scholarly journals Degenerative central lumbar spinal stenosis: is endoscopic decompression through bilateral transforaminal approach sufficient?

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bin Zhang ◽  
Qingquan Kong ◽  
Yuqing Yan ◽  
Pin Feng
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Lumbar Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Decompression Surgery ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Endoscopic Decompression ◽  
Dural Sac ◽  
Transforaminal Approach ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Lumbar Spinal

Abstract Background At present, few reports of percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal decompression surgery have been reported to solve central lumbar spinal stenosis (CLSS). Is endoscopic decompression through bilateral transforaminal approach decompression sufficient for degenerative CLSS? Methods This retrospective study included 47 cases of CLSS patients who underwent percutaneous endoscopic decompression through bilateral transforaminal approach. Clinical outcomes such as ODI, back and leg VAS, the Macnab criteria were evaluated. Surgical results including operative time, postoperative hospital stay, recurrence, and surgical complications were also studied. Radiologically, lumbar stability was assessed and lumbar dural sac dimension was compared preoperatively and postoperatively. Results All 47 patients were followed up. The average follow-up period was 24.5 months. The average operation time was 116 min. The mean VAS of leg and back pain, and the mean ODI improved from 7.81, 2.53, and 77.03% at baseline to a final 1.94 (P = 0.00), 2.47 (P = 0.71), and 19.40% (P = 0.00), respectively. According to the Macnab criteria, 97.9% of patients achieved excellent and good results. There were 2 cases of dural tear and 3 cases of transient postoperative dysthesia. The cross-sectional area of the dural sac was significant enlargement at the last fellow up (74.28 ± 13.08 mm2 vs.104.91 ± 12.40 mm2, P = 0.00). Conclusions Except for the main pathogenic factors on the dorsal side of the dural sac, percutaneous endoscopic decompression through a bilateral transforaminal approach is sufficient for CLSS. It is a feasible, safe, and clinically effective minimally invasive procedure.

scholarly journals Degenerative central lumbar spinal stenosis: Is endoscopic decompression through bilateral transforaminal approach sufficient?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bin Zhang ◽  
Qingquan Kong ◽  
Yuqing Yan ◽  
Pin Feng
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Lumbar Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Decompression Surgery ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Endoscopic Decompression ◽  
Dural Sac ◽  
Transforaminal Approach ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Lumbar Spinal

Abstract Background: At present, few percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal decompression surgery has been reported to solve central lumbar spinal stenosis (CLSS). Whether endoscopic decompression through lateral transforaminal approach decompression is sufficient for degenerative CLSS.Methods: This retrospective study included 47 cases of CLSS patients who underwent percutaneous endoscopic decompression through a bilateral transforaminal approach. Clinical outcomes such as ODI, back and leg VAS, the Macnab criteria were evaluated. Surgical results including operative time, postoperative hospital stay, recurrence, and surgical complications were also studied. Radiologically, lumbar stability was assessed and lumbar dural sac dimension was compared preoperatively and postoperatively.Results：All 47 patients were followed up. The average follow-up period was 24.5 months. The average operation time was 116 minutes. The mean VAS of leg and back pain, and the mean ODI improved from 7.81, 2.53, and 77.03% at baseline to a final 1.94 (P=0.00), 2.47 (P=0.71), and 19.40 % (P=0.00), respectively. According to the Macnab criteria, 97.9% of patients achieved excellent and good results. There were 2 cases of dura tear and 3 cases of transient postoperative dysthesia. The cross sectional area of the dural sac was significantly enlargement at the last fellow up (74.28±13.08 mm2 vs.104.91±12.40 mm2, P=0.00).Conclusions: Except for the main pathogenic factors on the dorsal side of the dural sac, percutaneous endoscopic decompression through a bilateral transforaminal approach is sufficient for CLSS. It is a feasible, safe, and clinically effective minimally invasive procedure.

scholarly journals Degenerative central lumbar spinal stenosis: Is endoscopic decompression through lateral transforaminal approach sufficient?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bin Zhang ◽  
Qingquan Kong ◽  
Yuqing Yan ◽  
Pin Feng
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Lumbar Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Decompression Surgery ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Endoscopic Decompression ◽  
Dural Sac ◽  
Transforaminal Approach ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Lumbar Spinal

Abstract Background: At present, no percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal decompression surgery has been reported to solve central lumbar spinal stenosis (CLSS). Whether endoscopic decompression through lateral transforaminal approach decompression is sufficient for degenerative CLSS. Methods: This retrospective study included 47 cases of CLSS patients who underwent percutaneous endoscopic decompression through a bilateral transforaminal approach. Clinical outcomes such as ODI, back and leg VAS, the Macnab criteria were evaluated. Surgical results including operative time, postoperative hospital stay, recurrence, and surgical complications were also studied. Radiologically, lumbar stability was assessed and lumbar dural sac dimension was compared preoperatively and postoperatively. Results ： All 47 patients were followed up. The average follow-up period was 24.5 months. The average operation time was 116 minutes. The mean VAS of leg and back pain, and the mean ODI improved from 7.81, 2.53, and 77.03% at baseline to a final 1.94 (P=0.00), 2.47 (P=0.71), and 19.40 % (P=0.00), respectively. According to the Macnab criteria, 97.9% of patients achieved excellent and good results. There were 2 cases of dura tear and 3 cases of transient postoperative dysthesia. The cross sectional area of the dural sac was significantly enlargement at the last fellow up (74.28±13.08 mm 2 vs. 104.91±12.40 mm 2 , P=0.00). Conclusions: Except for the main pathogenic factors on the dorsal side of the dural sac, percutaneous endoscopic decompression through a bilateral transforaminal approach is sufficient for CLSS. It is a feasible, safe, and clinically effective minimally invasive procedure.

scholarly journals Degenerative central lumbar spinal stenosis: Is endoscopic decompression through bilateral transforaminal approach sufficient?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bin Zhang ◽  
Qingquan Kong ◽  
Yuqing Yan ◽  
Pin Feng
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Lumbar Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Decompression Surgery ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Endoscopic Decompression ◽  
Dural Sac ◽  
Transforaminal Approach ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Lumbar Spinal

Abstract Background: At present, few reports of percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal decompression surgery have been reported to solve central lumbar spinal stenosis (CLSS). Is endoscopic decompression through bilateral transforaminal approach decompression sufficient for degenerative CLSS?Methods: This retrospective study included 47 cases of CLSS patients who underwent percutaneous endoscopic decompression through bilateral transforaminal approach. Clinical outcomes such as ODI, back and leg VAS, the Macnab criteria were evaluated. Surgical results including operative time, postoperative hospital stay, recurrence, and surgical complications were also studied. Radiologically, lumbar stability was assessed and lumbar dural sac dimension was compared preoperatively and postoperatively.Results：All 47 patients were followed up. The average follow-up period was 24.5 months. The average operation time was 116 minutes. The mean VAS of leg and back pain, and the mean ODI improved from 7.81, 2.53, and 77.03% at baseline to a final 1.94 (P=0.00), 2.47 (P=0.71), and 19.40 % (P=0.00), respectively. According to the Macnab criteria, 97.9% of patients achieved excellent and good results. There were 2 cases of dural tear and 3 cases of transient postoperative dysthesia. The cross-sectional area of the dural sac was significant enlargement at the last fellow up (74.28±13.08 mm2 vs.104.91±12.40 mm2, P=0.00).Conclusions: Except for the main pathogenic factors on the dorsal side of the dural sac, percutaneous endoscopic decompression through a bilateral transforaminal approach is sufficient for CLSS. It is a feasible, safe, and clinically effective minimally invasive procedure.

scholarly journals Percutaneous biportal endoscopic decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: a technical note and preliminary clinical results

2016 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 602-607 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jin Hwa Eum ◽  
Dong Hwa Heo ◽  
Sang Kyu Son ◽  
Choon Keun Park
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Lumbar Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Excellent Result ◽  
Technical Note ◽  
Decompression Surgery ◽  
Lumbar Stenosis ◽  
Continuous Irrigation ◽  
Endoscopic Decompression ◽  
Alternative Treatment Option ◽  
Lumbar Spinal

OBJECTIVE The use of conventional uniportal spinal endoscopic decompression surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis can be limited by technical difficulties and a restricted field of vision. The purpose of this study is to describe the technique for percutaneous biportal endoscopic decompression (PBED) for lumbar spinal stenosis and analysis of clinical postoperative results. METHODS The authors performed a unilateral laminotomy with bilateral foraminal decompression using a unilateral biportal endoscopic system in patients with single-level lumbar stenosis. The authors enrolled only patients who underwent follow-up for longer than 12 months after PBED. Fifty-eight patients were enrolled in this study. This approach was based on 2 portals: one portal was used for continuous irrigation and endoscopic viewing and the other portal was used to manipulate the instruments used in the decompression procedures. Clinical parameters such as the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Macnab criteria, and postoperative complications were analyzed. RESULTS Neural decompression was effectively performed in all enrolled patients. The mean ODI was significantly lower after PBED. Of 58 patients, 47 (81.0%) had a good or excellent result according to the Macnab criteria. Postoperative ODI and visual analog scale scores were significantly improved compared with preoperative values. CONCLUSIONS From a surgical point of view, percutaneous biportal endoscopy is very similar to microscopic spinal surgery, permitting good visualization of the contralateral sublaminar and medial foraminal areas. The authors suggest that the PBED, which is a minimally invasive procedure, is an alternative treatment option for degenerative lumbar stenosis.

scholarly journals Relative risk factors of nerve root sedimentation sign (Sedsign) in patients with severe central lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Haiming YU ◽  
Yunfeng HAN ◽  
Rui ZHANG ◽  
Chu SUN ◽  
Mingda WANG ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Relative Risk ◽  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Lumbar Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Nerve Root ◽  
Sectional Area ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Dural Sac ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Lumbar Spinal

Abstract Here we evaluated the incidence of positive nerve root sedimentation sign (Sedsign) and its correlation with MRI parameters in patients with severe lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) to explore its pathogenesis. Among 209 patients with severe LSS, there were 290 levels with intervertebral narrowing, among which 248 had a positive Sedsign (a prevalence of 85.52%). We then analyzed those levels with a positive Sedsign relative to those with a negative Sedsign (42 levels). There was no significant difference between the two groups for the minimum cross-sectional area (CSA) of the dural sac or the minimum posteroanterior diameter (PAD) of the spinal canal. In contrast, there was a significant difference between the groups for the grade of degenerative facet joint (DFJ) (p < 0.05), the maximum thickness of ligamentum flavum (TLF) (p < 0.01), and the maximum cross-sectional area difference (CSAD) of the dural sac (p < 0.01). In addition, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to identify associated factors. The area under the ROC curve for PAD was 0.608 (95%CI: 0.55−0.665, p < 0.05), for DFJ was 0.634 (95%CI: 0.576−0.69, p < 0.05), for TLF was 0.74 (95%CI: 0.742−0.839, p < 0.01), and for CSAD was 0.911 (95%CI: 0.875−0.943, p < 0.01). In summary, a positive Sedsign has notable advantages in assisting with the diagnosis of severe LSS. Compression of the dural sac from the rear may be the main cause of a positive Sedsign, and the TLF and DFJ parameters were the main relative risk factors.

scholarly journals Dural Sac Cross-Sectional Area Does Not Correlate with Efficacy of Percutaneous Adhesiolysis in Single Level Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

2011 ◽  
Vol 4;14 (4;7) ◽  
pp. 277-282
Author(s):  
Dr. Chan Hong Park
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Lumbar Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Cross Sectional Area ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Sectional Area ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Epidural Steroid Injections ◽  
Dural Sac ◽  
Lumbar Spinal ◽  
Epidural Steroid

Background: Spinal stenosis is a narrowing of the spinal canal, which causes mechanical compression of spinal nerve roots. The compression of these nerve roots can cause low back pain and/or leg pain, as well as neurogenic claudication. Lumbar epidural steroid injections have commonly been used in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). In cases that are refractory to epidural steroid injections, percutaneous epidural adhesiolysis has been used. Objective: The aim of our study is to determine the relationship between the severity of spinal stenosis and the participants’ response to adhesiolysis, and to evaluate the mid-term effectiveness of adhesiolysis. Study Design: A prospective observational study. Methods: Sixty-six patients with degenerative LSS were enrolled in this prospective study. All participants underwent lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The cross-sectional area of the dural sac was measured on the transverse angled sections through the central part of the disc on conventional MR images. All percutaneous adhesiolyses were performed in the operating room. One hour following the procedure, 6 mL of 8% sodium chloride solution was infused during 30 minutes in the recovery room while the patient underwent monitoring. Outcome measures were obtained using the 5-point patient satisfaction scale at 2 weeks and 6 months post-treatment. To evaluate outcome predictors, we divided the participants into 2 groups according to their response to treatment. Limitations: Secondary outcomes were not measured and the study did not include a long-term follow-up period. Results: Improvement (including reports of slightly improved, much improved, and no pain) was observed in 49 participants (74.2%) at 2 weeks and 45 participants (66.7%) at 6 months after the procedure. The dural sac cross-sectional area (DSCSA) did not differ between participants who reported improvement and those who did not. There was no statistically significant correlation between pain relief and DSCSA, age, or participant sex. Conclusion: Percutaneous adhesiolysis was shown to be effective for the treatment of LSS, with mid-term result, without affecting DSCSA. Key words: Low back pain, lumbar spinal stenosis, failed back surgery syndrome, dural sac, interventional techniques, epidural injection, percutaneous adhesiolysis.

scholarly journals Percutaneous Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Preliminary Report of Seven Cases with 12-Month Follow-Up

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jincai Yang ◽  
Chang Liu ◽  
Yong Hai ◽  
Peng Yin ◽  
Lijin Zhou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Lumbar Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Bone Trabeculae ◽  
Lumbar Spinal

Purpose. The objective of this study was to investigate the preliminary effectiveness of percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (PE-TLIF) for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). Methods. From September 2016 to June 2017, a series of seven patients consisting of six females and one male with an average age of 55.25 years (range 43–77 years) who were diagnosed with LSS were involved in this study. All patients were treated by PE-TLIF. During perioperative and follow-up period, demographic data, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and modified MacNab criteria were evaluated and perioperative complications were documented. Results. All patients were followed up for more than 12 months, with an average follow-up time of 15 (range 12-21) months. The mean VAS of back pain was 7.43 (range 6-8) preoperatively and 0.86 (range 0-2) at the final follow-up. The mean VAS of leg pain was 6.14 (range 4-9) preoperatively and 0.71 (range 0-1) at the final follow-up. The mean ODI was 53.57% (range 38%-63%) preoperatively and 15.57% (range 5%-26%) at the final follow-up. In three-month follow-up, continuous bone trabeculae bridging between intervertebral bodies was seen in 3 cases, and the remaining 4 cases could identify continuous bone trabeculae bridging at 6-month follow-up, reaching the standard of spinal intervertebral fusion. At the final follow-up, 4 patients were rated as excellent (4/7) and 3 patients were rated as good (3/7) according to the modified MacNab criteria. Conclusions. Our study suggested that percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion could acquire satisfactory treatment effects for the patients with lumbar spinal stenosis, even for the patient who could not afford general anesthesia.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document