Preoperative Assessment of Neural Elements in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis by Upright Magnetic Resonance Imaging: An Implication for Routine Practice?

Best Practices for Minimally Invasive Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Treatment 2.0 (MIST): Consensus Guidance from the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN)

Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion

Axial Loading during MRI Induces Lumbar Foraminal Area Changes and Has the Potential to Improve Diagnostics of Nerve Root Compromise

Lumbar foraminal stenosis is a common cause of lumbar radiculopathy and conventionally assessed with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in supine-positioned patients. An MRI acquired during spine loading may unmask pathology not otherwise revealed in a relaxed position. Therefore, we investigated how spine loading during MRI affects lumbar foramina. In 89 low-back pain patients’ lumbar, MRIs were performed in a relaxed supine position and during axial loading using a Dynawell^® compression device. The smallest area of all intervertebral foramina at levels L3/L4–L5/S1 (534 foramina) was determined using a freehand polygonal tool in parasagittal T2-weighted sequences. The grading system described by Lee et al. was also used to qualitatively assess foraminal stenosis. Overall, a mean reduction of 2.2% (mean −0.89 cm² and −0.87 cm², respectively) was observed (p = 0.002), however for individual foramina large variations, with up to about 50% increase or decrease, were seen. Stratified for lumbar level, an area reduction was found for L3/L4 and L4/L5 foramina (mean change −0.03 cm²; p = 0.036; and −0.03 cm²; p = 0.004, respectively) but not for L5/S1. When comparing the measured area changes to qualitative foraminal grading, 22% of the foramina with a measured area decrease were evaluated with a higher grading. Thus, detailed information on foraminal appearance and nerve root affection can be obtained using this method.

Is Decompression and Partial Discectomy Advantageous Over Decompression Alone in Microendoscopic Decompression Of Monosegmental Unilateral Lumbar Recess Stenosis?

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic techniques are well accepted as surgical technique for decompression of lumbar lateral recess stenosis (LRS). It is uncertain if there is a difference in clinical outcome for decompression alone (DA) or decompression with partial discectomy (DPD) for the treatment of LRS.

METHODS

All files of patients who underwent an endoscopic procedure for lumbar LRS were identified from a prospectively collected database. Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging and endoscopic video were analyzed with special focus on the technique of nerve root decompression. Clinical outcome was assessed via a personal examination, a standardized questionnaire including the numeric rating scale (NRS) for leg and back pain, the Oswestry disability index (ODI), and the modified MacNab criteria to assess functional outcome and clinical success.

RESULTS

Sixty-six patients were identified of which 57 attended for evaluation (86.4%). DA was performed in 15 (26.3%) patients and DPD in 42 patients (73.7%). The mean follow-up was 45.0 months (range: 16-82 months). Fifty-two patients reported to be free of leg pain (91.1%), 42 patients had no noticeable back pain (73.7%), 49 patients had full muscle strength (85.9%), and 48 patients had no sensory disturbance (84.2%). The mean NRS for leg pain was 1, the mean NRS for back pain was 2, mean ODI was 16% (range: 0%-60%). Clinical success was noted in 49 patients (85.9%) and it was significantly higher for patients following DPD (P = .024). The overall repeat procedure rate was 12% with reoperation rate at the index segment in 10.5% of cases. There were no significant differences with respect to leg and back pain, ODI, and reoperation between both groups.

CONCLUSION

Microendoscopic DPD of LRS achieves a 92% clinical success rate which is significantly higher compared to 67% clinical success achieved by DA. There was no significant difference for the rate of reoperation, leg and back pain, and ODI.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.

Weight-Bearing Magnetic Resonance Imaging as a Diagnostic Tool That Generates Biomechanical Changes in Spine Anatomy

Weight-bearing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a unique modality in diagnostic imaging that allows for the assessment of spinal pathology in ways considered previously inaccessible or insufficient with the conventional MRI technique. Due to limitations in positioning within the MRI machine itself, difficulties would be posed in determining the underlying cause of a patient’s pain or neurological symptoms, as the traditional supine position utilized can, in many cases, alleviate the severity of presented symptoms. Weight-bearing MRI addresses this concern by allowing a clinician to position a patient (to a certain degree) into flexion, extension, rotation, or side-bending with an axial load that can mimic physiologic conditions in order to replicate the conditions the patient experiences in order to give clinicians a clearer understanding of the anatomical relationship of the spine and surrounding tissues that may lead to a particular presentation of symptoms. These findings can then guide treatment approaches that are better tailored to a patient’s needs in order to initiate treatment earlier and shorten the duration of treatment necessary for patient benefit. The goal of this review is to describe and differentiate weight-bearing MRI from conventional MRI as well as examine the advantages and disadvantages of either imaging modality. This will include assessing cost-effectiveness and improvements in clinical outcomes. Further, the advancements of weight-bearing MRI will be discussed, including potentially unique clinical applications in development.

The Use of Vertiflex® Interspinous Spacer Device in Patients With Lumbar Spinal Stenosis and Concurrent Medical Comorbidities

The use of the Vertiflex® interspinous spacer is a recent minimal invasive procedure useful in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). It is used mostly by interventional pain physicians who can also perform the minimally invasive lumbar decompression (MILD procedure). Previously when a patient had clinical symptomatic neurogenic claudication (NC) and radiologic findings of lumbar stenosis and had failed conservative treatment, the options were decompressive laminectomy, laminectomy with pedicle fixation at one or more levels or laminotomy combined with interlaminar stabilization (Coflex® implant). These procedures were performed by neurosurgeons and orthopedic spine surgeons. However, the majority of patients with LSS are elderly and have multiple comorbidities that can make open spinal surgery, even when limited to one level, an anesthesia risk as well as vulnerable to the risk associated with hospitalization and recovery after spine surgery. The minimally invasive approaches to interspinous stabilization make it possible to treat localized symptomatic stenosis in a broader group of patients that do not want or cannot, have general anesthesia or extensive lumbar surgery, especially in the prone position. This article examines the use of the Vertiflex® implant in an elderly population with significant comorbidities that underwent successful outpatient implantation at one or two levels. In addition, it serves to familiarize spine surgeons about the possibility of using more minimal approaches to treat LSS.

Percutaneous endoscopic ventral facetectomy: An innovative substitute of open decompression surgery for lateral recess stenosis surgical treatment?

Background:

Percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic surgery (PTES) constitutes an innovative method principally recruited for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation. Indication spectrum of PTES is constantly widened in current years. Hence, PTES has been proposed to represent a satisfactory alternative for the treatment of lateral recess stenosis (LRS), being defined as percutaneous endoscopic ventral facetectomy (PEVF) in these cases. The aim of this original study is to determine, for the first time in the literature, the outcomes of PEVF, especially in otherwise healthy nonelderly patients with LRS, alongside with special focus in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) assessment.

Materials and Methods:

Eighty-five otherwise healthy individuals from 58 to 64 years were diagnosed with LRS, being subjected to successful PEVF. Patients were prospectively evaluated in 6 weeks, in 3, 6, and 12 months, and in 2 years postoperatively. Visual analog scales (VASs) were separately utilized for leg and low back pain evaluation (VAS-LP and VAS-BP, respectively), whereas Short Form-36 (SF-36) questionnaire was sequentially implemented for HRQoL assessment.

Results:

All indexes of SF-36 as well as VAS-LP featured maximal amelioration in 6 weeks postoperatively, with subsequent further enhancement until 3 months and successor stabilization until 2 years. In contrast, VAS-BP presented minimal quantitative amelioration in 6 weeks, featuring no additional alterations. Values of all indexes in all follow-up intervals were demonstrated to be statistically significant in comparison with preoperative values (P < 0.05). No remarkable differentiation was observed between distinct parameters of SF-36.

Conclusions:

PEVF implementation in nonelderly patients with LRS was displayed to be safe and effective, providing alongside considerable improvement in HRQoL 2 years postoperatively.