Therapeutic Effect of Large Channel Endoscopic Decompression in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

Comparison of the short-term effects of lumbar endoscopic and microscopic tubular unilateral laminotomy with bilateral decompression in the treatment of elderly patients with lumbar spinal stenosis

Objective

To compare the clinical efficacy of lumbar endoscopic Delta large channel and microscopic tubular Quadrant channel unilateral laminotomy with bilateral decompression in the treatment of elderly patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.

Methods

A total of 40 patients aged above 75 years with lumbar spinal stenosis admitted from June 2019 to August 2021 were reviewed, in which the observation group was treated with the Delta large channel technique and the control group was treated with Quadrant channel open decompression. The general data, duration of illness, operation time, intraoperative bleeding, VAS score preoperatively, 3 days postoperatively, 3 months postoperatively and 6 months postoperatively, and ODI index of the two groups were recorded in the two groups.

Results

The observation group had significantly shorter operation time (59.93 ± 10.46 min vs 77.66 ± 12.44 min, P < 0.001) and less intraoperative bleeding (21.06 ± 4.59 mL vs 51.00 ± 10.02 mL, P < 0.001) than the control group. There were no significant differences between the two groups in the duration of illness (11.85 ± 5.08 years vs 13.80 ± 7.40 years, P = 0.337), VAS score preoperatively (6.05 ± 1.19 vs 6.40 ± 1.47, P = 0.412), 3 days postoperatively (1.90 ± 0.85 vs 2.00 ± 1.08, P = 0.746), 3 months postoperatively (1.10 ± 0.31 vs 1.20 ± 0.41, P = 0.389) and 6 months postoperatively (1.25 ± 0.44 vs 1.30 ± 0.57, P = 0.759), and ODI index preoperatively (0.78 ± 0.07 vs 0.74 ± 0.07, P = 0.09), 3 months postoperatively (0.28 ± 0.06 vs 0.30 ± 0.05, P = 0.189) and 6 months postoperatively (0.21 ± 0.07 vs 0.22 ± 0.04, P = 0.444) (P > 0.05). The ODI index 3 days postoperatively in the observation group was significantly lower than that in the control group (0.33 ± 0.06 vs 0.37 ± 0.05, P = 0.022).

Conclusion

Both surgical methods had good clinical outcomes for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. However, Delta large channel endoscopy had a clearer vision, less trauma and lower incidence of early postoperative back pain than that of Quadrant channel open decompression.

Comparison of posterior decompression techniques and conventional laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis

Objectives

To compare the efficacy of posterior decompression techniques with conventional laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis.

Methods

The Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library databases were searched with no language limitations from inception to January 13, 2022. The main outcomes were functional disability, perceived recovery, leg and back pain, complications. A random effects model was used to pooled data. Risk ratio (RR), mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to report results. The study protocol was published in PROSPERO (CRD42022302218).

Results

14 trials including 1,106 participants were included in the final analysis. Bilateral laminotomy was significantly more efficacious in improve functionality than laminectomy [MD: -2.94; (95% CI, -4.12 to -1.76)]. Low incidence of iatrogenic instability due to bilateral laminectomy compared with laminectomy [RR: 0.11; (95% CI, 0.02 to 0.59)]. In addition, between those who received bilateral laminotomy and those undergoing laminectomy, the result showed significant difference regarding recovery [RR: 1.31; (95% CI, 1.03 to 1.67)].

Conclusions

This study provides evidence that bilateral laminotomy has advantages in functional recovery, postoperative stability, and postoperative rehabilitation outcomes. Further research is needed to determine whether posterior techniques provide a safe and effective option for conventional laminectomy.

Clinical Application of Large Channel Endoscopic Systems with Full Endoscopic Visualization Technique in Lumbar Central Spinal Stenosis: A Retrospective Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION

Recently, large channel endoscopic systems and full endoscopic visualization technique have been used to perform unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) treatment for lumbar central spinal stenosis (LCSS). However, various endoscopic systems possess different design parameters, which may affect the technical points and treatment outcomes. The object of this retrospective study was to compare the efficiency, safety, and effectiveness of ULBD under the iLESSYS Delta system versus the Endo-Surgi Plus system.

METHODS

In the period from October 2020 to April 2021, ULBD was performed using the iLESSYS Delta system or Endo-Surgi Plus system to treat LCSS. Patients were classified into two groups based on the endoscopy system employed. Patient demographics, perioperative indexes, complications, and imaging characteristics were reviewed. Clinical outcomes were quantified using back and leg visual analog scale (VAS) scores and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at the time points of follow-up.

RESULTS

Thirty-two patients were assigned to the iLESSYS Delta system group and 37 to the Endo-Surgi Plus system group. In the comparison between the two groups, the Endo-Surgi Plus system possessed a shorter incision length and operation time (p < 0.005), and no statistical differences in other aspects were observed. The dural sacs of both groups were significantly expanded postoperatively compared to preoperatively (p < 0.001). Both groups experienced improvements in VAS and ODI scores at all time points (p < 0.001) and equally low frequency of complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Current research suggests that both the Endo-Surgi Plus system and iLESSYS Delta system achieved favorable high safety and clinical outcomes in ULBD for treatment of LCSS. The use of a fully visualized trephine may have increased the efficiency of the Endo-Surgi Plus system. Moreover, the Endo-Surgi Plus system may be associated with a wider decompression range and indications.

Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion vs. Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) is an effective surgical option for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) with spondylolisthesis. However, few studies have discussed oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) with MIS-TLIF.

Objective

To evaluate postoperative improvements, complications, and reoperation rates between patients with LSS undergoing OLIF or MIS-TLIF.

Methods

We retrospectively studied 113 LLS patients who underwent OLIF (53) or MIS-TLIF (60) with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation between January 2016 and December 2018. We measured estimated blood loss, operative time, hospital stay, reoperation, and complication incidence, visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA), and Short Form-36 (SF-36) scores, discal and foraminal height and lumbar lordotic angle.

Results

The mean age was 58.81 ± 0.9 years. The TLIF group had increased operation time, blood loss, and hospital stays (p = 0.007, 0.001, and 0.016, respectively). Postoperatively, VAS and ODI scores significantly decreased while JOA and SF-36 scores significantly increased. The postoperative differences in main outcomes between the groups were insignificant (all p &gt; 0.05). The OLIF group had the lowest rates of overall (9.8% OLIF vs. 12.9% MIS-TLIF), intraoperative (3.9% OLIF vs. 4.8% MIS-TLIF), and postoperative complications (5.9% OLIF vs. 8.1% MIS-TLIF), but the differences were insignificant (p = 0.607, 0.813, and 0.653, respectively). The reoperation rate did not differ significantly (3.8% OLIF vs. 3.3% MIS-TLIF) (p = 0.842). OLIF restored disc height (74.4 vs. 32.0%), foraminal height (27.4 vs. 18.2%), and lumbar lordotic angle (3.5 vs. 1.1%) with greater success than did MIS-TLIF.

Conclusion

Patients undergoing OLIF with LSS improved similarly to MIS-TLIF patients. OLIF restored disc height, foraminal height and lumbar lordotic angle more successfully than did MIS-TLIF.