic Surgery and Potential for Future Expansion

Endoscopic spine surgery (ESS) has evolved as a safe, effective, and efficient alternative for minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS). The innovation of full-endoscopic systems makes definitive decompression surgery through different approaches feasible. The approach can be determined according to the location of the target lesion or the surgeon's preference. During the past 2 decades, ESS has expanded its indications from lumbar to cervical spines. Except for decompression, endoscopy-assisted fusion surgery is also developing. However, ESS is still evolving and has a steep learning curve. The revolution of technologies and ESS techniques will enable surgeons to treat various spinal diseases more practically. In recent years, the application of the computer-assisted navigation system and augmented reality have reformed imaging quality and interpretation. The endoscopic rhizotomy techniques have opened a new way for MISS of chronic low back pain. This review introduces the current indications of ESS and its potential future expansion.

Comparison of 270-degree percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic decompression under local anesthesia and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of geriatric lateral recess stenosis associated with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis

PURPOSE

Various lumbar decompression techniques have been used for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS). Few studies have compared the clinical efficacy of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic decompression (PTED) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) in the treatment of lateral recess stenosis associated with DLS (LRS-DLS) in geriatric patients. The objective of the study was to compare the safety and short-term clinical efficacy of 270-degree PTED under local anesthesia and MIS-TLIF in the treatment of LRS-DLS in Chinese geriatric patients over 60 years old.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From January 2017 to August 2019, the data of 90 consecutive geriatric patients with single-level L4-5 LRS-DLS were retrospectively reviewed, including those in the PTED group (n = 44) and MIS-TLIF group (n = 46). The patients were followed up for at least 1 year. Patient demographics and perioperative outcomes were reviewed before and after surgery. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analog scale (VAS) for leg pain, and modified MacNab criteria were used to evaluate the clinical outcomes. X-ray examinations were performed 1 year after surgery to assess the progression of spondylolisthesis in the PTED group and bone fusion in the MIS-TLIF group.

RESULTS

The mean patient ages in the PTED and MIS-TLIF groups were 70.3 years and 68.6 years, respectively. Both the PTED and MIS-TLIF groups demonstrated significant improvements in the VAS score for leg pain and ODI score, and no significant differences were found between the groups at any time point (P > 0.05). Although the good-to-excellent rate of the modified MacNab criteria in the PTED group was similar to that in the MIS-TLIF group (90.9% vs. 91.3%, P > 0.05), PTED was advantageous in terms of the operative time, estimated blood loss, incision length, drainage time, drainage volume, length of hospital stay, and complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Both PTED and MIS-TLIF led to favorable outcomes in geriatric patients with LRS-DLS. In addition, PTED caused less severe trauma and fewer complications. In terms of perioperative quality-of-life and clinical outcomes, PTED could supplement MIS-TLIF in geriatric patients with LRS-DLS.

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.

Management of lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of rehabilitation, surgical, injection, and medication interventions

BACKGROUND

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) has a substantial impact on mobility, autonomy, and quality of life. Previous reviews have demonstrated inconsistent results and/or have not delineated between specific nonsurgical interventions.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this systematic review is to assess the effectiveness of interventions in the management of LSS.

METHODS

Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or prospective studies, included patients with LSS, assessed the effectiveness of any interventions (rehabilitation, surgical, injection, medication), included at least two intervention groups, and included at least one measure of pain, disability, ambulation assessment, or LSS-specific symptoms. Eighty-five articles met inclusion criteria. Meta-analyses were conducted across outcomes. Effect sizes were calculated using Hedge's g and reported descriptively. Formal grading of evidence was conducted.

RESULTS

Meta-analysis comparing rehabilitation to no treatment/placebo demonstrated significant effects on pain favoring rehabilitation (mean difference, MD -1.63; 95% CI: -2.68, -0.57; I² = 71%; p = .002). All other comparisons to no treatment/placebo revealed nonsignificant findings. The level of evidence ranged from very low to high for rehabilitation and medication versus no treatment/placebo for pain, disability, ambulation ability, and LSS symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the findings of this review are inconclusive regarding superiority of interventions, this accentuates the value of multimodal patient-centered care in the management of patients with LSS.

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.

Endoscopic Spinal Surgery (BESS and UESS) Versus Microscopic Surgery in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES

Various minimally invasive surgical techniques have been developed as alternatives to conventional surgery. According to recent studies, endoscopic spinal surgery (ESS) (biportal ESS [BESS] or uniportal ESS [UESS]) is more favorable compared with microscopic spinal surgery (MSS). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the latest evidence on the use of ESS compared with MSS in lumbar spinal stenosis.

METHODS

A systematic electronic search using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Database, and Korea Med was performed until December 2019 to identify studies that compared ESS and MSS in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.

RESULTS

Overall, 1167 patients were included from three randomized controlled trials, six retrospective cohorts, and two prospective case-control studies. This review only presented 3 direct comparative studies. The study had inherent limitations specifically in terms of the study design. Meta-analysis of hospital stay (days) showed significant difference between BESS and MSS, UESS and MSS, BESS +UESS, and MSS at the final follow-up (95% confidence interval [CI]: -3.66 to -.77; P = .003; I² = 97%, 95% CI: -2.95 to -1.22; P <.00001; I² = 90%, and 95% CI: -2.89 to -1.48; P <.00001; I² = 96%, respectively). However, meta-analysis showed no significant difference in other results.

CONCLUSIONS

Although a shorter duration of hospital stay was observed in ESS, there were no significant differences in efficacy and safety between ESS and MSS. Further studies are required to validate these results.

Mid-term changes in spinopelvic sagittal alignment in lumbar spinal stenosis with coexisting degenerative spondylolisthesis or scoliosis after minimally invasive lumbar decompression surgery: minimum five-year follow-up

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Recently, the number of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) who present with a coexisting spinal deformity such as degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) and scoliosis (DLS) has been increasing. Lumbar decompression without fusion can lead to a reactive improvement in the lumbar and sagittal spinopelvic alignment, even if a sagittal imbalance exists preoperatively. However, the mid- to long-term impact of the coexistence of DS and DLS on the change in sagittal spinopelvic alignment and clinical outcomes after decompression surgery remains unknown.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to investigate whether the coexistence of DS or DLS in patients with LSS is associated with differences in radiological and clinical outcomes after minimally invasive lumbar decompression surgery.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data.

PATIENT SAMPLE

A total of 169 patients who underwent minimally invasive lumbar decompression surgery and follow-up >5 years postoperatively.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Self-report measures: Low back pain (LBP) and/or leg pain and/or leg numbness visual analog scale (VAS) scores and the Japanese Orthopedic Association scores.

PHYSIOLOGIC MEASURES

Standing sagittal spinopelvic alignment.

METHODS

In total, 81 patients with LSS, 50 patients with LSS and DS (≥3 mm anterior slippage), and 38 patients with LSS and DLS (≥15° coronal Cobb angle) were included in the current study. Clinical and radiological outcome results before surgery and at 2 and 5 years after surgery were compared among the groups.

RESULTS

In patients with LSS with coexisting DS, the clinical outcomes at 2, and 5 years after surgery were similar to those of patients with only LSS. In patients with LSS with coexisting DLS, the VAS LBP and leg pain at 2 years after surgery was significantly higher (34.7 vs. 27.8, p=0.014; 27.8 vs. 14.7, p=0.028) and the achievement rate of the minimal clinically important difference in VAS LBP and leg pain was significantly lower than that of the LSS group (36.1% vs. 54.2%, p=0.036; 58.3% vs. 69.9%, p=0.10). The clinical outcomes except VAS leg numbness at 5 years after surgery were similar to those of patients with only LSS. The reoperation rate of the DS group was significantly lower than that of the LSS group (4.0% vs. 14.8%; p=0.01); however, the reoperation rate of the DLS group was comparable to that of the LSS group (15.8% vs. 14.8%; p=0.493). Lumbar lordosis (LL), sacral slope, pelvic tilt, and pelvic incidence-LL had significantly improved and been maintained for 5 years after the surgery in both the DS and the DLS groups. The sagittal vertical axis had improved at two-year follow-up; however, no significant difference was observed at the 5-year follow-up in both the DS, and the DLS groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Mid-term clinical outcomes in patients with LSS with and without deformity were comparable. Lumbar decompression without fusion can result in a reactive improvement in the lumbar and sagittal spinopelvic alignment, even with coexisting DS or DLS. Minimally invasive surgery could be considered for most patients with LSS.

Therapeutic Strategy of Percutaneous Transforaminal Endoscopic Decompression for Stenosis Associated With Adult Degenerative Scoliosis

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effects of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic decompression (PTED) for lumbar stenosis associated with adult degenerative scoliosis and to analyze the correlation between preoperative radiological parameters and postoperative surgical outcomes.

METHODS

Two years of retrospective data was collected from 46 patients with lumbar stenosis associated with adult degenerative scoliosis who underwent PTED. The visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index, and modified MacNab criteria were used to evaluate the clinical outcomes. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to analyze the correlation between radiological parameters and surgical outcomes.

RESULTS

The mean age of the 33 female and 13 male patients was 73.5 ± 8.1 years. The mean follow-up was 27.6 ± 3.5 months (range from 24 to 36). The average coronal Cobb angle was 24.5 ± 8.2°. There were better outcomes of the VAS for leg pain and Oswestry Disability Index after surgery. Based on the MacNab criteria, excellent or good outcomes were noted in 84.78% of patients. Multiple linear regression analysis showed that Cobb angle and lateral olisthy may be the predictors for low back pain.

CONCLUSION

Transforaminal endoscopic surgery may be an effective and safe method for geriatric patients with lumbar stenosis associated with degenerative scoliosis. The predictive factors of clinical outcomes were severe Cobb angle and high degree lateral subluxation. Transforaminal endoscopic surgery may not be recommended for patients with Cobb angle larger than 30° combined with lateral subluxation.

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.

Comparison of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic decompression and short-segment fusion in the treatment of elderly degenerative lumbar scoliosis with spinal stenosis

Background

Degenerative lumbar scoliosis (DLS) combined with spinal stenosis is increasingly being diagnosed in the elderly. However, the appropriate surgical approach remains somewhat controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the results of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic decompression (PTED) and short-segment fusion for the treatment of mild degenerative lumbar scoliosis combined with spinal stenosis in older adults over 60 years of age.

Methods

Of the 54 consecutive patients included, 30 were treated with PTED and 24 were treated with short-segment open fusion. All patients were followed up for at least 12 months (12–24 months). Patient demographics, and perioperative and clinical outcomes were recorded. Visual analog scale (VAS) scores, Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores, and modified Macnab criteria were used to assess clinical outcomes. At the same time, changes in disc height, segmental lordosis, coronal Cobb angle, and lumbar lordosis were compared.

Results

The mean age was 68.7 ± 6.5 years in the PTED group and 66.6 ± 5.1 years in the short-segment fusion group. At 1 year postoperatively, both groups showed significant improvement in VAS and ODI scores compared with preoperative scores (p < 0.05), with no statistically significant difference between groups. However, VAS-Back and ODI were lower in the PTED group at 1 week postoperatively (p < 0.05). According to the modified Macnab criteria, the excellent rates were 90.0 and 91.6% in the PTED and short-segment fusion groups, respectively. However, the PTED group had a significantly shorter operative time, blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, postoperative bed rest, and complication rate. There was no significant difference in radiological parameters between the two groups preoperatively. At the last follow-up, there were significant differences in disc height, segmental lordosis at the L4–5 and L5–S1 levels, and Cobb angle between the two groups.

Conclusion

Both PTED and short-segment fusion for mild degenerative lumbar scoliosis combined with spinal stenosis have shown good clinical results. PTED under local anesthesia may be an effective supplement to conventional fusion surgery in elderly patients with DLS combined with spinal stenosis.

Predictors of indirect neural decompression in minimally invasive transpsoas lateral lumbar interbody fusion

OBJECTIVE

An advantage of lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) surgery is the indirect decompression of the neural elements that occurs because of the resulting disc height restoration, spinal realignment, and ligamentotaxis. The degree to which indirect decompression occurs varies; no method exists for effectively predicting which patients will respond. In this study, the authors identify preoperative predictive factors of indirect decompression of the central canal.

METHODS

The authors performed a retrospective evaluation of prospectively collected consecutive patients at a single institution who were treated with LLIF without direct decompression. Preoperative and postoperative MRI was used to grade central canal stenosis, and 3D volumetric reconstructions were used to measure changes in the central canal area (CCA). Multivariate regression was used to identify predictive variables correlated with radiographic increases in the CCA and clinically successful improvement in visual analog scale (VAS) leg pain scores.

RESULTS

One hundred seven levels were treated in 73 patients (mean age 68 years). The CCA increased 54% from a mean of 0.96 cm2 to a mean of 1.49 cm2 (p < 0.001). Increases in anterior disc height (74%), posterior disc height (81%), right (25%) and left (22%) foraminal heights, and right (12%) and left (15%) foraminal widths, and reduction of spondylolisthesis (67%) (all p < 0.001) were noted. Multivariate evaluation of predictive variables identified that preoperative spondylolisthesis (p < 0.001), reduced posterior disc height (p = 0.004), and lower body mass index (p = 0.042) were independently associated with radiographic increase in the CCA. Thirty-two patients were treated at a single level and had moderate or severe central stenosis preoperatively. Significant improvements in Oswestry Disability Index and VAS back and leg pain scores were seen in these patients (all p < 0.05). Twenty-five (78%) patients achieved the minimum clinically important difference in VAS leg pain scores, with only 2 (6%) patients requiring direct decompression postoperatively due to persistent symptoms and stenosis. Only increased anterior disc height was predictive of clinical failure to achieve the minimum clinically important difference.

CONCLUSIONS

LLIF successfully achieves indirect decompression of the CCA, even in patients with substantial central stenosis. Low body mass index, preoperative spondylolisthesis, and disc height collapse appear to be most predictive of successful indirect decompression. Patients with preserved disc height but severe preoperative stenosis are at higher risk of failure to improve clinically.

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Following Lumbar Endoscopic Unilateral Laminotomy Bilateral Decompression and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for One-Level Lumbar Spinal Stenosis With Degenerative Spondylolisthesis

Introduction: Both lumbar endoscopic unilateral laminotomy bilateral decompression (LE-ULBD) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) have been used to treat one-level lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) with degenerative spondylolisthesis, while the differences of the clinical outcomes are still uncertain.

Methods: Among 60 consecutive patients included, 24 surgeries were performed by LE-ULBD and 36 surgeries were performed by MI-TLIF. Patient demographics, operation characteristics and complications were recorded. Sagittal parameters, including slip percentage (SP) and slip angle (SA) were compared. The visual analog scale (VAS) score, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score, and Macnab criteria were used to evaluate the clinical outcomes. Follow-up examinations were conducted at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively.

Results: The estimated blood loss, time to ambulation and length of hospitalization of the LE-ULBD group were shorter than the MI-TLIF group. Preoperative and final follow-up SP of the LE-ULBD group was of no significant difference, while final follow-up SP of the MI-TLIF group was significantly improved compared with preoperative SP. The postoperative mean VAS and ODI scores decreased significantly in both LE-ULBD group and MI-TLIF group. According to the modified Macnab criteria, the outcomes rated as excellent/good rate were 95.8 and 97.2%, respectively, in both LE-ULBD group and MI-TLIF group. Intraoperative complication rate of the LE-ULBD and the MI-TLIF group were 4.2 and 0%, respectively. One case of intraoperative epineurium injury was observed in the LE-ULBD group. Postoperative complication rate of the LE-ULBD and the MI-TLIF group were 0 and 5.6%, respectively. One case with transient urinary retention and one case with pleural effusion were observed in the MI-TLIF group.

Conclusion: Both LE-ULBD and MI-TLIF are safe and effective to treat one-level LSS with degenerative spondylolisthesis.

Clinical Outcomes of Interlaminar Percutaneous Endoscopic Decompression for Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis with Spinal Stenosis

The use of traditional open decompression alone in degenerative spondylolisthesis can lead to the development of postoperative spinal instability, whereas percutaneous endoscopic decompression can preserve the attachment of intervertebral muscles, facet joint capsules, and ligaments that stabilize the spine. The study’s aim was to determine clinical as well as radiologic outcomes associated with interlaminar percutaneous endoscopic decompression in patients with stable degenerative spondylolisthesis. For this study, 28 patients with stable degenerative spondylolisthesis who underwent percutaneous endoscopic decompression were enrolled. The clinical outcomes in terms of the visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) were evaluated. Radiologic outcomes were determined by measuring the ratio of disc height and the vertebral slippage percentage using lateral standing radiographs. The average follow-up period was 25.24 months. VAS and ODI were significantly improved at the final follow-up. In terms of ratio of disc height and vertebral slippage percentage found no significant difference between the preoperative and postoperative periods. One patient underwent further caudal epidural steroid injection. One patient underwent fusion because their radicular pain did not improve. Interlaminar percutaneous endoscopic decompression is an effective procedure with favorable outcomes in selected patients with stable degenerative spondylolisthesis.

Outcome analysis of lumbar endoscopic unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression in patients with degenerative lumbar central canal stenosis

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Lumbar endoscopic unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (LE-ULBD) has been reported as an alternative treatment for degenerative lumbar central canal stenosis (DLCS).

PURPOSE

To investigate the outcomes of LE-ULBD for different types of DLCS, including simple DLCS, DLCS with degenerative spondylolisthesis (DSL), and DLCS with degenerative scoliosis (DSC).

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Prospective cohort study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

One-hundred sixteen patients with DLCS who underwent LE-ULBD at a spine center from April 2015 to June 2017 were enrolled in this study.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Operative time, postoperative duration of hospitalization, and clinical outcomes (Oswestry disability index [ODI], visual analog scale [VAS], and modified Macnab outcome scale), and adverse events.

METHODS

A comparative analysis was performed evaluating medical records, radiological studies, and patient reported outcomes including ODI score, VAS scores and modified Macnab outcome scales in patients who underwent LE-ULBD. Data were prospectively collected at preoperative, postoperative 3-, 6-, 12-, 24-month to assess clinical and radiological outcomes and complications.

RESULTS

The study analyzed 106 patients (45 men and 61 women, with a mean age of 69.5 years); 40 (37.8%) had simple DLCS, 41 (38.7%) had DLCS with DSL, and 25 (23.5%) had DLCS with DSC. The mean follow-up period was 33.3 months. The mean preoperative and postoperative follow-up ODI score and VAS scores for leg and back pain showed significant improvement in all time points. No significant difference was found among different pathologies in terms of VAS scores for back and leg pain, ODI scores and modified Macnab outcome scales at all follow-up periods.

CONCLUSIONS

LE-ULBD is a feasible treatment method for DLCS. It did not result in worse outcomes in cases with DLCS with DSL or DLCS with DSC as compared with cases with simple DLCS.

Comparison of lumbar endoscopic unilateral laminotomy bilateral decompression and minimally invasive surgery transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for one-level lumbar spinal stenosis

BACKGROUND

The aim of the present study is to compare the clinical outcomes and postoperative complications of lumbar endoscopic unilateral laminotomy bilateral decompression (LE-ULBD) and minimally invasive surgery transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) to treat one-level lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) without degenerative spondylolisthesis or deformity.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of 112 consecutive patients of one-level LSS undergoing either LE-ULBD or MIS-TLIF was performed. Patient demographics, operation time, estimated blood loss, time to ambulation, length of hospitalization, intraoperative and postoperative complications were recorded. The visual analog scale (VAS) score for leg and back pain, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score, and the Macnab criteria were used to evaluate the clinical outcomes. The healthcare cost was also recorded.

RESULTS

The operation time, estimated blood loss, time to ambulation and length of hospitalization of LE-ULBD group were shorter than MIS-TLIF group. The postoperative mean VAS and ODI scores decreased significantly in both groups. According to the modified Macnab criteria, the outcomes rated as excellent/good rate were 90.6 and 93.8% in the two groups. The mean VAS scores, ODI scores and outcomes of the modified Macnab criteria of both groups were of no significant difference. The healthcare cost of LE-ULBD group was lower than MIS-TLIF group. Two cases of intraoperative epineurium injury were observed in the LE-ULBD group. One case of cauda equina injury was observed in the LE-ULBD group. No nerve injury, dural injury or cauda equina syndrome was observed in MIS-TLIF group. However, one case with transient urinary retention, one case with pleural effusion, one case with incision infection and one case with implant dislodgement were observed in MIS-TLIF group.

CONCLUSIONS

Both LE-ULBD and MIS-TLIF are safe and effective to treat one-level LSS without degenerative spondylolisthesis or deformity. LE-ULBD is a more minimally invasive option and of less economic burden compared with MIS-TLIF. Decompression plus instrumented fusion may be not necessary for one-level LSS without degenerative spondylolisthesis or deformity.

Endoscopic Spine Surgery in Athletes: Case Series and Review of Literature

BACKGROUND

Degenerative spine disease is common in athletes and can progress to requiring surgical intervention. Traditional open surgical techniques necessitate prolonged recovery time and time away from play. Newly developed endoscopic surgical techniques may promote faster healing and recovery, and increased return to play. The goal of this paper is to summarize the current evidence in return to play after spine surgery and to present our series of 3 athletes who underwent endoscopic spine surgery.

METHODS

A complete search of all PubMed indexed articles pertaining to spine surgery in athletes was conducted. This was supplemented by a 3-patient case series of our own endoscopic spine experience in athletes.

RESULTS

There are no current widely accepted guidelines for return to play after spinal surgery. The best evidence available cites a return to play of 81% at 5.2-8.7 months after traditional open and minimally invasive surgery, and endoscopic surgery produces an average 88% return to play rate at 3 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Although return to play can vary widely, case-based evidence as well as biomechanical principles support endoscopic spine surgery as a viable surgical modality for the treatment of spinal pathologies in athletes.

Percutaneous Transforaminal Endoscopic Decompression for Geriatric Patients with Central Spinal Stenosis and Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: A Novel Surgical Technique and Clinical Outcomes

Purpose

Percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic decompression (PTED) is an ultra-minimally invasive surgical option for patients that does not involve the same amount of destabilizing facet joint removal as a traditional laminectomy. The objective of this study was to describe the procedure of PTED under local anesthesia for geriatric patients with central spinal stenosis and degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (CSS-DLS).

Materials and Methods

From January 2016 to December 2018, 30 consecutive geriatric patients who underwent surgery for single-level CSS-DLS were retrospectively reviewed. All patients were followed for at least 12 months (12–24 months). The visual analog scale (VAS) scores, Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores and modified MacNab criteria were used to evaluate the clinical results.

Results

The mean age was 73.1±6.0 years. Follow-up ranged from 12 to 36 months. The mean±SD values of the preoperative VAS for leg pain and ODI were 7.4±1.0 and 67.2±8.4, respectively. The values improved to 2.2±1.1 and 19.9±8.1 at 12 months postoperatively. The outcomes of the modified MacNab criteria showed that 93.3% of patients obtained a good-to-excellent rate. The percent slippage of spondylolisthesis before surgery (13.8±2.5%) and at the end of follow-up (14.0±2.5%) was not significantly different.

Conclusion

PTED under local anesthesia could be a useful supplement to traditional decompression in geriatric patients with CSS-DLS.

Lumbar Endoscopic Unilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Decompression Outside-In Approach: A Proctorship Guideline With 12 Steps of Effectiveness and Safety

Minimally invasive spinal surgery in particular lumbar endoscopic unilateral laminotomy with bilateral decompression becomes popular as it can be performed with regional anesthesia, soft tissue damages are minimized as endoscopic visualization and instruments can be brought close to operating area bypassing much of the intervening soft tissues for sufficient spinal decompression with ligamentum flavum resection despite less bony resection compared to open surgery. Overall, when well executed, it preserves spinal stability. Outside-in technique of decompression is also known as over the top decompression in minimally invasive literature. It involves maintaining deep layer of ligamentum flavum integrity till satisfactory bony decompression is achieved. Deep layer of ligamentum flavum is removed as final step of decompression. Preservation of the deep layer of ligamentum flavum protects the neural elements, allowing drills and sharp equipment to be used safely to perform bony decompression.In this study, we demonstrate the technical details of outside-in approach lumbar endoscopic unilateral laminotomy with bilateral decompression (LE-ULBD). LE-ULBD Outside-in Technique is an effective and safe procedure in relieving lumbar spinal stenosis with favorable results with a follow-up for more than 1 year.

Inside-Out Approach of Lumbar Endoscopic Unilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Decompression: A Detailed Technical Description, Rationale and Outcomes

Although lumbar stenosis was recognized as a contraindication for endoscopic spine surgery in the past, the advancement in endoscopic system design and development of approach techniques and strategies now enabled the endoscopic spine surgeons to manage all types of lumbar stenosis safely and more effectively. A full-endoscopic lumbar technique for surgical management of spinal canal stenosis is now used today in many advanced spine centers around the world as one of their standard procedures which can be done under general, regional, local anesthesia with sedation. In this technical report, we described in detail the inside-out approach of performing lumbar endoscopic unilateral laminotomy with bilateral decompression (LE-ULBD) and retrospectively reviewed hospital records of 127 patients who underwent the approach from December 2018 to March 2019 to address 1 level lumbar spinal stenosis and determined its outcome after 12-month follow-up period. Perioperative outcomes, operation time, length of hospital stay, and surgical complications were recorded and analyzed. The cross-sectional area of the thecal sac at the operated level was measured. The visual analogue scale (VAS) was assessed preoperatively, 1 month, and 12 months as well as the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). The data were statistically analyzed (using SPSS ver. 17.0). The inside-out approach LE-ULBD was shown to effect statistically significant improvement in the VAS of leg and back pain as well as the ODI. It is a familiar, safe, and effective way of performing spinal stenosis decompression with good reproducible outcomes.

A Narrative Review of Development of Full-Endoscopic Lumbar Spine Surgery

In the first phase of development of lumbar endoscopic spine surgery, the focus was on removal of soft disc material through the working corridor of Kambin’s triangle using transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy. With the introduction of the interlaminar approach and increased interest from both industry and surgeons, there has been an exponential development of endoscopic surgical equipment and a corresponding expansion of endoscopic techniques. Endoscopic treatment strategies are applied to conditions ranging from contained prolapsed intervertebral discs to noncontained migrated herniated discs, hard calcified discs, spinal stenosis in the central or lateral recess and the foraminal and extraforaminal region, and other combinations of degenerative conditions requiring decompression or fusion surgery. The further expansion of endoscopic surgical management involving complicated spinal cases and the final quartet of trauma, infections, tumors, and possibly deformities could be the future stage of endoscopic spine surgery development. This article covers the full range of current treatment strategies and presents possible future developments of endoscopic spine surgery for the management of lumbar spinal conditions.

Uniportal Full Endoscopic Posterolateral Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Endoscopic Disc Drilling Preparation Technique for Symptomatic Foraminal Stenosis Secondary to Severe Collapsed Disc Space: A Clinical and Computer Tomographic Study with Technical Note

Background: Severe collapsed disc secondary to degenerative spinal conditions leads to significant foraminal stenosis. We hypothesized that uniportal posterolateral transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with endoscopic disc drilling technique could be safely applied to the collapsed disc space to improve patients’ pain score, restore disc height, and correct the segmental angular parameters. Methods: We included patients who met the indication criteria for lumbar fusion and underwent uniportal full endoscopic posterolateral transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with pre-operative Computer Tomography mid disc height of less than or equal to 5 mm and MRI of Grade 3 Foraminal Stenosis. Visual analogue scale and computer tomography pre-operative and post-operative sagittal disc height in the anterior, middle and posterior part of the disc; sagittal focal segmental angle; mid coronal disc height and coronal wedge angles were evaluated. Results: 30 levels of Endo-TLIF were included, with a mean follow up of 12 months. The mean improvement in decreasing pain score was 2.5 ± 1.1, 3.2 ± 0.9 and 4.3 ± 1.0 at 1 week post operation, 3 months post operation and at final follow up, respectively, p < 0.05. There was significant increase in mid sagittal computer tomographic anterior, middle and posterior disc height of 6.99 ± 2.30, 6.28 ± 1.44, 5.12 ± 1.79 mm respectively, p < 0.05. CT mid coronal disc height showed an increase of 7.13 ± 1.90 mm, p < 0.05. There was a significant improvement in the CT coronal wedge angle of 2.35 ± 4.73 and the CT segmental focal sagittal angle of 1.98 ± 4.69, p < 0.05. Conclusion: Application of Uniportal Endoscopic Posterolateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion in patients with severe foraminal stenosis secondary to severe collapsed disc space significantly relieved patients’ pain and restored disc height without early subsidence or exiting nerve root dysesthesia in our cohort of patients.

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

Purpose

Although lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is the most common spinal disease in the elderly, there is still a confusion about the appropriate surgical treatment strategy. The aim of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of full-endoscopic and microscopic unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) for LSS in elderly patients.

Patients and Methods

A retrospective analysis of 61 consecutive elderly patients with LSS who underwent either full-endoscopic (FE group) or microscopic (Micro group) unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression was performed. Clinical data were assessed before 2 weeks, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months after surgery using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the modified MacNab criteria.

Results

There are no significant differences in VAS (back and leg) and ODI between the two groups. However, the VAS back pain in the FE group was significantly improved compared to the Micro group at 2 weeks. The rate of excellent or good outcomes was 87.88% and 85.71% in the FE and Micro group, respectively (P>0.05). The hospital stay and early ambulation in FE group were shorter than those in Micro group, but the operation time was longer (P<0.05). The complications between the FE group (18.18%) and the Micro group (17.86%) were minor (P>0.05).

Conclusion

Both full-endoscopic and microscopic decompression have achieved favorable clinical results in treating elderly lumbar spinal stenosis, and the complications are minor. Full-endoscopic decompression has the advantages of small incision and rapid recovery, which can be used as an alternative for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis, especially the elderly with comorbidities.

Technical Considerations of Uniportal Endoscopic Posterolateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Review of Its Early Clinical Results in Application in Adult Degenerative Scoliosis

BACKGROUND

Uniportal endoscopic posterolateral lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) provides one of the least invasive forms of minimally invasive surgery, allowing large size cages which are commercially available for open and tubular microscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) to be inserted through this approach. We studied the effect of such a technique on a series of patients with low-grade degenerative scoliosis.

METHODS

Endo-TLIF was applied to patients who had 10°-40° of degenerative adult scoliosis. Pre- and postoperative 1-week, 3-month, and final follow-up clinical status of visual analog scale, Oswestry Disability Index, perioperative complications, and Macnab criteria were collected. Roentgenogram to assess changes in Cobb angles was done.

RESULTS

There was statistically significant improvement of preoperative, 1-week postoperative, 3-month postoperative, and final follow-up mean of visual analog scale scores with 7.72 (5-10), 3.68 (3-6), 2.88 (2-4), and 1.96 (1-3), respectively, and with Oswestry Disability Index mean of 70.4 (52-86), 35.12 (26-56), 27.68 (24-38), and 24 (20-28), respectively (P < 0.05). In terms of Macnab criteria, 100% had good to excellent result. In terms of scoliosis measured by Cobb angle, there was statistically significant improvement.

CONCLUSIONS

Endo-TLIF is a safe and effective procedure in mild to moderate degenerative scoliosis with good early clinical results and improvement in coronal Cobb angle. It can be considered as an option if a short segment(s) fusion is planned for adult degenerative scoliosis.

Percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis in the elderly

OBJECTIVES

Percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic decompression (PTED) under local anesthesia is rarely performed for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) because of the limited field of vision, inherent instability, etc. The objective of this study was to describe the procedure of the PTED technique and to demonstrate the early clinical outcomes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From January 2017 to January 2019, 40 consecutive patients aged 60 and older were diagnosed with LSS with DLS in our institution and underwent PTED. All patient were followed up to 1 year postoperatively. The clinical outcomes were evaluated using the visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and modified MacNab criteria.

RESULTS

The mean age was 70.2 ± 7.1 years. Follow-up ranged from 12 to 24 months. The mean ± SD values of the preoperative VAS leg pain and ODI scores were 7.5 ± 1.1 and 67.3 ± 9.3, respectively. The scores improved to 2.2 ± 1.1 and 20.7 ± 8.1 at 12 months postoperatively. The outcomes of the modified MacNab criteria showed that 87.5 % of patients obtained a good-to-excellent rate. The percent slippage of spondylolisthesis before surgery (10.8 ± 2.6 %) and at the end of follow-up (11.0 ± 2.4 %) was not significantly different. One patient had a dural tear and intracranial hypertension, and one patient had tibialis anterior weakness.

CONCLUSION

PTED under local anesthesia could be an effective treatment method for LSS with DLS in elderly patients. However, potential complications still require further evaluation.