Endoscopic discectomy of L5-S1 disc herniation via an interlaminar approach: Prospective controlled study under local and general anesthesia

Comparative outcomes of awake spine surgery under spinal versus general anesthesia: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Awake surgery, under spinal anesthesia (SA), is an alternative to surgery under general anesthesia (GA), in neurological and spine surgery. In the literature, there seem to be some evidence supporting benefits associated with the use of this anesthetic modality, as compared to GA. Currently, there is a notable lack of updated and comprehensive review addressing the complications associated with both awake SA and GA in spine surgery. We hence aimed to perform a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis on the topic.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted to identify studies that assessed SA in spine surgery from database inception to April 14, 2023, in PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Outcomes of interest included estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, operative time, and overall complications. Meta-analysis was conducted using random effects models.

RESULTS

In total, 38 studies that assessed 7820 patients were included. The majority of the operations that were treated with SA were single-level lumbar cases. Awake patients had significantly shorter lengths of hospital stay (Mean difference (MD): - 0.40 days; 95% CI - 0.64 to - 0.17) and operative time (MD: - 19.17 min; 95% CI - 29.68 to - 8.65) compared to patients under GA. The overall complication rate was significantly higher in patients under GA than SA (RR, 0.59 [95% CI 0.47-0.74]). Patients under GA had significantly higher rates of postoperative nausea/vomiting RR, 0.60 [95% CI 0.39-0.90]) and urinary retention (RR, 0.61 [95% CI 0.37-0.99]).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing awake spine surgery under SA had significantly shorter operations and hospital stays, and fewer rates of postoperative nausea and urinary retention as compared to GA. In summary, awake spine surgery offers a valid alternative to GA and added benefits in terms of postsurgical complications, while being associated with relatively low morbidity.

The Current Status of Awake Endoscopic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To examine the use of local anesthesia and/or conscious sedation in endoscopic spine procedures within the past decade.

METHODS

This systematic review abided by PRISMA guidelines. Embase, PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane databases were searched for post-2011 articles with patients >18 years old, lumbar/cervical percutaneous endoscopic spine procedures using local/awake anesthesia, and patient/surgical outcomes. Reviews, book chapters, single case reports, or small case series (n ≤15 patients) were excluded. Scoring systems of the National Institutes of Health quality assessment tool, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and Cochrane Risk of Bias evaluated interventional case series, comparative studies, and randomized control trials, respectively.

RESULTS

Twenty-six articles were included, with 4 studies comparing general and local anesthesia. Of 2113 total patients, 1873 patients received local anesthesia. Significant improvements were seen in pain and disability scores. Studies that included MacNab scores showed that 96% of patients rated their postoperative satisfaction as excellent to good. Subanalysis of comparative studies showed a reduced risk of surgical/major medical complications and a slight increased risk for minor medical complications among awake spine patients. Length of stay was shorter for patients receiving local anesthesia.

CONCLUSIONS

The current systematic review and meta-analysis shows that use of local anesthesia is a safe and effective alternative to general anesthesia among different endoscopic spinal procedures. Although awake spine surgery is associated with a decreased risk of severe complications, lower revision rates, and higher postoperative satisfaction, more robust studies involving larger cohorts of patients are needed to evaluate the true impact of awake spine surgery on outcomes.

Spinal anesthesia for L5-S1 interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy: a retrospective study

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to report our experience with spinal anesthesia (SA) in patients undergoing L5-S1 interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy (IELD) and clarify its advantages and disadvantages.

METHODS

One hundred twelve patients who underwent IELD for an L5-S1 disc herniation under SA were retrospectively analyzed. SA with 0.5% ropivacaine was administered using a 27-gauge fine needle. Intraoperatively, the volume and level of SA, surgical time, blood loss, and cardiopulmonary complications were documented. Postoperative data was collected included the number of patients who ambulated on the day of surgery, incidence of complications and were then statistically analyzed.

RESULTS

Analgesia was complete throughout the entire operation in all patients and no other adjuvant intraoperative analgesic drugs were needed. Mean visual analog scale scores for intraoperative and early postoperative (24 h) pain were 0 and 2.43 ± 1.66. SA was administered at the L3-4 interspace in 34 patients (30.4%) and the L2-3 interspace in 78 (69.6%). Administration was successful with the first attempt in all patients. Mean operation time was 70.12 ± 6.52 min. Mean intraoperative blood loss volume was 20.71 ± 5.26 ml. Ninety-eight patients ambulated on the same day as surgery. Mean length of hospital stay was 24.36 ± 3.64 h. Dural injury without damaging the nerve root occurred in one patient. One patient experienced recurrent disc herniation. Intraoperative hypotension and respiratory distress occurred in five (4.5%) and three (2.7%) patients, respectively. Three patients (2.7%) received postoperative analgesia therapy and two (1.8%) experienced nausea. Two patients (1.8%) developed urinary retention. Spinal headache, cauda equina syndrome, and neurotoxicity did not occur.

CONCLUSION

SA can achieve satisfactory pain control for patients undergoing IELD with a low incidence of adverse events. SA may be a useful alternative to local and general anesthesia for IELD surgery. Future randomized controlled trials are warranted to investigate.

One-hole split endoscopy technique versus unilateral biportal endoscopy technique for L5-S1 lumbar disk herniation: analysis of clinical and radiologic outcomes

BACKGROUND

Lumbar disk herniation (LDH) is one of the most common diseases of the spine, especially occurring in L4-5 and L5-S1 intervertebral disks, and surgery is a choice when conservative treatment is ineffective. The purpose of this study is to investigate the clinical efficacy and radiologic outcomes of one-hole split endoscopy (OSE) technique versus unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) technique in the treatment of L5-S1 lumbar disk herniation (LDH).

METHODS

A total of 133 patients of a single center surgically treated for L5-S1 LDH between 2019 and 2021 were retrospectively included in this study, of which 70 were treated by UBE technique and the rest were treated by OSE technique. Hospitalization time, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, fluoroscopy times, incision length and related complications were recorded. Bone resection area (BRA), articular process resection rate, range of motion (ROM), sagittal translation (ST), disk height (DH), Visual Analog Score (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Macnab criteria were used to evaluated the clinical efficacy.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference in hospitalization time or fluoroscopy times between the two groups. The operation time was shorter in the UBE group than that in the OSE group; however, the incision length was longer. Intraoperative blood loss and BRA were larger in the UBE group than in the OSE group. There was no significant difference in ROM, ST, DH, or postoperative facet resection rate between the two groups. There was no significant difference in ROM, ST, or postoperative facet resection rate compared with preoperative indicators in each group, but there was a significant difference in DH among distinct groups. At any time point, the lower back and leg VAS and ODI in each group were significantly improved compared to those before the operation, with no significant difference between the two groups. There was one case of dural tear in the UBE group. One case of transient hypoesthesia occurred in each of the two groups. The excellent-good rates of the UBE group and the OSE group were 88.6% and 90.5%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The OSE technique is an effective minimally invasive surgical option as well as the UBE technique in the treatment of L5-S1 LDH.

Anesthesia methods for full-endoscopic lumbar discectomy: a review

Full-endoscopic lumbar discectomy under local anesthesia is major trends for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation in spine minimally invasive surgery. However, sometimes local anesthesia is not enough for analgesic in surgery especially in interlaminar approach. This study summarizes the current study of anesthesia methods in full-endoscopic lumbar discectomy. Local anesthesia is still the most common anesthesia method in full-endoscopic lumbar discectomy and the comparison group for other anesthesia methods due to high safety. Compared to local anesthesia, Epidural anesthesia is less applied in full-endoscopic lumbar discectomy but reports better intraoperative pain control and equivalent safety due to the motor preservation and pain block characteristic of ropivacaine. General anesthesia can achieve totally pain block during surgery but nerve injury can not be ignored, and intraoperative neuromonitoring can assist. Regional anesthesia application is rare but also reports better anesthesia effects during surgery and equivalent safety. Anesthesia methods for full-endoscopic lumbar discectomy should be based on patient factors, surgical factors, and anesthesiologist factors to achieve satisfactory anesthesia experience and successful surgery.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

General vs Local Anesthesia for Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy (PELD): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

It remains unknown whether general anesthesia (GA) or local ± epidural anesthesia (LA) results in superior outcomes with percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD). The present study sought to examine the impact of anesthesia type on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and complications with PELD.

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis examining PELD performed under GA or LA was conducted. Patient-reported outcomes including Visual Analog Scale (VAS)-leg/back, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores were collected. Complication, recurrent disc herniation, durotomy, and reoperation rates as well as surgical data were recorded. All outcomes were compared between pooled studies examining GA or LA.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight studies consisting of 5269 patients (724 GA, 4465 LA) were included in the meta-analysis. Overall complication rate was significantly higher in the GA group (9% vs 4%, P = .003). Durotomy rates, length of stay, recurrent disc herniation and reoperation rates were similar between groups. At the first follow-up timepoint, the LA group demonstrated significant improvements in VAS back and ODI scores (P < .05) while the GA group did not (P > .05). At the final follow-up (> 6 months), the percent of patients achieving an excellent McNab score was significantly higher in the GA vs LA group (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy with LA may be associated with greater short-term improvement in VAS back pain and ODI scores. General anesthesia may be associated with more durable pain relief but a higher complication rate. Further systematic investigation is necessary to determine what short and long term benefits are associated with PELD performed under LA and GA.

Risk factors for lumbar disc herniation recurrence after percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy: a meta-analysis of 58 cohort studies

Recurrent lumbar disc herniation (rLDH) is one of the most serious complications and major causes of surgical failure and paralysis following percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD). There are reports in the literature on the identification of risk factors associated with rLDH; however, the results are controversial. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to identify risk factors for rLDH among patients following spinal surgery. PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched without language restrictions from inception to April 2018 for studies reporting risk factors for LDH recurrence after PELD. MOOSE guidelines were followed in this meta-analysis. We used a random effects model to aggregate odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The evidence of observational studies was classified into high quality (class I), medium quality (class II/III), and low quality (class IV) based on the P value of the total sample size and heterogeneity between studies. Fifty-eight studies were identified with a mean follow-up of 38.8 months. Studies with high-quality (class I) evidence showed that postoperative LDH recurrence after PELD was significantly correlated with diabetes (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.14 to 2.31), the protrusion type LDH (OR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.02 to 2.61), and less experienced surgeons (OR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.10 to 2.16). Studies with medium-quality (class II or III) evidence showed that postoperative LDH recurrence was significantly correlated with advanced age (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.19), Modic changes (OR, 2.23; 95% CI, 1.53 to 2.29), smoking (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.71), no college education (OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.05 to 2.31), obesity (BMI ≥ 25 kg/m²) (OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.11 to 2.47), and inappropriate manual labor (OR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.33 to 3.59). Based on the current literature, eight patient-related and one surgery-related risk factor are predictors of postoperative LDH recurrence after PELD. These findings may help clinicians raise awareness of early intervention for patients at high risk of LDH recurrence after PELD.

Local Anesthesia Versus General Anesthesia in Percutaneous Interlaminar Endoscopic Discectomy: A Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to systematically evaluate the safety and efficacy of local anesthesia (LA) and general anesthesia (GA) in percutaneous interlaminar endoscopic discectomy (PIED).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, EuropePMC, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane databases, and CNKI databases for all relevant studies. All statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager version 5.3.

RESULTS

A total of 6 articles with 549 study participants were included, with 282 patients in LA group and 267 patients in GA group. The results of the meta-analysis showed that the LA group had significantly better results in hospital stay time (mean difference [MD], -1.68; 95% CI, -3.35 to -0.01) and hospital costs (MD, -0.57, 95% CI, -1.02 to -0.12) compared with the GA group; whereas Oswestry Disability Index (MD, 0.48; 95% CI, -0.07 to 1.04), Visual Analog Scale Scores (MD, -0.05; 95% CI, -0.24 to 0.13), postoperative transient dysesthesia and weakness (odds ratio [OR], 0.83, 95% CI, 0.40 to 1.69), dura and nerve root injury (OR, 0.21, 95% CI, 0.03 to 1.25), operation time (MD, -3.51; 95% CI, -11.5 to 4.48), and willingness rate to receive the same procedure(OR, 0.12, 95% CI, 0.01 to 1.00) showed no significant differences between the 2 groups.

DISCUSSION

LA can effectively relieve pain during PIED surgery and ensure the safety of operation without increasing the occurrence of postoperative complications. PIED under LA not only has similar patient satisfaction but also shows obvious advantages in shortening hospital stay and reducing hospital costs compared with GA surgery.

Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for L5-S1 disc herniation based on image analysis and clinical findings: A retrospective review of 345 cases

The effect of spinal anatomical anomalies on the efficacy of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) for disc herniation repair is unclear. This retrospective review aims to assess the safety and effectiveness of PELD for treating L5-S1 disc herniation with a range of characteristics and to determine the prevalence of lumbosacral transitional vertebrae (LSTV) anatomical anomalies to facilitate pre-surgical planning. From July 2005 to June 2019, 345 patients with L5-S1 disc herniations were treated with PELD. The primary outcome was 1-year postoperative visual analogue scale scores for low back and lower limb pain. The secondary outcomes included the surgical approach used, lumbosacral bony anomalies, presence of a ruptured disc or severely calcified disc, pediatric lumbar disc herniation, recurrent disc herniation management, and the long-term outcome. visual analogue scale scores for most patients were significantly improved after surgery. The prevalence of LSTVs was 4.05% (14/345 patients) in lumbar sacralization and 7.53% (26/345 patients) in sacral lumbarization. The prevalence of ruptured and severely calcified discs was 18.55% (64/345) and 5.79% (20/345), respectively. The prevalence of pediatric lumbar disc herniation was 2.02% (7/345). The recurrence rate was 4.34% (15/345). Two durotomy cases without sequelae and 8 cases of lower limb dysesthesia lasting longer than 3 months postoperatively were reported. PELD is safe and effective for treating L5-S1 disc herniation, including cases complicated by calcified lumbar disc herniation, disc rupture with migration, and the presence of LSTV. Appropriate imaging is essential to identify case-specific factors, including the prevalent LSTV anatomical anomalies, before surgery.

How to start an awake spine program: Protocol and illustrative cases

Surgical techniques and technology are steadily improving, thereby expanding the pool of patients amenable for spine surgery. The growing and aging population in the United States further contributes to the increase in spine surgery cases. Traditionally, spine surgery is performed under general anesthesia. However, awake spinal surgery has recently gained traction due to evidence of decreased perioperative risks, postoperative opioid consumption, and costs, specifically in lumbar spine procedures. Despite the potential for improving outcomes, awake spine surgery has received resistance and has yet to become adopted at many healthcare systems. We aim to provide the fundamental steps in facilitating the initiation of awake spine surgery programs. We also present case reports of two patients who underwent awake spine surgery and reported improved clinical outcomes.

•

Starting an Awake Spine program is feasible and may improve clinical outcomes.

•

Awake Spine Surgery is associated with reduced cardiopulmonary complications and opioid consumption.

•

Awake Spine Surgery is effective at reducing LOS, HAC, and cost of surgery.

•

Awake Spine Surgery increases the pool of patients eligible for spinal procedures.

Microendoscopic lumbar discectomy with general versus local anesthesia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

While general anesthesia (GA) is the most commonly used anesthetic method during lumbar microendoscopic discectomy (MED), local ± epidural anesthesia (LA) has been gaining popularity as an alternate method. Theoretical advantages of LA include reduced morbidity of anesthesia and improved surgeon-patient communication facilitating less nerve root manipulation and yielding improved surgical outcomes. The objective of this systematic review is to examine the impact of anesthesia type on patient reported outcomes (PROs) and complications with MED.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the available literature examining MED performed under GA or LA was performed. The PubMed, EMBASE and SCOPUS databases were searched from inception to August 16, 2021, utilizing strict inclusion and exclusion criteria with all studies reporting greater than 6 months of follow-up and PRO data. PROs including Visual Analog Scale (VAS)-leg/back, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) and/or 36-Item Short Form (SF-36) physical component scores were collected. Complication, recurrent disc herniation, durotomy and reoperation rates as well as surgical factors were collected. All outcomes were compared between pooled studies examining GA or LA. Risk of bias was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

Results

A total of 23 studies consisting of 2,868 patients (1,335 GA, 1,533 LA) were included in the meta-analysis. There were no significant differences between GA and LA groups in regard to overall complication rate, durotomy rate, recurrent disc herniation rate, reoperation rate, blood loss, or surgical time (p > 0.05). Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in ODI and JOA (p<0.0004), however leg and back VAS was only improved in GA (p<0.0025) and not in LA (p>0.058), and SF-36 only in LA (p=0.003).

Conclusions

Patients undergoing MED under both anesthetic techniques demonstrated significant improvements in ODI and JOA, with no significant differences in complication or reoperation rates. However, patients undergoing GA demonstrated significant improvement in VAS leg and back pain at last follow-up while LA did not. LA may be offered to carefully selected patients and prior studies have demonstrated reduced costs and risks with LA. Conclusions are limited by a high level of study bias and heterogeneity. Further investigation is needed to assess the true effects of GA and LA on outcomes after MED.

Transforaminal Endoscopic Discectomy Under General and Local Anesthesia: A Single-Center Study

Percutaneous spinal endoscopy is used for the treatment of disorders of the lumbar spine, as it has several advantages over traditional surgical methods. The performance of percutaneous spinal endoscopy is not possible without applying anesthesia methods. Two types (local and general) of anesthesia are used for percutaneous spinal endoscopy. Both, local and general anesthesia approaches contribute to safety in surgical procedures. Although it is believed that the method of local anesthesia has more benefits over general anesthesia, such as lowering the risk of postoperative neurological complications in a patient, the literature on the topic is inconclusive. The study aims to perform a comparative analysis of the two anesthesia methods using a prospective case-control design. Patients were divided into two groups: those who received local anesthesia (LA) (20 patients), and those who underwent general anesthesia (GA) (20 patients). As a result of the study, 40% of the patients experienced moderate pain and 5% of the patients experienced excruciating pain intraoperatively in the LA group. Although Visual Analog Scale and Oswestry Disability Index scores improved more rapidly in LA group, at the 12-month check-up point there was no significant difference between cases and controls. Nevertheless, there were postoperative complications such as nerve root injury in 10% of the patients; nausea, vomiting, dizziness, drowsiness in 15% of the patients in the GA group, and an insignificant or no such complications in patients of the LA group. The present study demonstrates that LA contributes to more positive short-term outcomes for patients as it facilitates nerve root damage prevention, and has no postoperative side effects on patients' well being.

Local Anesthesia and Conscious Sedation Does Not Affect Patient's Mood and Anxiety Levels during Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Diskectomy: A Prospective Study

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

 Undergoing a surgical procedure can be very stressful for patients and can lead to high anxiety levels during both the preoperative and the postoperative period. Levels of anxiety and fear may depend on multiple factors including the type of anesthesia to be used. The objective of this study is to evaluate whether patient's awareness of the surgical environment in the operating room under local anesthesia and conscious sedation (LACS) affects their mood and anxiety levels.

METHODS

 We performed a prospective study for a series of consecutive patients who underwent transforaminal percutaneous endoscopic lumbar diskectomy (PELD) for the treatment of lumbar disk herniation. The patients completed Profile of Mood States (POMS) and State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) forms in the preoperative period and in the early postoperative period. We divided the patients into two groups according to the type of anesthesia applied during surgery: LACS and general anesthesia (GA) groups. We compared the preoperative and postoperative POMS and STAI scores between groups and the change of these scores between the preoperative and postoperative periods in each group.

RESULTS

 In this study, we included 30 patients who underwent PELD between May and December 2019 and met the inclusion criteria. The GA group consisted of 16 patients and the LACS group consisted of 14 patients. In each group, POMS and STAI scores decreased in the early postoperative period compared with the preoperative period. We found no significant difference in percentage of POMS and STAI TX-1 score changes between the LACS and GA groups.

CONCLUSION

 The results of our study show that patients' awareness of the surgical environment in the operating room under LACS does not significantly affect their mood and anxiety levels and patients do not seem to endure increased emotional stress during the PELD operation, as compared with PELD operation under GA.

Spine surgery under awake spinal anesthesia: an Egyptian experience during the COVID-19 pandemic

OBJECTIVE

Despite tremendous advancements in biomedical science and surgical technique, spine surgeries are still associated with considerable rates of morbidity and mortality, particularly in the elderly. Multiple novel techniques have been employed in recent years to adequately treat spinal diseases while mitigating the perioperative morbidity associated with traditional spinal surgery. Some of these techniques include minimally invasive methods and novel anesthetic and analgesic methods. In recent years, awake spine surgery with spinal anesthesia has gained attention as an alternative to general anesthesia (GA). In this study, the authors retrospectively reviewed a single-institution Egyptian experience with awake spine surgery using spinal anesthesia during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

Overall, 149 patients who were admitted to As-Salam International Hospital in Cairo for lumbar and lower thoracic spine surgeries, between 2019 and 2020, were retrospectively reviewed. Patient demographics and comorbidities were collected and analyzed. Visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores were assessed at different time intervals including preoperatively, immediately after surgery, and 1 year postoperatively. Patient satisfaction was queried through a questionnaire assessing patient preference for traditional anesthesia or spinal anesthesia.

RESULTS

Of the 149 patients who successfully received spine surgery with spinal anesthesia, there were 49 males and 100 females. The cohort age ranged from 22 to 85 years with a mean of 47.5 years. The operative time ranged from 45 to 300 minutes with a mean estimated blood loss (EBL) of 385 ± 156 mL. No major cardiopulmonary or intraoperative complications occurred, and patients were able to eat immediately after surgery. Patients were able to ambulate without an assistive device 6 to 8 hours after surgery. Decompression and fusion patients were discharged on postoperative days 2 and 3, respectively. VAS and ODI scores demonstrated excellent pain relief, which was maintained at the 1-year postoperative follow-up. No 30- or 90-day readmissions were recorded. Of 149 patients, 124 were satisfied with spinal anesthesia and would recommend spinal anesthesia to other patients. The remaining patients were not satisfied with spinal anesthesia but reported being pleased with their postoperative clinical and functional outcomes. One patient was converted to GA due to the duration of the procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who received spinal anesthesia for awake spine surgery experienced short stays in the hospital, no readmissions, patient satisfaction, and well-controlled pain. The results of this study have validated the growing body of literature that demonstrates that awake spine surgery with spinal anesthesia is safe and associated with superior outcomes compared with traditional GA. Additionally, the ability to address chronic debilitating conditions, such as spinal conditions, with minimal use of valuable resources, such as ventilators, proved useful during the COVID-19 pandemic and could be a model should other stressors on healthcare systems arise, especially in developing areas of the world.

Transforaminal endoscopic excision of bi-segmental non-communicating spinal extradural arachnoid cysts: A case report and literature review

BACKGROUND

Spinal extradural arachnoid cysts (SEACs) are a rare cause of spinal cord compression. Typically, these cysts communicate with the intradural subarachnoid space through a small defect in the dural sac. For symptomatic SEACs, the standard treatment is to remove the cyst in total with a (hemi)laminectomy or laminoplasty. We present a rare case of bi-segmental non-communicating SEACs and describe our experience of using an endoscopic minimal access technique to remove bi-segmental non-communicating SEACs.

CASE SUMMARY

A 79-year-old female presented with pain related to bi-segmental SEACs at the T11-L1 segments. She underwent sequential transforaminal percutaneous endoscopic thoracic cystectomy of the SEACs. Following her first procedure, spinal magnetic resonance imaging demonstrated complete excision of the cyst at the T12-L1 segment. However, the cyst at the T11-T12 segment was still present. Thus, a second procedure was performed to remove this lesion. The patient’s right-sided lumbar and abdominal pain improved significantly postoperatively. Her Japanese Orthopaedic Association score increased from 11 to 25, her visual analogue scale score was reduced from 8 to 1. The physical and mental component summary of the 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36) were 15.5 and 34.375 preoperatively, and had increased to 79.75 and 77.275 at the last follow-up visit, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Bi-segmental non-communicating SEACs are extremely rare. Endoscopic surgery is a safe, effective, and reliable method for treating these cysts. In the event of bi-segmental SEACs, it is important to identify whether both cysts are communicating before surgery, and if not, to remove both cysts separately during the index surgery to avoid re-operation.

The biomechanical effect of the relevant segments after facet-disectomy in different diameters under posterior lumbar percutaneous endoscopes: a three-dimensional finite element analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the biomechanical influence after percutaneous endoscopic lumbar facetectomy in different diameters on segmental range of motion (ROM) and intradiscal pressure (IDP) of the relevant segments by establishing three dimensional finite element (FE) model.

METHODS

An intact L3-5 model was successfully constructed from the CT of a healthy volunteer as Model A (MA). The Model B (MB), Model C (MC) and Model D (MD) were obtained through facetectomy on L4 inferior facet in diameters 7.5 mm, 10 mm and 15 mm on MA for simulation. The ROM and IDP of L3/4 and L4/5 of four models were all compared in forward flexion, backward extension, left and right bending, left and right rotation.

RESULTS

Compared with MA, the ROM of L4/5 of MB, MC and MD all increased. MD changed more significantly than MB and MC in backward extension, right bending and right rotation. But that of MB and MC on L3/4 had no prominent change, while MD had a slight increase in backward extension. The IDP of MB and MC on L4/5 in six states was similar to MA, yet MD increased obviously in backward extension, right bending, left and right rotation. The IDP on L3/4 of MB and MC was resemble to MA in six conditions, nevertheless MD increased slightly only in backward extension.

CONCLUSION

Compared with the facetectomy in diameters 7.5 mm and 10 mm, the mechanical effect brought by facetectomy in diameter 15 mm on the operating segment changed more significantly, and had a corresponding effect on the adjacent segments.

Effect Analysis of Epidural Anesthesia with 0.4% Ropivacaine in Transforaminal Endoscopic Surgery

Background

Epidural anesthesia used in percutaneous endoscopic lumber discectomy (PELD) has the risk of complete neurotactile block. Patients cannot timely respond to the operator when the nerve is touched by mistake, so the potential risk of nerve injury cannot be avoided. According to pharmacodynamics, with the decrease of local anesthetic concentration, the nerve tactile gradually recovered; however, the analgesic effect also gradually weakened. Therefore, it is necessary to explore an appropriate concentration of local anesthetics that can keep the patients' nerve touch without pain. By comparing the advantages and disadvantages of 0.4% ropivacaine epidural anesthesia, local anesthesia and intravenous anesthesia on intraoperative circulation fluctuation, the incidence of salvage analgesia and the incidence of nerve non-touch, the feasibility of using low concentration epidural anesthesia in PELD to obtain enough analgesia and avoid the risk of nerve injury was confirmed.

Methods

153 cases of intervertebral foramen surgery from October 2017 to January 2020 were selected and divided into local anesthesia group (LA group), 0.4% ropivacaine epidural anesthesia group (EA group), and intravenous anesthesia group (IVA group) according to different anesthesia methods. The changes of blood pressure and heart rate, the incidence of rescue analgesia and nerve root non-touch were compared among the three groups.

Results

The difference of map peak value among the three groups was statistically significant (P < 0.001); pairwise comparison showed that the map peak value of the LA group was higher than that of the EA group (P < 0.001) and IVA group (P < 0.001), but there was no statistical significance between the EA group and IVA group. The difference of HR peak value among the three groups was statistically significant; pairwise comparison showed that the HR peak value of the LA group was higher than that of the EA group (P < 0.001) and IVA group (P < 0.001), but there was no statistical significance between the EA group and IVA group. There was significant difference in the incidence of intraoperative hypertension among the three groups (P < 0.05); pairwise comparison showed that the incidence of intraoperative hypertension in the EA group was lower than that in the LA group (P < 0.05), while there was no significant difference between the IVA group, EA group, and LA group. There was significant difference in the incidence of rescue analgesia among the three groups (P < 0.01); pairwise comparison showed that the incidence of rescue analgesia in the EA group was lower than that in the LA group (P < 0.05) and IVA group (P < 0.05), but there was no significant difference between the LA group and IVA group. Due to the different analgesic mechanisms of the three anesthesia methods, local anesthesia and intravenous anesthesia do not cause the loss of nerve tactile, while the incidence of nerve tactile in 0.4% ropivacaine epidural anesthesia is only 2.4%, which is still satisfactory.

Conclusion

Epidural anesthesia with 0.4% ropivacaine is a better anesthesia method for PELD. It not only has a low incidence of non-tactile nerve, but also has perfect analgesia and more stable intraoperative circulation.

Endoscopic and Microscopic Interlaminar Discectomy for the Treatment of Far-Migrated Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Retrospective Study with a 24-Month Follow-Up

Purpose

Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for the treatment of far-migrated lumbar disc herniation (LDH) is clinically challenging. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy (IELD) and interlaminar microscopic lumbar discectomy (IMLD) for the treatment of far-migrated LDH.

Materials and Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 50 consecutive cases of far-migrated LDH treated by IELD or IMLD. Clinical data and outcomes were assessed before the operation and 1 day and 3, 12, and 24 months after the surgery using the visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI). Modified MacNab criteria were used to evaluate patient satisfaction at the 24-month follow-up.

Results

A significant reduction in leg pain and improvement in ODI (P<0.01) were observed in both groups after surgery. Lower back pain (LBP) was reduced at 24 months postsurgery in the IELD group (P<0.05) but not in the IMLD group (P>0.05). There were significant intergroup differences in VAS LBP score at 1 day and 24 months postsurgery (p=0.01 and 0.02, respectively) and in ODI at 24 months (p=0.03). The rate of excellent or good outcome was 90.32% with IELD and 78.95% with IMLD (p=0.55). Hospital stay and time to ambulation were shorter in the IELD group than in the IMLD group, but the former had a longer operative time (p<0.01). Low and comparable complication rates were reported in the IELD (16.13%) and IMLD (10.53%) groups (p=0.70).

Conclusion

Both IELD and IMLD achieve favorable clinical results in the treatment of far-migrated LDH, with only minor complications. Compared to IMLD, LBP was significantly reduced with IELD presumably because it involved less trauma.

Awake spine surgery: An eye-opening movement

Background:

Awake surgery is performed in multiple surgical specialties, but historically, awake surgery in the field of neurosurgery was limited to craniotomies. Over the past two decades, spinal surgeons have pushed for techniques that only require regional anesthesia as they may provide reduced financial burdens on patients, faster recovery times, and better outcomes. The list of awake spine surgeries that have been found in the literature include: laminectomies/discectomies, anterior cervical discectomy and fusions (ACDFs), lumbar fusions, and dorsal column (DC) stimulator placement.

Methods:

An extensive review of the published literature was conducted through PubMed database with articles containing the search term “awake spine surgery.” No date restrictions were used.

Results:

The search yielded 293 related articles. Cross-checking of articles was conducted to exclude of duplicate articles. The articles were screened for their full text and English language availability. We finalized those articles pertaining to the topic. Findings have shown that lumbar laminectomies performed with local anesthesia have shown shorter operating time, less postoperative nausea, lower incidence of urinary retention and spinal headache, and shorter hospital stays when compared to those performed under general anesthesia. Lumbar fusions with local anesthesia showed similar outcomes as patients reported better postoperative function and fewer side effects of general anesthesia. DC stimulator placement performed with local anesthesia is advantageous as it allows real time patient feedback for surgeons as they directly test affected nerves. However, spontaneous movement during the placement of DC stimulators is associated with higher failure rates when compared to general anesthesia (29.7% vs. 14.9%). Studies have shown that the use of local anesthesia during ACDFs has no significant differences when compared to general anesthesia, and patient’s report better tolerated pain with general anesthesia.

Conclusion:

The use of awake spine surgery is beneficial for those who cannot undergo general anesthesia. However, it is limited to patients who can tolerate prone positioning with no central airway (i.e., normal BMI with a healthy airway), have no pre-existing mental health conditions (e.g., anxiety), and require a minimally invasive procedure with a short operating time. Future studies should focus on long-term efficacies of these procedures that provide further insight on the indications and limitations of awake spine surgery.

Efficacy, safety, and reliability of surgery on the lumbar spine under general versus spinal anesthesia- an analysis of 64 cases

QUASI-EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN PURPOSE

Compare intra and postoperative parameters, surgeons' satisfaction, and cost-effectiveness between general anesthesia (GA) and spinal anesthesia (SA) on patients undergoing surgery in the lumbar spine surgery.

OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE

Surgery on the lumbar spine is the commonest surgical procedure among all spinal surgical practices. Both the GA and SA are shown to be suitable techniques for performing the surgery safely. GA is used most frequently. But, SA became increasingly more popular because it allows the patient to self-position thereby reducing various complications associated with GA in a prone position.

METHODS

A total of 64 patients from June 2016 to July 2019 who underwent either discectomy, laminectomy, or lamino-foraminotomy for herniated lumbar disc or canal stenosis in 1 or 2 levels were included. During the study period, 32 patients were non-randomly selected for each of the GA and SA groups. The heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), blood loss, total anesthetic time, surgeons' satisfaction, analgesic requirements, cost of the procedure, and hospital stay were recorded and compared.

RESULTS

In the context of demographic characteristics, baseline HR, or MAP, no significant differences were noted between SA and GA groups. Mean anesthetic time, mean PACU time, mean doses of analgesic requirement, cost of anesthesia, and the surgeon's satisfaction was significantly lower in the SA Group (P < 0.05). The blood loss, duration of operation, and hospital stay were not significant too. No major Intra and postoperative complications were reported nor were significant differences found in either series.

CONCLUSION

Safety and efficacy of SA in comparison to GA were similar for the patients undergoing surgery on the lumbar spine. Notable advantages of SA include shorter anesthesia duration, fewer drug requirements, relative cost-effectiveness, and fewer complications rate. Successful surgery can be performed using either anesthesia type.

Efficacy of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for pediatric lumbar disc herniation and degeneration on magnetic resonance imaging: case series and literature review

OBJECTIVE

Pediatric lumbar disc herniation (LDH), although uncommon, causes significant pain, discomfort, and sometimes disability. We examined the efficacy of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) for pediatric LDH and the degree of lumbar disc degeneration at 1 year after PELD.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the data of pediatric patients with LDH who underwent PELD from December 2007 to July 2018. The patients' symptoms, physical examination findings, clinical images, visual analog scale (VAS) scores, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and perioperative results (blood loss, length of hospital stay, and complications) were obtained from the medical records. Lumbar disc degeneration was graded using the modified Pfirrmann grading system at the 1-year postoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examination.

RESULTS

Six boys and four girls who underwent PELD were evaluated. The patients' mean age was 15.6 years (range, 13-17 years). The mean VAS score for low back pain, mean VAS score for lower limb pain, and mean ODI preoperatively and 1 year postoperatively were 6.2 and 0.3, 6.9 and 0.5, and 20 and 0.1, respectively. MRI showed significant disc degeneration after PELD.

CONCLUSIONS

Treating pediatric LDH with PELD is safe and effective. It relieves pain and reduces disability. However, lumbar disc degeneration still occurs.

Feasibility of Unilateral Approach for Bilateral Decompressive Endoscopic Spinal Surgery for Lumbar Stenosis to Improve Back and Leg Pain: A Consecutive Single-Center Series of 60 Patients

Introduction: Endoscopic surgery is one of the methods that achieve the goal of decompression while minimizing collateral tissue damage. Its efficacy and safety have been supported by numerous studies. There is a plethora of studies on lumbar stenosis regarding the outcomes and related issues in endoscopic spine surgery. However, few studies evaluated the outcome of the decompressive lumbar spine surgery. The present study aims to analyze the outcome of a unilateral approach to endoscopic surgery for lumbar stenosis using the visual analog scale (VAS), the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and MacNab's criteria.

Methods: This is a retrospective study (level IV) conducted between January 2009 and December 2013 on 60 patients who underwent endoscopic interlaminar decompressive spine surgery (Destandau method) for lumbar degenerative spinal stenosis in the Hospital Universiti Sains Malaysia. The clinical outcome was measured pre-operatively and post-operatively for VAS: for back and leg pain, motor and sensory grading, the ODI, and MacNab's criteria. A paired t-test was used for statistical analysis.

Results: The mean age of patients was 60.82 years comprising 23 males (38.3%) and 37 females (61.7%). The mean follow-up period was 30.1 months (range = 17.2–43 months). The mean operation time was 183.6 min (ranging from 124.8 to 242.4 min), and the mean blood loss was 150.18 mL (ranging from 30.82 to 269.54 mL). Post-operatively, mean hospital stay was 2.45 days (ranging from 1.34 to 3.56 days). The most frequently involved level was L4/L5 in 51 patients (52.6%), followed by L3/L4 in 19 patients (19.6%), L5/S1 in 24 patients (24.7%), and L2/L3 in three patients (3.1%). Improvement in the post-operative VAS for back and leg pain and the ODI for pre-operation and post-operation was statistically significant (p < 0.001). Conversely, the reduction in neurological status was statistically insignificant. Based on MacNab's criteria, 88.4% showed excellent to good outcomes.

Conclusion: To summarize, unilateral percutaneous endoscopic spine surgery to achieve the bilateral decompression in lumbar stenosis provides excellent yet safe and effective outcomes. It improves back and leg pain and patients' function significantly.

Comparative outcome analysis of spinal anesthesia versus general anesthesia in lumbar fusion surgery

INTRODUCTION

Spinal anesthesia (SA) has been shown in several studies to be a viable alternative to general anesthesia (GA) in laminectomies, discectomies, and microdiscectomies. However, the use of SA in spinal fusion surgery has been very scarcely documented in the current literature. Here we present a comparison of SA to GA in lumbar fusion surgery in terms of perioperative outcomes and cost.

METHODS

The authors retrospectively reviewed the charts of all patients who underwent 1- or 2-level minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) surgery by a single surgeon, at a single institution, from 2015 to 2018. Data collected included demographics, operative and recovery times, nausea/vomiting, postoperative pain, and opioid requirement. Costs were included in the analysis if they were: 1) non-fixed; 2) incurred in the operating room (OR); and 3) directly related to patient care. All cost data represents net costs and was obtained from the hospital revenue cycle team. Patients were grouped for statistical analysis based on anesthetic modality.

RESULTS

A total of 29 patients received SA and 46 received GA. Both groups were similar in terms of age, gender, BMI, number of levels operated upon, preoperative diagnosis, and medical comorbidities. The SA group spent less time in the OR (163.86 ± 9.02 vs. 195.63 ± 11.27 min, p < 0.05), PACU (82.00 ± 7.17 vs. 102.98 ± 8.46 min, p < 0.05), and under anesthesia (175.03 ± 9.31 vs. 204.98 ± 10.15 min, p < 0.05) than the GA group. Post-surgery OR time was significantly less with SA than with GA (6.00 ± 1.09 vs. 17.26 ± 3.05 min, p < 0.05); however, pre-surgery OR time was similar between groups (50.17 ± 3.08 vs. 56.17 ± 5.34 min, p = 0.061). The SA group also experienced less maximum postoperative pain (3.31 ± 1.41 out of 10 vs. 5.96 ± 0.84/10, p < 0.05) and required less opioid analgesics (2.38 ± 1.37 vs. 5.39 ± 0.84 doses, p < 0.05). Both groups experienced similar nausea or vomiting rates and adverse events postoperatively. Net operative cost was found to be $812.31 (5.6%) less with SA than with GA, although this difference was not significant (p = 0.225).

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, SA is almost never used in lumbar fusion, and a cost-effectiveness comparison with GA has not been recorded. In this retrospective study, we demonstrate that the use of SA in lumbar fusion surgery leads to significantly shorter operative and recovery times, less postoperative pain and opioid usage, and slight cost savings over GA. Thus, we conclude that this anesthetic modality represents a safe and cost-effective alternative to GA in lumbar fusion.

Spinal Anesthesia for Geriatric Lumbar Spine Surgery: A Comparative Case Series

BACKGROUND

The use of spinal anesthesia (SA) as opposed to general anesthesia (GA) during elective lumbar spine surgery is an emerging technique and represents a potentially modifiable factor to limit perioperative complications. Few studies, however, have compared these anesthetic techniques in an elderly population. The aim of this study is to determine if SA is a safe alternative to GA for lumbar spine surgery in elderly patients.

METHODS

A retrospective, consecutive case series study was performed. All patients aged 70 years and older who underwent lumbar spine decompression or combined decompression and fusion using either SA or GA during a 2-year period at a single institution were identified. Demographics and perioperative outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

Of all patients meeting the inclusion criteria, 56 patients (19%) received SA and 239 (81%) received GA. Patients receiving SA were slightly older (median age, 77 years versus 75 years, P = .002), consisted of more men (57% versus 36%, P = .01), and had a lower mean body mass index (28.3 versus 30.1, P = .03). Indications for surgery and type of surgery were similar between groups. On average, operative times with SA were 101 minutes versus 103 minutes with GA (P = .71). After controlling for age, sex, and body mass index, patients receiving SA had decreased estimated blood loss (β = -75 mL; 95% confidence interval [CI], -140.6, -9.4; P = .025) and intraoperative intravenous fluid requirements (β = -205 mL; 95% CI, -389.4, -21.0; P = .029), shorter postanesthesia care unit stays (β = -41 minutes; 95% CI, -64.6, -16.9; P = .001), lower maximum visual analog scale pain scores (β = -0.89 points; 95% CI, -1.6, -0.1; P = .020), and decreased odds of receiving blood transfusion (odds ratio, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.01, 0.62; P = .45); there were no significant differences in operative time, length of stay, nausea, or oral morphine equivalents consumed per day. Complication rates were similar between groups.

CONCLUSION

Spinal anesthesia is a reasonable, safe alternative to general anesthesia for lumbar spine surgery in elderly patients with degenerative conditions.

Gradient local anesthesia for percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy at the L5/S1 level: a feasibility study

BACKGROUND

During the process of shearing the ligamentum flavum, rotating the working channel, and manipulating the annulus fibrosis, the sinuvertebral nerve and the spinal nerve root can be irritated, inducing intolerable back and leg pain. Thus, general anesthesia is recommended and well accepted by most surgeons when performing percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) via the interlaminar approach. The aim of our study was to explore the efficacy and safety of percutaneous endoscopy interlaminar lumbar discectomy with gradient local anesthesia (LA) in patients with L5/S1 disc herniation.

METHODS

This retrospective study was conducted between December 2017 and June 2018. The study included 50 consecutive patients who met the study criteria, had single-level L5/S1 disc herniation, and underwent PELD via the interlaminar approach under gradient LA. Different concentrations of local anesthetic compound (LAC) were injected into different tissues inside and outside the ligamentum flavum to complete gradient LA. The evaluation criteria included the intraoperative satisfaction score, visual analog scale (VAS) score, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), complications, and adverse reactions.

RESULTS

The intraoperative satisfaction score was consistently over 7, with an average score of 9.3 ± 0.7, indicating that LAC can achieve satisfactory pain control throughout the PELD operation without additional anesthesia. The postoperative VAS score and ODI were dramatically improved at each follow-up interval (P < 0.001, respectively). There was no serious complication such as dural rupture caused by puncture, dural laceration caused by manipulation under endoscopy, total spinal anesthesia, iatrogenic nerve root injury, epidural hematoma, infections, or local anesthetic-related adverse reactions. Three patients experienced transient postoperative dysesthesia of the lower limbs that gradually recovered within 24 h.

CONCLUSIONS

Gradient local anesthesia can satisfactorily and safely control intraoperative pain during the PELD via the interlaminar approach. It can not only improve intraoperative satisfaction, but also reduce local anesthesia-related adverse reactions and surgery-related complications.

Functional Evolution after Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy, an Earlier Evaluation of 32 Cases

Objective  To determine time period for hospital discharge and pain and function improvement in patients submitted to percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD).

Methods  Retrospective evaluation of length of stay and visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), and Roland-Morris questionnaire results in 32 patients undergoing PELD at the preoperative period and at 2 days and 1, 2, 4, 6 and 12 postoperative weeks.

Results  All patients were discharged in less than 6 hours. There was a statistically significant improvement between the results obtained before the procedure and 2 days postsurgery: the mean VAS for axial pain went from 6.63 to 3.31, the VAS for irradiated pain went from 6.66 to 2.75, the Oswestry score went from 44.59 to 33.17%, and the Roland-Morris score went from 14.03 to 10.34. This difference progressively improved up to 12 weeks in all questionnaires. Regarding the Oswestry score, minimum disability values (19.39%) were observed at 6 weeks.

Conclusion  All 32 patients were discharged within 6 hours. Pain and function improved significantly after 48 hours, with further significant and progressive improvement until the 3 ^rd month.

Epidural Anesthesia With Low Concentration Ropivacaine and Sufentanil for Percutaneous Transforaminal Endoscopic Discectomy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Introduction: Percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy is a simple and effective treatment for lumbar intervertebral disc herniation, and local anesthesia is often applied in this kind of surgery in many developing countries, including China. However, many patients still feel excruciating pain under this condition. Epidural anesthesia with low-concentration ropivacaine has no impact on muscle strength, and patients might follow the surgeon well during operation. We hypothesize that epidural anesthesia is feasible for percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy.

Methods: Two hundred patients with disc herniation who underwent percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy were randomized to receive either epidural anesthesia or local infiltration anesthesia. Primary outcome measures included the pain score, the cooperation degree, and patients' satisfaction. Mean arterial pressure and heart rate were also recorded.

Results: Compared with the local anesthesia group, visual analog scale scores, mean arterial pressure, and heart rate were significantly lower in the epidural anesthesia group (P < 0.05), and patients' satisfaction was higher. There were no significant differences in the total operation time or blood loss between two groups.

Conclusions: Epidural anesthesia with low-concentration ropivacaine and sufentanil is safe and effective for percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy.

Clinical Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: ChiCTR-IOR-17011768.

Indications and Contraindications of Full-Endoscopic Interlaminar Lumbar Decompression

BACKGROUND

Spinal stenosis is a common disease with an increasing incidence. Narrowing of the spinal canal is caused by bone and soft tissue degeneration, such as osteophyte formation, facet and ligamentum flavum hypertrophy, and disc herniation. Various surgical techniques have been used to treat spinal canal stenosis, including open, tubular, microsurgical decompression, and fusion surgery. This article presents the technique for full-endoscopic interlaminar bilateral decompression of the lumbar spine.

METHODS

Surgical approach, anatomy, pathology, indications, contraindications, and surgical equipment are described.

RESULTS

With well-chosen endoscopic equipment, surgical time can be reduced with minimal collateral damage. Clear advantages of full-endoscopic decompression over open or other minimally invasive surgery methods are demonstrated in many clinical studies. The endoscopic technique has been shown to be effective in spinal canal decompression with good to excellent clinical results. The interlaminar endoscopic approach minimizes iatrogenic injury to the stabilizing anatomic structures while achieving full unilateral and bilateral decompression. A significant improvement in pain and functional outcome scores with low complication rates has been demonstrated.

CONCLUSIONS

This technique is safe for lumbar spinal decompression and more minimally invasive than a microendoscopic approach. However, this technique should be performed by surgeons with advanced skills. Endoscopy could become the gold standard for treatment of canal stenosis in the near future.

Technical Considerations of Interlaminar Approach for Lumbar Disc Herniation

With the evolution of endoscopic instruments and techniques, full-endoscopic spine surgery has attracted more attention worldwide in recent years. At the initial stage, surgeons conducted endoscopic lumbar discectomy using the transforaminal approach. Next, interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy was developed to treat a herniation disc at the L5-S1 level. The progression in interlaminar endoscopic techniques has further broadened the indications for full-endoscopic spine surgery. However, the steep learning curve of endoscopic procedures has remained challenging. The use of interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy entails many essential skills to manage the different anatomical structures of the spine. From the perspective of successful and safe interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy, we have discussed the technical considerations for endoscopic procedures.

Seizure After Percutaneous Endoscopic Surgery-Incidence, Risk Factors, Prevention, and Management

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous endoscopic surgery is a popular surgery to treat lumbar spinal disorders. However, seizure after percutaneous endoscopic surgery is an unpredictable complication. The only prodromal sign for seizure currently known is neck pain. We reviewed the incidence of, and risk factors for, seizure during percutaneous endoscopic surgery and present the cases of 3 patients with seizure and our management.

CASE DESCRIPTION

From October 2006 to March 2019, 3 of 816 patients (0.34%) with thoracic lumbar disorders who had undergone percutaneous endoscopic surgery experienced a seizure episode. The cases of those 3 patients were carefully reviewed. Studies of the risk factors for seizure after spinal procedures reported before June 13, 2019 were identified through a PubMed search. We found that infusion fluid containing cefazolin, the infusion rate, a prolonged operative time, the occurrence of a dural tear, and sevoflurane anesthesia might be associated with seizure, both described in the reported data and found in our experience. Three patients who experienced a seizure episode had had general anesthesia with sevoflurane, and the surgical approach used was interlaminar for a herniated disc in L5-S1. We noted a "red flag sign," namely an uncontrollable hypertension episode combined with a decreasing pulse rate, in all 3 patients who had experienced a seizure, which was not observed in the other patients. All 3 patients had received antihypertensive medication (labetalol) ≥3 times without response.

CONCLUSION

Seizure after percutaneous endoscopic surgery is rare, but lethal. Although its cause remains unknown, all risk factors for seizure should be checked and corrected immediately when a red flag sign, uncontrolled hypertension, appears.

Endoscopic Unilateral Laminotomy with Bilateral Discectomy Using Biportal Endoscopic Approach: Technical Report and Preliminary Clinical Results

BACKGROUND

Bilateral or huge disc herniations cause bilateral radiculopathy and severe lower back pain. In such cases, a bilateral discectomy may be required to resolve the radicular pain in both legs. We attempted a surgical technique involving bilateral lumbar discectomy via a unilateral approach using a percutaneous biportal endoscopic technique. The purpose of the present study was to describe our surgical technique and investigate the clinical outcomes in symptomatic bilateral lumbar disc herniation.

METHODS

Eleven patients with bilateral disc herniation of the L4-L5 or L5-S1 segments were surgically treated using the percutaneous biportal endoscopic approach. Biportal endoscopic unilateral laminotomy with bilateral discectomy was performed in all patients. Postoperative magnetic resonance imaging was performed 1 day after surgery, and the clinical parameters were investigated preoperatively and postoperatively.

RESULTS

All enrolled patients were successfully treated by biportal endoscopic bilateral discectomy via a unilateral approach. Surgery was performed at the L4-L5 level in 1 patient and the L5-S1 level in 10 patients. The mean operative time was 67.5 ± 13.1 minutes. A visual analog scale of leg pain and the Oswestry disability index showed significant improvement after surgery (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic unilateral laminotomy with bilateral discectomy using the percutaneous biportal endoscopic approach could be an effective and alternative treatment of symptomatic bilateral herniated disc disease affecting L4-L5 or L5-S1 segments.

Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for lumbar disc herniation as day surgery - short-term clinical results of 235 consecutive cases

Many studies have reported the good outcomes of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH). However, the majority of published studies on PELD showed an average hospital stay of 2 to 5 days. Thus, the purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate and compare the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing PELD for LDH as day surgery with the outcomes of patients managed as inpatients.A total of 402 patients who underwent PELD for single-level LDH were included. The visual analog scale score (VAS) for leg and back pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score, and Macnab criteria were evaluated preoperatively and at 2 years postoperatively (final follow-up). Operation time, duration of hospital stay, cost, postoperative complications, and the rates of and reasons for delayed discharge and readmission were recorded and analyzed.The mean operative time was 45.8 ± 8.4 minutes in the PELD-A (nonday surgery mode) group and 41.3 ± 8.7 minutes in the PELD-D (day surgery mode) group (P = .63). The average duration of hospital stay was 2.8 ± 1.1 days in the PELD-A group and 3.2 ± 0.9 hours in the PELD-D group (P < .001). The average hospitalization expenses of the PELD-A and PELD-D groups were 28,090 ± 286 RMB and 24,356 ± 126 RMB (P = .03), respectively. In both groups, the mean VAS and ODI scores improved significantly postoperatively compared with the preoperative scores. The satisfactory result rate was 89.8% in the PELD-D group and 91.0% in the PELD-A group, without a significant difference (P = .68). The delayed discharge rate in the PELD-A and PELD-D groups was 8.20% and 8.43%, respectively (P = .93). The main reasons for delayed discharge were dysesthesia, neurologic deficit, nausea, headache and residential distance from the hospital. The overall readmission rates were 5.99% and 5.53% in the PELD-A and PELD-D groups, respectively (P = .85). The most common reasons for readmission were reherniation, sequestered herniation and pain.In conclusion, PELD is safe and effective for the treatment of LDH and can reduce medical costs as day surgery, and it thus warrants increased attention.

Meta-analysis of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy vs. fenestration discectomy in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to systematically review the efficacy of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) and fenestration discectomy (FD) in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We performed a systematic search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane databases, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, CNKI, and Wanfang Data for all relevant studies. All statistical analyses wer performed using Review Manager version 5.3. Dichotomous data were calculated by odds ratio (OR) and continuous data were calculated by mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

A total of 17 articles with 1390 study subjects were included, with 733 patients in the PTED group and 657 patients in the FD group. The results of the meta-analysis showed that postoperative the visual analog scale (VAS) score (mean difference [MD] -0.13; 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.22 to -0.03; P = 0.009) and postoperative complications (MD 0.52; 95% CI 0.26 to 1.04; P = 0.06) showed no significant differences between the PTED group and the FD group, while the PTED group had significantly better results in operation time (MD 0.47; 95% CI -11.34 to 12.28; P = 0.94), length of incision (MD -3.74; 95% CI -4.28 to -3.19; P < 0.00001), amount of bleeding (MD -63.66, 95% CI -77.65 to -49.67; P < 0.00001), time of postoperative bed rest (MD -90.19; 95% CI -106.82 to -73.56; P < 0.00001), hospitalization time (MD -5.90; 95% CI -7.21 to -4.59; P < 0.00001), and postoperative Oswestry disability index (ODI) score (MD -0.59; 95% CI -1.11 to -0.08; P = 0.02) compared with the FD group.

CONCLUSION

The Percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy is associated with better postoperative ODI score, better results in length of incision, lower blood loss, shorter operation time, postoperative bed time and hospitalization time. The complications did not differ significantly between PTED and FD in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation. These findings provide evidence to support PTED is efficacious for LDH; however, scar repair of a ruptured anulus fibrosus needs a long time and the patients undergoing PTED should be advised to stay in bed for a long time even if the symptoms are markedly relieved. These results are not limited to randomized controlled trials and lack data about the long-term outcome.

An Analysis of the Cost-Effectiveness of Spinal Versus General Anesthesia for Lumbar Spine Surgery in Various Hospital Settings

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective chart review.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the relative cost-effectiveness of spinal anesthesia and general anesthesia for lumbar laminectomy and microdiscectomy surgery performed in an academic versus private practice hospital setting.

METHODS

The authors retrospectively reviewed charts of 188 consecutive patients who underwent lumbar laminectomy or microdiscectomy by a single surgeon from 2012 to 2016 at either an academic or a private practice hospital setting. Intraoperative and postoperative outcomes were recorded and direct variable costs were calculated.

RESULTS

At the academic institution, the direct cost of a lumbar laminectomy or microdiscectomy surgery under general anesthesia was determined to be 9.93% greater than with spinal anesthesia (P = .040). The greatest difference was seen with operating room costs, in which general anesthesia was associated with 18.74% greater costs than spinal anesthesia (P = .016). There was no significant difference in cost at the private practice hospital setting.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that use of spinal anesthesia for lumbar laminectomy leads to less operating room, postanesthesia care unit, and anesthesia times, lower levels of postoperative pain, and no increased rate of other complications compared with general anesthesia at an academic institution as compared to a private practice setting. Spinal anesthesia is 9.93% less expensive than general anesthesia, indicating substantial cost-saving potential. With no sacrifice of patient outcomes and the added benefit of less pain and recovery time, Spinal anesthesia represents a more cost-effective alternative to general anesthesia in lumbar spine surgery in the academic hospital setting.

DEGREE OF SATISFACTION WITH THE ENDOSCOPIC TREATMENT OF LUMBAR DISC HERNIATION

ABSTRACT Objective: To evaluate the degree of patient satisfaction and complications after endoscopic surgery for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 94 patients with lumbar disc herniation undergoing endoscopic lumbar discectomy through the MacNab questionnaire and four subjective questions related to the procedure. Results: Approximately 82% of the patients had good and excellent results, and 91.4% reported being satisfied with the surgical result obtained with endoscopy. The rate of complications with the method was 9.5%, with recurrent disc herniation being the most common complication (5.4% of cases). Conclusions: Endoscopic surgery proved to be an effective and safe method, and an alternative to conventional open surgery. Level of evidence; III. Therapeutic studies - Investigation of treatment results.

Implications of anesthetic approach, spinal versus general, for the treatment of spinal disc herniation

OBJECTIVEHealthcare costs continue to escalate. Approaches to care that have comparable outcomes and complications are increasingly assessed for quality improvement and, when possible, cost containment. Efforts to identify components of care to reduce length of stay (LOS) have been ongoing. Spinal anesthesia (SA), for select lumbar spine procedures, has garnered interest as an alternative to general anesthesia (GA) that might reduce cost and in-hospital LOS and accelerate recovery. While clinical outcomes with SA or GA have been studied extensively, few authors have looked at the cost-analysis in relation to clinical outcomes. The authors' objectives were to compare the clinical perioperative outcomes of patients who received SA and GA, as well as the direct costs associated with each modality of care, and to determine which, in a retrospective analysis, can serve as a dominant procedural approach.METHODSThe authors retrospectively analyzed a homogeneous surgical population of 550 patients who underwent hemilaminotomy for disc herniation and who received either SA (n = 91) or GA (n = 459). All clinical and billing data were obtained via each patient's chart and the hospital's billing database, respectively. Additionally, the authors prospectively assessed patient-reported outcome measures for a subgroup of consecutively treated patients (n = 75) and compared quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gains between the two cohorts. Furthermore, the authors performed a propensity score-matching analysis to compare the two cohorts (n = 180).RESULTSDirect hospital costs for patients receiving SA were 40% higher, in the hundreds of dollars, than for patients who received GA (p < 0.0001). Furthermore, there was a significant difference with regard to LOS (p < 0.0001), where patients receiving SA had a considerably longer hospital LOS (27.6% increase in hours). Patients undergoing SA had more comorbidities (p = 0.0053), specifically diabetes and hypertension. However, metrics of complications, including readmission (p = 0.3038) and emergency department (ED) visits at 30 days (p = 1.0), were no different. Furthermore, in a small pilot group, QALY gains were statistically no different (n = 75, p = 0.6708). Propensity score-matching analysis demonstrated similar results as the univariate analysis: there was no difference between the cohorts regarding 30-day readmission (p = 1.0000); ED within 30 days could not be analyzed as there were no patients in the SA group; and total direct costs and LOS were significantly different between the two cohorts (p < 0.0001 and p = 0.0126, respectively).CONCLUSIONSBoth SA and GA exhibit the qualities of a good anesthetic, and the utilization of these modalities for lumbar spine surgery is safe and effective. However, this work suggests that SA is associated with increased LOS and higher direct costs, although these differences may not be clinically or fiscally meaningful.

Spinal versus general anesthesia for lumbar spine surgery in high risk patients: Perioperative hemodynamic stability, complications and costs

OBJECTIVE

More stable perioperative hemodynamic conditions, lower costs and a lower perioperative complication rate were reported in young healthy patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery in spinal anesthesia (SA) compared to general anesthesia (GA). However, the benefits of SA in high risk patients (ASA≥II suffering from cardiovascular and/or pulmonary pathologies) undergoing this surgery are unclear. Our objective was to analyze whether SA leads to an improved perioperative hemodynamic stability and to a more cost-effective management compared to GA in high risk patients undergoing this surgery.

METHODS

In a retrospective analysis 146 ASA II-III patients who underwent lumbar spine surgery in SA were compared with 292 ASA I-III patients who were operated in GA between 2000 and 2014. Hemodynamic effects, hospitalization times, complications, and costs according to the Swiss billing system were assessed. The data extraction was conducted according to Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) initiative for cohort studies.

RESULTS

The patients in the SA group were older (75years (±9.6) vs 69 (±11.5), p<0.001), had a lower BMI (25.8kg/m2 (±4.8) vs 27.2 (±4.7), p=0.003) and showed a higher ASA score (3 vs 2, p<0.001). However, SA was associated with significantly better perioperative hemodynamic stability with less need for intraoperative vasopressors (15% vs 57%, p<0.001), volume supplementation (1113ml ±458 vs 1589±644, p<0.001) and transfusions (0% vs 4%, p<0.001). Additionally, the number of hypotension episodes was lower in the SA group (15% vs 47%, p<0.001). Furthermore, the SA group showed a significantly shorter duration of surgery (70min (±1.2) vs 91 (±41), p<0.001), lower postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) (4% vs 28%, p<0.001) and pain in the post anesthesia care unit (PACU) (visual analogue scale (VAS) 2.3 (±1.1) vs 0.8 (±0.8), p<0.001), whereas pain after 24h did not differ (VAS 0.9 (±1) vs 0.8 (±1.1), p=ns). The postoperative complication (7% vs 5%, p=0.286) and revision rates (4% vs 5%, p=0.626) were similar in both groups. Total costs (United States Dollars (USD) 6377 (±2332) vs 7018 (±4056), p=0.003) and PACU time were significantly lower in the SA group (35min (±12) vs 109 (±173), p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Lumbar spine surgery in cardiovascular high risk patients with SA is safe, allows good perioperative hemodynamic stability and might lead to lower health care costs. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy of L5-S1 disc herniation: a comparison between intermittent endoscopy technique and full endoscopy technique

Background

Percutaneous endoscopic laminar discectomy is a typical minimally invasive discectomy operation that is classified into the percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy and the percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy. Based on whether the surgeon chooses to deal with the ligamentum flavum under endoscope guidance, percutaneous endoscopic discectomy by the interlaminar approach can be performed with a full endoscope technique with the intermittent endoscope technique. To our knowledge, there is no study comparing these two techniques in regard to their surgical effects and advantages. Therefore, we conducted this study to compare the cost, safety, and efficacy between the intermittent endoscopy technique and full endoscopy technique of endoscopic interlaminar lumbar discectomy at the L5–S1 level.

Methods

From September 2014 to March 2015, a total of 126 patients with radiculopathy due to L5–S1 disc herniation who were treated by a full endoscopy technique (65 patients) or intermittent endoscopy technique (61 patients) were included. Relevant data, such as duration time of the operation, hospitalization expenses, postoperative bed rest time, length of hospitalization, and complication rates, were recorded. Clinical outcomes were assessed by the visual analog scale score, modified MacNab criteria, and Oswestry disability index.

Results

In the full endoscope (FE) group, the mean duration time of surgery was 75.0 ± 11.9 min. The postoperative bed rest time was 6.5 ± 1.1 h, length of hospitalization was 3.8 ± 1.1 days, and complication rate was 7.69%. In the intermittent endoscopy (IE) group, the mean duration time of surgery was 43.0 ± 16.4 min. The postoperative bed rest time was 5.0 ± 1.1 h, length of hospitalization was 3.6 ± 1.2 days, and complication rate was 6.60%. The average hospitalization expenses of the FE group and IE group, respectively, were 32,069 ± 1086 RMB and 22,665 ± 899 RMB. There were significant differences in the surgical duration and hospitalization expenses (P < 0.01), but no differences between the two groups in postoperative bed rest time, length of hospitalization, or complication rates (P > 0.05). The postoperative Oswestry disability index and VAS were clearly improved in both groups compared with those of preoperation (P < 0.01). These two procedures have the same clinical outcomes (P > 0.05).

Conclusions

Both the full endoscopy technique and intermittent endoscopy technique achieved good outcomes, whereas the intermittent endoscopy technique is a more effective option for a shorter duration surgery and lower hospitalization expenses.

Efficiency of spinal anesthesia versus general anesthesia for lumbar spinal surgery: a retrospective analysis of 544 patients

Background

Previous studies have shown varying results in selected outcomes when directly comparing spinal anesthesia to general in lumbar surgery. Some studies have shown reduced surgical time, postoperative pain, time in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU), incidence of urinary retention, postoperative nausea, and more favorable cost-effectiveness with spinal anesthesia. Despite these results, the current literature has also shown contradictory results in between-group comparisons.

Materials and methods

A retrospective analysis was performed by querying the electronic medical record database for surgeries performed by a single surgeon between 2007 and 2011 using procedural codes 63030 for diskectomy and 63047 for laminectomy: 544 lumbar laminectomy and diskectomy surgeries were identified, with 183 undergoing general anesthesia and 361 undergoing spinal anesthesia (SA). Linear and multivariate regression analyses were performed to identify differences in blood loss, operative time, time from entering the operating room (OR) until incision, time from bandage placement to exiting the OR, total anesthesia time, PACU time, and total hospital stay. Secondary outcomes of interest included incidence of postoperative spinal hematoma and death, incidence of paraparesis, plegia, post-dural puncture headache, and paresthesia, among the SA patients.

Results

SA was associated with significantly lower operative time, blood loss, total anesthesia time, time from entering the OR until incision, time from bandage placement until exiting the OR, and total duration of hospital stay, but a longer stay in the PACU. The SA group experienced one spinal hematoma, which was evacuated without any long-term neurological deficits, and neither group experienced a death. The SA group had no episodes of paraparesis or plegia, post-dural puncture headaches, or episodes of persistent postoperative paresthesia or weakness.

Conclusion

SA is effective for use in patients undergoing elective lumbar laminectomy and/or diskectomy spinal surgery, and was shown to be the more expedient anesthetic choice in the perioperative setting.

Spinal Anesthesia in Elderly Patients Undergoing Lumbar Spine Surgery

Spinal anesthesia is increasingly viewed as a reasonable alternative to general anesthesia for lumbar spine surgery. However, the results of spinal anesthesia in elderly patients undergoing lumbar spine decompression and combined decompression and fusion procedures are limited in the literature. The aim of this study was to report a single institution's experience using spinal anesthesia in elderly patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery. A retrospective review was conducted using a prospectively collected database of consecutive lumbar spine surgeries performed under spinal anesthesia in patients 70 years or older at a single center between December 2013 and October 2015. A total of 56 patients were included in the study; 27 patients (48%) underwent lumbar decompression and 29 patients (52%) underwent combined decompression and fusion procedures. Mean operative time was 101 minutes (range, 30-210 minutes), and mean operative blood loss was 187 mL (range, 20-700 mL). Mean maximum inpatient postoperative visual analog scale score was 6.2 (range, 1-10). Nausea occurred in 21% (12 of 56) of the patients. Mean length of stay was 2.4 days (range, 1-6 days). No mortality, stroke, permanent loss of function, or pulmonary embolism occurred. None of the cases required conversion to general anesthesia. All of the patients were ambulatory on either the day of the surgery or the next morning. These results demonstrate that spinal anesthesia is a viable method of anesthesia for patients 70 years and older undergoing lumbar spine surgery. They also demonstrate the safety of this method for patients older than 84 years and for surgeries lasting up to 3½ hours. [Orthopedics. 2017; 40(2):e317-e322.].

Structural Preservation Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Interlaminar Discectomy for L5-S1 Herniated Nucleus Pulposus

Objective. Structures such as ligamentum flavum, annulus, and lamina play an important role in the segmental function. We proposed the surgical technique for achieving the sufficient preservation of segmental structures, in spite of sufficient removal of pathologic disc in the L5-S1 using the ligamentum flavum splitting and sealing technique. Methods. We retrospectively analyzed 80 cases that underwent percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for L5-S1 herniated nucleus pulposus, using the ligamentum flavum splitting and sealing technique between January 2011 and June 2013. Outcomes were assessed using VAS (leg, back), MacNab's criteria, and the immediate postoperative MRI for all patients. Structural preservation was classified as complete, sufficient, and incomplete. Results. The surgical results are as follows: 65 cases were complete, 15 cases were sufficient, and 0 cases were incomplete. The VAS was decreased at the last follow-up (leg: from 7.91 ± 0.73 to 1.15 ± 0.62; back: from 5.15 ± 0.71 to 1.19 ± 0.75). A favorable outcome (excellent or good outcome by MacNab's criteria) was achieved in 77 patients (96.25%). During the follow-up period, 2 cases (2.5%) of recurrence have occurred. Conclusion. According to the result, we could obtain the favorable clinical and radiological outcomes while simultaneously removing pathologic discs using the ligamentum flavum splitting and annular fissure sealing technique.

Lumbar microdiscectomy complication rates: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECT Lumbar microdiscectomy and its various minimally invasive surgical techniques are seeing increasing popularity, but a systematic review of their associated complications has yet to be performed. The authors sought to identify all prospective clinical studies reporting complications associated with lumbar open microdiscectomy, microendoscopic discectomy (MED), and percutaneous microdiscectomy. METHODS The authors conducted MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase database searches for randomized controlled trials and prospective cohort studies reporting complications associated with open, microendoscopic, or percutaneous lumbar microdiscectomy. Studies with fewer than 10 patients and published before 1990 were excluded. Overall and interstudy median complication rates were calculated for each surgical technique. The authors also performed a meta-analysis of the reported complications to assess statistical significance across the various surgical techniques. RESULTS Of 9504 articles retrieved from the databases, 42 met inclusion criteria. Most studies screened were retrospective case series, limiting the number of studies that could be included. A total of 9 complication types were identified in the included studies, and these were analyzed across each of the surgical techniques. The rates of any complication across the included studies were 12.5%, 13.3%, and 10.8% for open, MED, and percutaneous microdiscectomy, respectively. New or worsening neurological deficit arose in 1.3%, 3.0%, and 1.6% of patients, while direct nerve root injury occurred at rates of 2.6%, 0.9%, and 1.1%, respectively. Hematoma was reported at rates of 0.5%, 1.2%, and 0.6%, respectively. Wound complications (infection, dehiscence, orseroma) occurred at rates of 2.1%, 1.2%, and 0.5%, respectively. The rates of recurrent disc complications were 4.4%, 3.1%, and 3.9%, while reoperation was indicated in 7.1%, 3.7%, and 10.2% of operations, respectively. Meta-analysis calculations revealed a statistically significant higher rate of intraoperative nerve root injury following percutaneous procedures relative to MED. No other significant differences were found. CONCLUSIONS This review highlights complication rates among various microdiscectomy techniques, which likely reflect real-world practice and conceptualization of complications among physicians. This investigation sets the framework for further discussions regarding microdiscectomy options and their associated complications during the informed consent process.

Endoscopic inter laminar management of lumbar disease

Discectomy for lumbar disc provides faster relief in acute attack than does conservative management. Long-term results of open, microscopy-, and endoscopy-assisted discectomy are same. Early results of endoscopy-assisted surgery are better as compared to that of open surgery in terms of better visualization, smaller incision, reduced hospital stay, better education, lower cost, less pain, early return to work, and rehabilitation. Although microscopic discectomy also has comparable advantages, endoscopic-assisted technique better addresses opposite side pathology. Inter laminar technique (ILT) and trans foraminal technique (TFT) are two main endoscopic approaches for lumbar pathologies. Endoscopy-assisted ILT can be performed in recurrent, migrated, and calcified discs. All lumbar levels including L5-S1 level, intracanalicular, foraminal disc, lumbar canal and lateral recess stenosis, multiple levels, and bilateral lesions can be managed by ILT. Migrated, calcified discs, L5-S1 pathology, lumbar canal, and lateral recess stenosis can be better approached by ILT than by TFT. Most spinal surgeons are familiar with anatomy of ILT. It can be safely performed in foramen stenosis and in uncooperative and anxious patients. There is less risk of exiting nerve root damage, especially in short pedicles and in presence of facet osteophytes as compared to TFT. On the other hand, ILT is more invasive than TFT with more chances of perforations of the dura matter, pseudomeningocele formation, and cerebrospinal fluid fistula in early learning curve. Obtaining microsurgical experience, attending workshops, and suitable patient selection can help shorten the learning curve. Once adequate skill is acquired, this procedure is safe and effective. The surgeon must be prepared to convert to an open procedure, especially in early learning curve. Spinal endoscopy is likely to achieve more roles in future. Endoscopy-assisted ILT is a safer alternative to the microscopic technique.