Comparison of clinical outcomes following minimally invasive or lumbar endoscopic unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 491-499 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lynn B. McGrath ◽  
Gabrielle A. White-Dzuro ◽  
Christoph P. Hofstetter
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Facet Joint ◽  
Visual Analog Scale Score ◽  
Endoscopic Technique ◽  
Leg Pain ◽  
Safe Alternative ◽  
Endoscopic Techniques ◽  
Pain Disability Index ◽  
Lumbar Spinal

OBJECTIVEMinimally invasive lumbar unilateral tubular laminotomy for bilateral decompression has gradually gained acceptance as a less destabilizing but efficacious and safe alternative to traditional open decompression techniques. The authors have further advanced the principles of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) by utilizing working-channel endoscope–based techniques. Full-endoscopic technique allows for high-resolution off-axis visualization of neural structures within the lateral recess, thereby minimizing the need for facet joint resection. The relative efficacy and safety of MIS and full-endoscopic techniques have not been directly compared.METHODSA retrospective analysis of 95 consecutive patients undergoing either MIS (n = 45) or endoscopic (n = 50) unilateral laminotomies for bilateral decompression in cases of lumbar spinal stenosis was performed. Patient demographics, operative details, clinical outcomes, and complications were reviewed.RESULTSThe patient cohort consisted of 41 female and 54 male patients whose average age was 62 years. Half of the patients had single-level, one-third had 2-level, and the remaining patients had 3- or 4-level procedures. The surgical time for endoscopic technique was significantly longer per level compared to MIS (161.8 ± 6.8 minutes vs 99.3 ± 4.6 minutes; p < 0.001). Hospital stay for MIS patients was on average 2.4 ± 0.5 days compared to 0.7 ± 0.1 days for endoscopic patients (p = 0.001). At the 1-year follow-up, endoscopic patients had a significantly lower visual analog scale score for leg pain than MIS patients (1.3 ± 0.3 vs 3.0 ± 0.5; p < 0.01). Moreover, the back pain disability index score was significantly lower in the endoscopic cohort than in the MIS cohort (20.7 ± 3.4 vs 35.9 ± 4.1; p < 0.01). Two patients in the MIS group (epidural hematoma) and one patient in the endoscopic group (disc herniation) required a return to the operating room acutely after surgery (< 14 days).CONCLUSIONSLumbar endoscopic unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression is a safe and effective surgical procedure with favorable complication profile and patient outcomes.

scholarly journals Clinical Validity of 3 Different Grading Systems for Facet Joint Violation: A Retrospective Study and In-Depth Review

2021 ◽  
pp. 219256822110060
Author(s):  
Yiwei Zhao ◽  
Suomao Yuan ◽  
Wubo Liu ◽  
Yonghao Tian ◽  
Xinyu Liu
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Facet Joint ◽  
Leg Pain ◽  
Ct Reconstruction ◽  
3 Dimensional ◽  
Percutaneous Pedicle Screw ◽  
Grading Systems ◽  
Lumbar Spinal ◽  
Facet Joint Violation ◽  
Violation Rate

Study Design: Retrospective. Objectives: To study the violation rate of 3 different types of facet joint violation (FJV) grading systems (Babu, Shah, and Park), and to evaluate the accuracy, reliability, and association with clinical outcomes of the above 3 grading systems. Methods: 152 patients of lumbar spinal stenosis treated with percutaneous pedicle screw placement were enrolled in our study. FJV was evaluated on 3-dimensional lumbar CT reconstruction. Three types of grading systems were used to evaluate FJV: Babu’s system (grading by the severity of violation), Shah’s system (grading by side of violation), and modified Park’s system (grading by different components to cause violation). The violation rate and observer consistency of the 3 grading systems were analyzed. Clinical outcomes were evaluated by visual analog score (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI) score. Results: Kappa coefficients of interobserver consistency on Babu, Shah, and Park grading systems were 0.726,0.849,0.692, respectively. The violation rate of Babu, Shah, and Park grading systems were comparable, which were 34.54%, 32.57%, 33.55%, respectively. In all 3 grading systems, the postoperative VAS low-back pain and ODI scores in non-FJV groups were lower than those in FJV groups ( P < .05), and there were no significant differences between 2 groups in VAS leg pain( P >.05). Conclusions: Babu, Shah and modified Park grading system are reliable grading systems, and it reported comparable violation rate. The self-reported clinical outcomes of patients with FJV were worse at 2-year follow-up. For clinical application, it is recommended to use 2 or even 3 different grading systems together to evaluate the FJV.

Minimally Invasive versus Open Thoracolumbar Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis in Patients with Diabetes: A CSORN Study

2021 ◽  
pp. 13
Author(s):  
Kalpesh Hathi
Keyword(s):  
Back Pain ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Lumbar Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Research Network ◽  
Leg Pain ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Patients With Diabetes ◽  
One Year ◽  
Lumbar Spinal

Introduction: This study was aimed at comparing outcomes of minimally invasive (MIS) versus OPEN surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) in patients with diabetes. Methodology: This retrospective cohort study included patients with diabetes who underwent spinal decompression alone or with fusion for LSS within the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network (CSORN) database. Outcomes of MIS and OPEN approaches were compared for two cohorts: (i) patients with diabetes who underwent decompression alone (N = 116; MIS, n = 58, OPEN, n = 58) and (ii) patients with diabetes who underwent decompression with fusion (N = 108; MIS, n = 54, OPEN, n = 54). Mixed measures analyses of covariance compared modified Oswestry Disability Index (mODI) and back and leg pain at one-year post operation. The number of patients meeting minimum clinically important difference (MCID) or minimum pain/disability at one year were compared. Result: MIS approaches had less blood loss (decompression alone difference 99.66 mL, p = 0.002; with fusion difference 244.23, p < 0.001) and shorter LOS (decompression alone difference 1.15 days, p = 0.008; with fusion difference 1.23 days, p = 0.026). MIS compared to OPEN decompression with fusion had less patients experience an adverse event (difference, 13 patients, p = 0.007). The MIS decompression with fusion group had lower one-year mODI (difference, 14.25, p < 0.001) and back pain (difference, 1.64, p = 0.002) compared to OPEN. More patients in the MIS decompression with fusion group exceeded MCID at one year for mODI (MIS 75.9% vs OPEN 53.7%, p = 0.028) and back pain (MIS 85.2% vs OPEN 70.4%, p = 0.017). Conclusion: MIS approaches were associated with more favorable outcomes for patients with diabetes undergoing decompression with fusion for LSS.

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>

scholarly journals Thoracoscopic recurrent tracheo-oesophageal fistula repair with mini endostapler: promising solution

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (5) ◽  
pp. e229365
Author(s):  
Indalecio Cano Novillo ◽  
Belén Aneiros Castro ◽  
Araceli García Vázquez ◽  
Mónica De Miguel Moya
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Surgical Approach ◽  
Oesophageal Atresia ◽  
High Rate ◽  
Common Complication ◽  
Fistula Repair ◽  
Safe Alternative ◽  
Endoscopic Techniques ◽  
Promising Solution

Recurrent tracheo-oesophageal fistula (TOF) is a common complication in children who underwent oesophageal atresia repair. The traditional surgical approach performed either by thoracotomy or cervicotomy is associated with a high rate of morbidity, mortality and new recurrence. In the last decades, endoscopic techniques have emerged as the minimally invasive alternative. However, it seems that the optimal treatment is still unknown. We present a patient with a recurrent TOF who underwent thoracoscopic closure using a 5.8 mm endostapler. The patient was extubated at the end of the procedure, and he started feeding the day after surgery. At 15 months of follow-up, he is asymptomatic. Thoracoscopic closure of TOF using endostaplers seems to be a safe alternative with some possible benefits compared with traditional and endoscopic approach.

scholarly journals Revision decompression with fusion as a treatment for same level restenosis after laminotomy for lumbar spinal stenosis

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-9
Author(s):  
Zhuohao Chow Liang ◽  
Wing Ngai Yim ◽  
Chung Ting Martin Wong ◽  
Hung On Cheng ◽  
Ka Kin Cheung
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Lumbar Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Revision Surgery ◽  
Japanese Orthopaedic Association ◽  
Japanese Orthopaedic Association Score ◽  
Leg Pain ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Salvage Procedure ◽  
Lumbar Spinal

Background/Purpose: Laminotomy is an established procedure to relieve symptoms of lumbar spinal stenosis. However, there is a group of patients with symptomatic recurrence. Re-decompression and fusion could be an effective salvage procedure but the results are seldom found in the literature. In this study, we focused on investigating the clinical outcomes and complication rates of revision decompression with fusion in this patient group. Methods: A retrospective study including patients who had undergone revision decompression with fusion for recurrent symptoms due to same level restenosis after primary laminotomy for lumbar spinal stenosis was performed. Patients with recurrent symptoms due to prolapsed intervertebral disc, trauma, infection, and neoplasm were excluded. Demographics, clinical outcomes, and complications were retrieved. Results: Twenty-eight patients with a total number of 42 levels of revision decompression and fusion were included. With a mean follow-up time of 27 months after revision surgery, there were statistically significant improvement of 63, 49, and 13% in Japanese Orthopaedic Association score, visual analog scale for leg pain, and Roland-Morris disability questionnaire score, respectively. There were 6(21%), 2(7%), 0(0%), and 2(7%) cases of dural tear, infection requiring reoperation, new neurological deficit, and other complications, respectively, in these revision cases. Conclusion: Bearing potential complications in mind, re-decompression with fusion is a viable option with reasonable clinical outcomes for patients with recurrent symptoms after laminotomy for lumbar spinal stenosis. As a treatment option for symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis, primary laminotomy could have the potential benefit of lower complication rates in revision surgery.

scholarly journals Short-term effectiveness of precise safety decompression via double percutaneous lumbar foraminoplasty and percutaneous endoscopic lumbar decompression for lateral lumbar spinal canal stenosis: a prospective cohort study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yu Wang ◽  
Mingyan Deng ◽  
Hao Wu ◽  
Ye Wu ◽  
Chuan Guo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cohort Study ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Prospective Cohort ◽  
Spinal Canal ◽  
Leg Pain ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Postoperative Mri ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Lumbar Spinal

Abstract Purpose This prospective cohort study reports on a new technique, namely precise safety decompression via double percutaneous lumbar foraminoplasty (DPLF) and percutaneous endoscopic lumbar decompression (PELD) for lateral lumbar spinal canal (LLSC) stenosis, and its short-term clinical outcomes.Methods The study analyzed 69 patients with single-level LLSC stenosis simultaneously occurring in both zones 1 and 2 (defined as retrodiscal space and upper bony lateral recess respectively by new LLSC classification) who underwent DPLF–PELD from November 2018 to April 2019. Clinical outcomes were evaluated according to preoperative, three months postoperatively, and last follow-up, via leg pain/low back pain (LBP) visual analog scale (VAS) scores, Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores, and the Macnab criteria. The postoperative MRI and CT were used to confirm the complete decompression, and flexion-extension x-rays at the last follow-up were used to observe lumbar stability.Results All patients successfully underwent DPLF–PELD, and the stenosis was completely decompressed, confirmed by postoperative MRI and CT. The mean follow-up duration was 13 months (range: 8–17 months). The mean preoperative leg pain VAS score is 7.05 ± 1.04 (range 5–9), which decreased to 1.03 ± 0.79(range: 0–3) at three months postoperatively and to 0.75 ± 0.63 (range: 0–2) by the last follow-up visit(p < 0.05). The mean preoperative ODI was 69.8 ± 9.05 (range: 52–85), which decreased to 20.3 ± 5.52 (range: 10–35) at the third month postoperatively and to 19.6 ± 5.21 (range: 10–34) by the final follow-up visit(p < 0.05). The satisfactory (excellent or good) results were 94.2%. There was one patient with aggravated symptoms, which were relieved after an open surgery. Two patients had a dural tear, and two patients suffered postoperative LBP. No recurrence or segmental instability was observed at the final follow-up.Conclusion DPLF–PELD could be a good alternative for the treatment of LLSC stenosis patients whose stenosis occurred in both zones 1 and 2.Trial registration Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR1800019551). Registered 18 November 2018.

Is achieving optimal spinopelvic parameters necessary to obtain substantial clinical benefit? An analysis of patients who underwent circumferential minimally invasive surgery or hybrid surgery with open posterior instrumentation

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (6) ◽  
pp. 833-838 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Park ◽  
Kai-Ming Fu ◽  
Robert K. Eastlack ◽  
Stacie Tran ◽  
Gregory M. Mundis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive Surgery ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Invasive Surgery ◽  
Clinical Benefit ◽  
Posterior Instrumentation ◽  
Leg Pain ◽  
Spinopelvic Parameters ◽  
Hybrid Surgery ◽  
Substantial Clinical Benefit

OBJECTIVEIt is now well accepted that spinopelvic parameters are correlated with clinical outcomes in adult spinal deformity (ASD). The purpose of this study was to determine whether obtaining optimal spinopelvic alignment was absolutely necessary to achieve a minimum clinically important difference (MCID) or substantial clinical benefit (SCB).METHODSA multicenter retrospective review of patients who underwent less-invasive surgery for ASD was conducted. Inclusion criteria were age ≥ 18 years and one of the following: coronal Cobb angle > 20°, sagittal vertical axis (SVA) > 5 cm, pelvic tilt (PT) > 20°, or pelvic incidence to lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) mismatch > 10°. A total of 223 patients who were treated with circumferential minimally invasive surgery or hybrid surgery and had a minimum 2-year follow-up were identified. Based on optimal spinopelvic parameters (PI-LL mismatch ± 10° and SVA < 5 cm), patients were divided into aligned (AL) or malaligned (MAL) groups. The primary clinical outcome studied was the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score.RESULTSThere were 74 patients in the AL group and 149 patients in the MAL group. Age and body mass index were similar between groups. Although the baseline SVA was similar, PI-LL mismatch (9.9° vs 17.7°, p = 0.002) and PT (19° vs 24.7°, p = 0.001) significantly differed between AL and MAL groups, respectively. As expected postoperatively, the AL and MAL groups differed significantly in PI-LL mismatch (−0.9° vs 13.1°, p < 0.001), PT (14° vs 25.5°, p = 0.001), and SVA (11.8 mm vs 48.3 mm, p < 0.001), respectively. Notably, there was no difference in the proportion of AL or MAL patients in whom an MCID (52.75% vs 61.1%, p > 0.05) or SCB (40.5% vs 46.3%, p > 0.05) was achieved for ODI score, respectively. Similarly, no differences in percentage of patients obtaining an MCID or SCB for visual analog scale back and leg pain score were observed. On multivariate analysis controlling for surgical and preoperative demographic differences, achieving optimal spinopelvic parameters was not associated with achieving an MCID (OR 0.645, 95% CI 0.31–1.33) or an SCB (OR 0.644, 95% CI 0.31–1.35) for ODI score.CONCLUSIONSAchieving optimal spinopelvic parameters was not a predictor for achieving an MCID or SCB. Since spinopelvic parameters are correlated with clinical outcomes, the authors’ findings suggest that the presently accepted optimal spinopelvic parameters may require modification. Other factors, such as improvement in neurological symptoms and/or segmental instability, also likely impacted the clinical outcomes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document