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

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Pengfei Li ◽  
Yuexin Tong ◽  
Ying Chen ◽  
Zhezhe Zhang ◽  
Youxin Song
Keyword(s):  
Cobb Angle ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Disc Height ◽  
Degenerative Lumbar Scoliosis ◽  
Short Segment ◽  
Lumbar Scoliosis ◽  
Endoscopic Decompression ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Segmental Lordosis

Abstract Background Degenerative lumbar scoliosis (DLS) combined with spinal stenosis is increasingly being diagnosed in the elderly. However, the appropriate surgical approach remains somewhat controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the results of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic decompression (PTED) and short-segment fusion for the treatment of mild degenerative lumbar scoliosis combined with spinal stenosis in older adults over 60 years of age. Methods Of the 54 consecutive patients included, 30 were treated with PTED and 24 were treated with short-segment open fusion. All patients were followed up for at least 12 months (12–24 months). Patient demographics, and perioperative and clinical outcomes were recorded. Visual analog scale (VAS) scores, Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores, and modified Macnab criteria were used to assess clinical outcomes. At the same time, changes in disc height, segmental lordosis, coronal Cobb angle, and lumbar lordosis were compared. Results The mean age was 68.7 ± 6.5 years in the PTED group and 66.6 ± 5.1 years in the short-segment fusion group. At 1 year postoperatively, both groups showed significant improvement in VAS and ODI scores compared with preoperative scores (p < 0.05), with no statistically significant difference between groups. However, VAS-Back and ODI were lower in the PTED group at 1 week postoperatively (p < 0.05). According to the modified Macnab criteria, the excellent rates were 90.0 and 91.6% in the PTED and short-segment fusion groups, respectively. However, the PTED group had a significantly shorter operative time, blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, postoperative bed rest, and complication rate. There was no significant difference in radiological parameters between the two groups preoperatively. At the last follow-up, there were significant differences in disc height, segmental lordosis at the L4–5 and L5–S1 levels, and Cobb angle between the two groups. Conclusion Both PTED and short-segment fusion for mild degenerative lumbar scoliosis combined with spinal stenosis have shown good clinical results. PTED under local anesthesia may be an effective supplement to conventional fusion surgery in elderly patients with DLS combined with spinal stenosis.

scholarly journals Comparison between dynamic stabilization and instrumented fusion in the treatment of spinal stenosis with degenerative lumbar scoliosis

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lei Luo ◽  
Lang Fang ◽  
Qiang Zhou ◽  
Chen Zhao ◽  
Pei Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Perioperative Complications ◽  
Dynamic Stabilization ◽  
Degenerative Lumbar Scoliosis ◽  
Instrumented Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Scoliosis ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Posterior Instrumented Fusion

Abstract Background Posterior instrumented fusion is the most widely accepted surgical treatment for spinal stenosis with degenerative lumbar scoliosis (DLS). However, long fusion can affect daily activities due to lumbar stiffness. Several clinical studies have shown that Dynesys dynamic stabilization in addition to laminectomy could lead to significant improvements in clinical outcomes. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of Dynesys dynamic stabilization with posterior instrumented fusion for the management of spinal stenosis with DLS. Methods Between August 2010 and Deccember 2015, a total of 46 patients with spinal stenosis and degenerative lumbar scoliosis were enrolled in this study. 26 patients (Dynesys group) had fenestration decompression, selective intervertebral fusion and Dynesys stabilizationin. 20 patients (fusion group) underwent posterior instrumented fusion. Clinical outcomes, radiographic data, and perioperative complications were compared between the two groups. The average duration of follow-up for the Dynesys group and fusion group was 38 and 33 months respectively. Results The mean number of fixed segments were 3.3±0.8 in Dynesys group and 4.3±0.8 in fusion group. Lower average values of operative duration and blood loss were observed in the dynamic group than in the fusion group. VAS for back and leg pain improved in both groups of patients. There were significant difference in ODI and LSDI (lumbar stiffness disability index) between Dynesys group and fusion group at the last follow-up. The scoliosis Cobb's angle and lumbar lordosis significantly improved in both groups after surgery, and no significant difference were observed between the groups at the last follow-up (P＞0.05). Dynesys stabilization resulted in significantly higher preservation of motion at the implanted segments. Conclusions This study demonstrated that both Dynesys dynamic stabilization and instrumented fusion can improve clinical outcomes of patients with degenerative lumbar scoliosis. Compared to instrumented fusion, Dynesys stabilizationin have advantages on blood loss, operation time, perioperative complications. In addition, Dynesys stabilization partially preserves the ROM of the stabilized segments that may reduce the limitation on daily activities caused by lumbar stiffness. Dynesys stabilizationin can also correct scoliosis, prevent progression of the curve, and maintain lumbar lordosis in mild to moderate lumbar scoliosis without sagittal imbalance.

Comparison between oblique lumbar interbody fusion and posterior lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of degenerative lumbar scoliosis: a retrospective clinical study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
chaojun Xu ◽  
Yingjie HAO ◽  
Lei YU ◽  
Guangduo ZHU ◽  
Zhinan REN ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cobb Angle ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Vertical Axis ◽  
Degenerative Lumbar Scoliosis ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Scoliosis ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Abstract Backgroud Few studies compared radiographic and clinical outcomes between oblique lumbar interbody fusion and posterior lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative lumbar scoliosis. Methods This study retrospectively analyzed the case data of 40 patients with degenerative lumbar scoliosis in our hospital from July 2016 to October 2018. Among which,19 cases underwent oblique lumbar Interbody fusion(OLIF group) and 21 cases underwent posterior lumbar interbody fusion(PLIF group). The duration of the operation, volume of intraoperative hemorrhage, incision length, bed rest time, length of hospital stay, and complications were recorded for all patients. The clinical effects of 40 patients were evaluated by VAS for back pain and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and The radiographic parameters were evaluated using the lumbar scoliosis Cobb angle, sagittal vertical axis(SVA), coronal vertical axis(CVA), lumbar lordosis(LL), pelvic tilt(PT), sacral slope(SS), and Disc height(DH). Results The duration of the operation, the volume of intraoperative hemorrhage, incision length, bed rest time, length of hospital stay of the OLIF group were shorter than the PLIF group( P ＜ 0.05 ). The VAS scores for back pain, the ODI of the two groups were significantly decreased, which compared with the preoperative( P ＜ 0.05 )，which in OLIF group was significantly more decreased than in PLIF( P ＜ 0.05 ) at 7 days and 3 months postoperatively, but at the last follow-up there were no significant difference between the two groups( P ＞ 0.05 ); The lumbar scoliosis Cobb angle, SVA, CVA, PT, LL, SS were significantly improved postoperatively( P ＜ 0.05 ). The OLIF group showed higher DH, smaller Cobb angle, and greater LL than the PLIF group at any time point( P ＜ 0.05 ). but there were no significant difference in SVA, CVA, PT and SS between the two groups at any follow-up points( P ＞ 0.05 ). The overall complication rate was slightly higher in the PLIF group（47.62%）than in the OLIF group（26.32%）without significant difference(x 2 =1.931, P =0.165). But the incidence of major complications in the PLIF group was significantly higher than that in the OLIF group (Fisher, P =0.026). Conclusion OLIF provides an alternative minimally invasive treatment for DLS, which compared with PLIF. It has the characteristics of a small incision, rapid recovery, fewer complications related to the surgical approach, and satisfactory orthopedics. Keywords : Minimally invasive, Oblique lumbar interbody fusion, Degenerative adult lumbar scoliosis , Posterior lumbar interbody fusion

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

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 83
Author(s):  
Pornpavit Sriphirom ◽  
Chaiyaporn Siramanakul ◽  
Preewut Chaipanha ◽  
Chalit Saepoo
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Facet Joint ◽  
Degenerative Spondylolisthesis ◽  
Radicular Pain ◽  
Disc Height ◽  
Spinal Instability ◽  
Endoscopic Decompression ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

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

scholarly journals Treatment of thoracolumbar trauma by short-segment percutaneous transpedicular screw instrumentation: prospective comparative study with a minimum 2-year follow-up

2014 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 150-156 ◽  
Author(s):  
Petr Vanek ◽  
Ondrej Bradac ◽  
Renata Konopkova ◽  
Patricia de Lacy ◽  
Jiri Lacman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Loss ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Cobb Angle ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Working Ability ◽  
Short Segment ◽  
Transpedicular Screw ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Screw Group

Object The main aim of this study was to compare clinical and radiological outcomes after stabilization by a percutaneous transpedicular system and stabilization from the standard open approach for thoracolumbar spine injury. Methods Thirty-seven consecutive patients were enrolled in the study over a period of 16 months. Patients were included in the study if they experienced 1 thoracolumbar fracture (A3.1–A3.3, according to the AO/Magerl classification), had an absence of neurological deficits, had no other significant injuries, and were willing to participate. Eighteen patients were treated by short-segment, minimally invasive, percutaneous pedicle screw instrumentation. The control group was composed of 19 patients who were stabilized using a short-segment transpedicular construct, which was performed through a standard midline incision. The pain profile was assessed by a visual analog scale (VAS), and overall satisfaction by a simple 4-stage scale relating to performance of daily activities. Working ability and return to original occupation were also monitored. Radiographic follow-up was defined by the vertebral body index (VBI), vertebral body angle (VBA), and bisegmental Cobb angle. The accuracy of screw placement was examined using CT. Results The mean surgical duration in the percutaneous screw group was 53 ± 10 minutes, compared with 60 ± 9 minutes in the control group (p = 0.032). The percutaneous screw group had a significantly lower perioperative blood loss of 56 ± 17 ml, compared with 331 ± 149 ml in the control group (p < 0.001). Scores on the VAS in patients in the percutaneous screw group during the first 7 postoperative days were significantly lower than those in the control group (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between groups in VBI, VBA, and Cobb angle values during follow-up. There was no significant difference in screw placement accuracy between the groups and no patients required surgical revision. There was no significant difference between groups in overall satisfaction at the 2-year follow-up (p = 0.402). Working ability was insignificantly better in the percutaneous screw group; previous working position was achieved in 17 patients in this group and in 12 cases in the control group (p = 0.088). Conclusions This study confirms that the percutaneous transpedicular screw technique represents a viable option in the treatment of preselected thoracolumbar fractures. A significant reduction in blood loss, postoperative pain, and surgical time were the main advantages associated with this minimally invasive technique. Clinical, functional, and radiological results were at least the same as those achieved using the open technique after a 2-year follow-up. The short-term benefits of the percutaneous transpedicular screw technique are apparent, and long-term results have to be studied in other well-designed studies evaluating the theoretical benefit of the percutaneous technique and assessing whether the results of the latter are as durable as the ones achieved by open surgery.

scholarly journals Minimally Invasive Lumbar Spinal Decompression in Elderly Patients with Magnetic Resonance Imaging Morphological Analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 285-293 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seungman Ha ◽  
Youngho Hong ◽  
Seungcheol Lee
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Elderly Patients ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Clinical Symptoms ◽  
Morphological Features ◽  
Radiological Parameters ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Lumbar Spinal

<sec><title>Study Design</title><p>Case-control study.</p></sec><sec><title>Purpose</title><p>In this study, we aimed to investigate clinical outcomes and morphological features in elderly patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) who were treated by minimally invasive surgery (MIS) unilateral laminectomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) using a tubular retractor.</p></sec><sec><title>Overview of Literature</title><p>Numerous methods using imaging have been attempted to describe the severity of spinal stenosis. But the relationship between clinical symptoms and radiological features remains debatable.</p></sec><sec><title>Objective</title><p>In this study, we aimed to investigate clinical outcomes and morphological features in elderly patients with LSS who were treated by MIS-ULBD.</p></sec><sec><title>Methods</title><p>We methodically assessed 85 consecutive patients aged &gt;65 years who were treated for LSS. The patients were retrospectively analyzed in two age groups: 66–75 years (group 1) and &gt;75 years (group 2). Clinical outcomes were assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the modified MacNab criteria. Outcome parameters were compared between the groups at the 1-year follow-up. Core radiologic parameters for central and lateral stenosis were analyzed and clinical findings of the groups were compared.</p></sec><sec><title>Results</title><p>At the 1-year follow-up, patients in both groups 1 and 2 demonstrated significant improvement in their VAS and ODI scores. All clinical outcomes, except postoperative ODI, were not significantly difference between the groups. In addition, no significant difference was noted in the preoperative radiological parameters between the groups. There was no statistically significant correlation between radiological parameters and clinical symptoms or their outcomes. Moreover, no differences were noted in perioperative adverse events and in the need for repeat surgery at follow-ups between the groups.</p></sec><sec><title>Conclusions</title><p>MIS-ULBD by tubular approach is a safe and effective treatment option for elderly patients with LSS. Clinical outcomes in patients with LSS and aged &gt;75 years were comparable with those in patients with LSS and aged 66–75 years. Moreover, we did not find any correlation between radiological parameters and clinical outcomes in either of the two patient groups.</p></sec>

The influence of approach side on facet preservation in microscopic bilateral decompression via a unilateral approach for degenerative lumbar scoliosis

2010 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 758-765 ◽  
Author(s):  
Akira Matsumura ◽  
Takashi Namikawa ◽  
Hidetomi Terai ◽  
Tadao Tsujio ◽  
Akinobu Suzuki ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Recovery Rate ◽  
Japanese Orthopaedic Association ◽  
Spinal Instability ◽  
Degenerative Lumbar Scoliosis ◽  
Lumbar Scoliosis ◽  
Unilateral Approach ◽  
Scale Scores ◽  
The Mean

Object The authors compared the clinical outcomes of microscopic bilateral decompression via a unilateral approach (MBDU) for the treatment of degenerative lumbar scoliosis (DLS) and for lumbar canal stenosis (LCS) without instability. The authors also compared postoperative spinal instability in terms of different approach sides (concave or convex) following the procedure. Methods The authors retrospectively reviewed data obtained in 50 consecutive patients (25 in the DLS group and 25 in the LCS group) who underwent MBDU; the minimum follow-up period was 2 years. Patients with DLS were divided into 2 subgroups according to the surgical approach side: a concave group (23 segment) and a convex group (17 segments). The Japanese Orthopaedic Association Scale scores for the assessment of low-back pain were evaluated before surgery and at final follow-up. The Japanese Orthopaedic Association Scale scores and recovery rates were compared between the DLS and LCS groups, and between the convex and concave groups. Cobb angle and scoliotic wedging angle (SWA) were evaluated on standing radiographs before surgery and at final follow-up. Facet joint preservation (the percentage of preservation) was assessed on pre- and postoperative CT scans, compared between the LCS and DLS groups, and compared between the concave and convex groups. The influence of approach side on postoperative progression of segmental instability was also examined in the DLS group. Results The mean recovery rate was 58.7% in the DLS and 62.0% in the LCS group. The mean recovery rate was 58.6% in the convex group and 60.6% in the concave group. There were no significant differences in recovery rates between the LCS and DLS groups, or between the DLS subgroups. The mean Cobb angles in the DLS group were significantly increased from 12.7° preoperatively to 14.1° postoperatively (p < 0.05), and mean preoperative SWAs increased significantly from 6.2° at L3–4 and 4.1° at L4–5 preoperatively to 7.4° and 4.9°, respectively, at final follow-up (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in percentage of preservation between the DLS and LCS groups. The mean percentages of preservation on the approach side in the DLS group at L3–4 and L4–5 were 89.0% and 83.1% in the convex group, and those in the concave group were 67.3% and 77.6%, respectively. The percentage of preservation at L3–4 was significantly higher in the convex than the concave group. The mean SWA had increased in the concave group (p = 0.01) but not the convex group (p = 0.15) at final follow-up. Conclusions The MBDU can reduce postoperative segmental spinal instability and achieve good postoperative clinical outcomes in patients with DLS. The convex approach provides surgeons with good visibility and improves preservation of facet joints.

scholarly journals The surgical outcome of decompression alone versus decompression with limited fusion for degenerative lumbar scoliosis

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 259-264 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenji Masuda ◽  
Takayuki Higashi ◽  
Katsutaka Yamada ◽  
Tatsuhiro Sekiya ◽  
Tomoyuki Saito
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Cobb Angle ◽  
Japanese Orthopaedic Association ◽  
Spinal Instability ◽  
Degenerative Lumbar Scoliosis ◽  
Surgical Decision ◽  
Lumbar Scoliosis ◽  
Radiological Parameters ◽  
Surgical Decision Making

OBJECTIVEThe aim of this study was to assess the usefulness of radiological parameters for surgical decision-making in patients with degenerative lumbar scoliosis (DLS) by comparing the clinical and radiological results after decompression or decompression and fusion surgery.METHODSThe authors prospectively planned surgical treatment for 298 patients with degenerative lumbar disease between September 2005 and March 2013. The surgical method used at their institution to address intervertebral instability is precisely defined based on radiological parameters. Among 64 patients with a Cobb angle ranging from 10° to 25°, 57 patients who underwent follow-up for more than 2 years postoperatively were evaluated. These patients were divided into 2 groups: those in the decompression group underwent decompression alone (n = 25), and those in the fusion group underwent decompression and short segmental fusion (n = 32). Surgical outcomes were reviewed, including preoperative and postoperative Cobb angles, lumbar lordosis based on radiological parameters, and Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores.RESULTSThe JOA scores of the decompression group and fusion group improved from 5.9 ± 1.6 to 10.0 ± 2.8 and from 7.2 ± 2.0 to 11.3 ± 2.8, respectively, which was not significantly different between the groups. At the final follow-up, the postoperative Cobb angle in the decompression group changed from 14° ± 2.9° to 14.3° ± 6.4° and remained stable, while the Cobb angle in the fusion group decreased from 14.8° ± 4.0° to 10.0° ± 8.5° after surgery.CONCLUSIONSThe patients in both groups demonstrated improved JOA scores and preserved Cobb angles after surgery. The improvement in JOA scores and preservation of Cobb angles in both groups show that the evaluation of spinal instability using radiological parameters is appropriate for surgical decision-making.

scholarly journals Anterior lumbar compared to oblique lumbar interbody approaches for multilevel fusions to the sacrum in adults with spinal deformity and degeneration

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 461-470
Author(s):  
Zhuo Xi ◽  
Dean Chou ◽  
Praveen V. Mummaneni ◽  
Huibing Ruan ◽  
Charles Eichler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Deformity ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Adult Spinal Deformity ◽  
Disc Height ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Height Change ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Segmental Lordosis ◽  
Lateral Interbody

OBJECTIVEIn adult spinal deformity and degenerative conditions of the spine, interbody fusion to the sacrum often is performed to enhance arthrodesis, induce lordosis, and alleviate stenosis. Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) has traditionally been performed, but minimally invasive oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) may or may not cause less morbidity because less retraction of the abdominal viscera is required. The authors evaluated whether there was a difference between the results of ALIF and OLIF in multilevel anterior or lateral interbody fusion to the sacrum.METHODSPatients from 2013 to 2018 who underwent multilevel ALIF or OLIF to the sacrum were retrospectively studied. Inclusion criteria were adult spinal deformity or degenerative pathology and multilevel ALIF or OLIF to the sacrum. Demographic, implant, perioperative, and radiographic variables were collected. Statistical calculations were performed for significant differences.RESULTSData from a total of 127 patients were analyzed (66 OLIF patients and 61 ALIF patients). The mean follow-up times were 27.21 (ALIF) and 24.11 (OLIF) months. The mean surgical time was 251.48 minutes for ALIF patients and 234.48 minutes for OLIF patients (p = 0.154). The mean hospital stay was 7.79 days for ALIF patients and 7.02 days for OLIF patients (p = 0.159). The mean time to being able to eat solid food was 4.03 days for ALIF patients and 1.30 days for OLIF patients (p < 0.001). After excluding patients who had undergone L5–S1 posterior column osteotomy, 54 ALIF patients and 41 OLIF patients were analyzed for L5–S1 radiographic changes. The mean cage height was 14.94 mm for ALIF patients and 13.56 mm for OLIF patients (p = 0.001), and the mean cage lordosis was 15.87° in the ALIF group and 16.81° in the OLIF group (p = 0.278). The mean increases in anterior disc height were 7.34 mm and 4.72 mm for the ALIF and OLIF groups, respectively (p = 0.001), and the mean increases in posterior disc height were 3.35 mm and 1.24 mm (p < 0.001), respectively. The mean change in L5–S1 lordosis was 4.33° for ALIF patients and 4.59° for OLIF patients (p = 0.829).CONCLUSIONSPatients who underwent multilevel OLIF and ALIF to the sacrum had comparable operative times. OLIF was associated with a quicker ileus recovery and less blood loss. At L5–S1, ALIF allowed larger cages to be placed, resulting in a greater disc height change, but there was no significant difference in L5–S1 segmental lordosis.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document