Objective To investigate the short-term effectiveness of unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) in treatment of lumbar lateral saphenous fossa combined with intervertebral foramina stenosis via contralateral sublaminar approach. Methods A clinical data of 15 patients with lumbar lateral saphenous fossa combined with intervertebral foramina stenosis, who were admitted between September 2021 and December 2023 and met selective criteria, was retrospectively analyzed. There were 5 males and 10 females with an average age of 70.3 years (range, 46-83 years). Surgical segment was L4, 5 in 12 cases and L5, S1 in 3 cases. The disease duration was 12-30 months (mean, 18.7 months). All patients were treated by UBE via contralateral sublaminar approach. The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, and the occurrence of complications were recorded. The visual analogue scale (VAS) score was used to evaluate the degree of lower back and leg pain before and after operation; the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score and the Oswestry disability index (ODI) were used to evaluate the lumbar function; and the clinical outcome was evaluated using the MacNab criteria at 6 months after operation. Postoperative MRI and CT were taken to observe whether the lateral saphenous fossa and intervertebral foramen stenosis were removed or not, and the cross-sectional area of the spinal canal (CSA-SC), cross-sectional area of the intervertebral foramen (CSA-IVF), and cross-sectional area of the facet joint (CSA-FJ) were measured. Results The operation time was 55-200 minutes (mean, 127.5 minutes); the intraoperative blood loss was 10-50 mL (mean, 27.3 mL); the length of postoperative hospital stay was 3-12 days (mean, 6.8 days). All patients were followed up 6-12 months (mean, 8.9 months). At 1 day, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months after operation, the VAS scores of low back and leg pain and ODI scores after operation were significantly lower than preoperative scores and showed a gradual decrease with time; the JOA scores showed a gradual increase with time; the differences in the above indexes between different time points were significant (P<0.05). The clinical outcome was rated as excellent in 10 cases, good in 4 cases, and poor in 1 case according to the MacNab criteria at 6 months after operation, with an excellent and good rate of 93.33%. Imaging review showed that the compression on the lateral saphenous fossa and intervertebral foramina had been significantly relieved, and the affected articular process joint was preserved to the maximum extent; the CSA-SC and CSA-IVF at 3 days after operation significantly increased compared to the preoperative values (P<0.05), and the CSA-FJ significantly reduced (P<0.05). Conclusion The UBE via contralateral sublaminar approach can effectively reduce pressure in the lateral saphenous fossa and the intervertebral foramina of the same segment while preserving the bilateral articular process joints. The short-term effectiveness is good and it is expected to avoid fusion surgery caused by iatrogenic instability of the lumbar spine. However, further follow-up is needed to clarify the mid- and long-term effectiveness.
ObjectiveTo review the research status in respect of interspinous distraction devices (IDD) in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS). MethodsRecent original articles related to IDD in the treatment of DLSS were retrieved extensively, and the effectiveness was analyzed and summarized. ResultsIts short-term effectiveness was superior to that of conservative treatment, no significant difference was found when compared with decompression or fusion alone. Its complication rate was higher than that of decompression or fusion alone, although complication dose not significantly affect treatment results, it still will increase the medical care cost of patients. ConclusionIDD is appropriate for patients who have failed to nonoperative treatment measures and can not tolerate open surgery, but the long-term effectiveness and durability of IDD need further research.
Objective To summarize the research progress on the nerve root sedimentation sign of lumbar spinal stenosis. Methods The recent domestic and foreign literature in recent years was reviewed. The definition, classification, and mechanism of nerve root sedimentation sign and the relation of nerve root sedimentation sign to diagnosis and treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis were summarized. Results Nerve root sedimentation sign is a phenomena which is found in MRI images of lumbar spine. Its mechanism is mainly increased intraoperative epidural pressure. There are two types of classification and the classification in which nerve root sedimentation sign is classified into " positive” and " negative” is widely applied. It has high sensitivity and specificity in differential diagnosis patients with severe lumbar spinal stenosis and patients with nonspecific low back pain. As for treatment, the nerve root sedimentation sign is related to the surgical disc levels. However, it’s not sure if the nerve root sedimentation sign is related to surgical outcome. In addition, a positive sedimentation sign turns negative after sufficient surgical decompression and a new positive sedimentation sign after sufficient decompression surgery could be used as an indicator of new stenosis in previously operated patients. Conclusion For lumbar spinal stenosis, the nerve root sedimentation sign can be applied as an auxiliary diagnostic indicator, as a guidance for deciding the operated disc levels, and as a postoperative indicator for evaluating the effectiveness.
Objective To investigate the feasibility, effectiveness, and security of percutaneous endoscopic spine surgery for treatment of lumbar spine disorders with intraspinal ossification. Methods Between July 2008 and June 2016, 96 patients with lumbar spine disorders (lumbar disc herniation or lumbar spinal stenosis) with intraspinal ossification were treated with percutaneous endoscopic spine surgery. There were 59 males and 37 females, aged from 13 to 57 years (mean, 29.5 years). The disease duration was 3-51 months (mean, 18.2 months). Fifty-one cases had trauma history. Ninety-two cases were single segmental unilateral symptom, 4 cases were bilateral symptom. The ossification property was posterior ring apophysis separation in 89 cases, and ossification of the fibrous ring or posterior longitudinal ligament in 7 cases. There were 32 cases of lateral type, 13 cases of central type, and 51 cases of mixed type. The pressure factors, such as nucleus pulposus, hyperplasia of the yellow ligament, joint capsule, or articular osteophyma, were removed under the microscope. Local anesthesia or continuous epidural anesthesia was performed in the transforaminal approach with 50 cases, and continuous epidural anesthesia or general anesthesia was performed in the interlaminar approach with 46 cases. The visual analogue scale (VAS) score was used to evaluate the degree of leg pain preoperatively and at last follow-up. The effectiveness was evaluated at last follow-up according to the modified Macnab criteria. Results All patients were successfully operated. Via transforaminal approach, the mean operation time was 53 minutes and the mean intraoperative fluoroscopy times was 8 times; and via interlaminar approach was 58 minutes and 3 times, respectively. The mean bed rest time after operation was 6.5 hours and the mean hospitalization time was 4.7 days. All patients were followed up 6-18 months (median, 11 months). Postoperative lumbar CT scan and three-dimensional reconstruction after 3 days of operation showed that ossification tissues of 26 cases were not resected, 12 cases were resected partly, and 49 cases were resected completely. Postoperative lumbar MRI after 3 months of operation showed that spinal cord and nerve root were not compressed. At last follow-up, VAS score of leg pain was 0.7±1.1, which was significantly lower than preoperative score (5.8±1.1) (t=1.987, P=0.025). At last follow-up, according to modified Macnab criteria, the results were excellent in 87 cases, good in 5 cases, and fair in 4 cases, and the excellent and good rate was 95.8%. Conclusion Percutaneous endoscopic spine surgery for treatment of lumbar spine disorders with intraspinal ossification is an effective, safe, and minimal invasive alternative, and the short-term effectiveness is reliable. Accounting for the treatment of intraspinal ossification, comprehensive analysis should be made by combining clinical symptoms, imaging characteristics, and risk assessment.
Objective To investigate the effectiveness of one-hole split endoscope (OSE) technique in the treatment of single segment lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). Methods The clinical data of 32 single segment LSS patients treated with OSE technique for simple spinal canal decompression between January 2022 and December 2022, who met the selection criteria, were retrospectively analysed. There were 18 males and 14 females, the age ranged from 45 to 82 years, with an average of 65.1 years. The disease duration was 9-72 months, with an average of 34.9 months. The surgical segments included L3, 4 in 3 cases, L4, 5 in 19 cases, and L5, S1 in 10 cases. The incision length, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative radiation exposure frequency, postoperative mobilization time, and the area of the patient’s lesion segment dural sac before operation and at 1 month after operation were recorded. Low back pain and leg pain were assessed by visual analogue scale (VAS) score before operation and at 3 days, 3 months, and 12 months after operation; functional recovery was assessed by Oswestry disability index (ODI) before operation and at 3 months and 12 months after operation; the effectiveness was assessed by modified MacNab criteria at last follow-up. Results All 32 patients successfully completed the operation, with an average incision length of 2.05 cm, an average operation time of 88.59 minutes, an average intraoperative blood loss of 46.72 mL, an average intraoperative radiation exposure frequency of 3.84 times, and an average postoperative mobilization time of 11.66 hours. All patients were followed up 12-16 months, with an average of 13.5 months. One patient experienced lower limb numbness, pain, and decreased muscle strength after operation, while the remaining patients did not experience complications such as dural tear or important nerve damage. The VAS scores of low back pain and leg pain and ODI in patients at various time points after operation were significantly better than preoperative ones, and each indicator further improved with time. The differences between time points were significant (P<0.05). At 1 month after operation, the area of the patient’s lesion segment dural sac was (123.13±19.66) mm2, which significantly increased compared to preoperative (51.25±9.50) mm2 (t=−18.616, P<0.001). At last follow-up, the improved MacNab criteria were used to evaluate the effectiveness, with 18 cases achieving excellent results, 11 cases being good, and 3 cases being fair, with an excellent and good rate of 90.6%. ConclusionThe effectiveness of using OSE technique for simple spinal canal decompression treatment of single segment LSS is satisfactory, with the advantages of minimal surgical trauma and fast recovery.
Objective To review the application and progress of different minimally invasive spinal decompression in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). Methods The domestic and foreign literature on the application of different minimally invasive spinal decompression in the treatment of LSS was extensively reviewed, and the advantages, disadvantages, and complications of different surgical methods were summarized. ResultsAt present, minimally invasive spinal decompression mainly includes microscopic bilateral decompression, microendoscopic decompression, percutaneous endoscopic lumbar decompression, unilateral biportal endoscopy, and so on. Compared with traditional open surgery, different minimally invasive spinal decompression techniques can reduce the operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative pain of patients, thereby reducing hospital stay and saving treatment costs. Conclusion The indications of different minimally invasive spinal decompression are different, but there are certain advantages and disadvantages. When patients have clear surgical indications, individualized treatment plans should be formulated according to the symptoms and signs of patients, combined with imaging manifestations.
ObjectiveTo observe the difference between crenel lateral interbody fusion (CLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) combined with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).MethodsThe clinical data of DLS combined with LSS patients meeting the selection criteria admitted between May 2018 and May 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. According to different surgical methods, the patients were divided into CLIF group (33 cases) and TLIF group (32 cases). There were no significant differences (P>0.05) between the two groups in gender, age, disease duration, lesion segments, lumbar bone mineral density, degree of lumbar spondylolisthesis, and preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score, Oswestry disability index (ODI), intervertebral space height, intervertebral foramen height, lumbar lordosis (LL), and segmental lordosis (SL). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and perioperative complications were recorded and compared between the two groups. Lumbar CT scan was performed at last follow-up to compare the intervertebral fusion rate between the two groups. Intervertebral space height, intervertebral foramen height, LL, and SL were measured before operation, at 2 weeks, 3 months after operation, and at last follow-up. VAS score and ODI were used to evaluate the pain and improvement of the quality of life of the patients.ResultsThere were no neurological and vascular complications in the two groups. The operation time and intraoperative blood loss in CLIF group were significantly less than those in TLIF group (P<0.05). Patients in both groups were followed up for a median time of 18 months. All the incisions healed by first intention except 1 incision in TLIF group because of poor blood glucose control. No complications such as bedsore, falling pneumonia, and deep venous thrombosis were found in both groups. At last follow-up, the intervertebral fusion rates in CLIF and TLIF group were 90.91% (30/33) and 93.75% (30/32), respectively, showing no significant difference (χ2=0.185, P=0.667). The VAS score, ODI, intervertebral space height, intervertebral foramen height, LL, and SL were significantly improved in both groups at each time point after operation (P<0.05). Except that VAS score in CLIF group was significantly lower than that in TLIF group at 2 weeks after operation (Z=−4.303, P=0.000), there were no significant differences in VAS score and ODI between the two groups at other time points (P>0.05). The intervertebral space height, intervertebral foramen height, LL, and SL in CLIF group were significantly higher than those in TLIF group at each time point after operation, and the differences were significant (P<0.05).ConclusionCLIF in the treatment of DLS combined with LSS can achieve the similar effectiveness with traditional TLIF, and has such advantages as minimal invasion and faster recovery.
Objective To explore decompression strategies for lateral lumbar spinal stenosis under unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) assistance. Methods A clinical data of 86 patients with lateral lumbar stenosis treated with UBE-assisted intervertebral decompression between September 2022 and December 2023 was retrospectively analyzed. There were 42 males and 44 females with an average age of 63.6 years (range, 45-79 years). The disease duration ranged from 6 to 14 months (mean, 8.5 months). Surgical levels included L2, 3 in 3 cases, L3, 4 in 26 cases, L4, 5 in 42 cases, and L5, S1 in 15 cases. According to Lee’s grading system, there were 21 cases of grade 1, 37 cases of grade 2, and 28 cases of grade 3 for lumbar spinal stenosis. Based on the location of stenosis and clinical symptoms, the 33 cases underwent interlaminar approach, 7 cases underwent interlaminar approach with auxiliary third incision, 26 cases underwent contralateral inclinatory approach, and 20 cases underwent paraspinal approach; then, the corresponding decompression procedures were performed. Visual analogue scale (VAS) score was used to evaluate lower back/leg pain before operation and at 1 and 3 months after operation, while Oswestry disability index (ODI) was used to evaluate spinal function. At 3 months after operation, the effectiveness was evaluated using the modified MacNab evaluation criteria. The spinal stenosis and decompression were evaluated based on Lee’s grading system using lumbar MRI before operation and at 3 months after operation. ResultsAll procedures were successfully completed with mean operation time of 95.1 minutes (range, 57-166 minutes). Dural tears occurred in 2 cases treated with interlaminar approach with auxiliary third incision. All incisions healed by first intention. All patients were followed up 3-10 months (mean, 5.9 months). The clinical symptoms of the patients relieved to varying degrees. The VAS scores and ODI of lower back and leg pain at 1 and 3 months after operation significantly improved compared to preoperative levels (P<0.05), and the indicators at 3 months significantly improved than that at 1 month (P<0.05). According to the modified MacNab evaluation criteria, the effectiveness at 3 months after operation was rated as excellent in 52 cases, good in 21 cases, and poor in 13 cases, with an excellent and good rate of 84.9%. No lumbar instability was detected on flexion-extension X-ray films during follow-up. The Lee’s grading of lateral lumbar stenosis at 2 days after operation showed significant improvement compared to preoperative grading (P<0.05). ConclusionFor lateral lumbar spinal stenosis, UBE-assisted decompression of the spinal canal requires the selection of interlaminar approach, interlaminar approach with auxiliary third incision, contralateral inclinatory approach, and paraspinal approach based on preoperative imaging findings and clinical symptoms to achieve better effectiveness.
Objective To compare the effectiveness of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) by unilateral fenestration and bilateral decompression with ultrasounic osteotome and traditional tool total laminectomy decompression PLIF in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Methods The clinical data of 48 patients with single-stage degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis between January 2017 and June 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. Among them, 27 patients were treated with unilateral fenestration and bilateral decompression PLIF with ultrasonic osteotome (group A), and 21 patients were treated with total laminectomy and decompression PLIF with traditional tools (group B). There was no significant difference in gender, age, stenosis segment, degree of spinal canal stenosis, and disease duration between the two groups (P>0.05), which was comparable. The time of laminectomy decompression, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, and the occurrence of operation-related complications were recorded and compared between the two groups. Bridwell bone graft fusion standard was applied to evaluate bone graft fusion at last follow-up. Visual analogue scale (VAS) score was used to evaluate the patients’ lumbar and back pain at 3 days, 3 months, and 6 months after operation. Oswestry disability index (ODI) score was used to evaluate the patients’ lumbar and back function improvement before operation and at 6 months after operation. Results The time of laminectomy decompression in group A was significantly longer than that in group B, and the intraoperative blood loss and postoperative drainage volume were significantly less than those in group B (P<0.05). There was no nerve root injury, dural tear, cerebrospinal fluid leakage, and hematoma formation during and after operation in the two groups. All patients were followed up after operation, the follow-up time in group A was 6-18 months (mean, 10.5 months) and in group B was 6-20 months (mean, 9.3 months). There was no complication such as internal fixation fracture, loosening and nail pulling occurred during the follow-up period of the two groups. There was no significant difference in VAS scores between the two groups at 3 days after operation (t=1.448, P=0.154); the VAS score of group A was significantly lower than that of group B at 3 and 6 months after operation (P<0.05). The ODI scores of the two groups were significantly improved at 6 months after operation (P<0.05), and there was no significant difference in ODI scores between the two groups before operation and at 6 months after operation (P>0.05). At last follow-up, according to Bridwell criteria, there was no significant difference in bone graft fusion between the two groups (Z=–0.065, P=0.949); the fusion rates of groups A and B were 96.3% (26/27) and 95.2% (20/21) respectively, with no significant difference (χ2=0.001, P=0.979 ). Conclusion The treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with unilateral fenestration and bilateral decompression PLIF with ultrasonic osteotome can achieve similar effectiveness as traditional tool total laminectomy and decompression PLIF, reduce intraoperative blood loss and postoperative drainage, and reduce lumbar back pain during short-term follow-up. It is a safe and effective operation method.
ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness of percutaneous coaxial large-channel endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (PE-LIF) and minimal invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Methods The clinical data of 134 patients with single-segment degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis who met the selection criteria between January 2019 and January 2021 were retrospectively analyzed, including 52 cases in PE-LIF group and 82 cases in MIS-TLIF group. There was no significant difference in general data such as gender, age, disease duration, surgical segment, and preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) scores of low back pain and lower extremity pain, and Oswestry disability index (ODI) between the two groups (P>0.05). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage, hospitalization stay, and complications were recorded and compared between the two groups. The level of serum creatine kinase (CK) was recorded at 1 day before operation and at 1 and 3 days after operation to evaluate intraoperative muscle damage. The Brantigan criteria was used to evaluate the interbody fusion in the two groups. The VAS scores of low back pain and lower extremity pain at 1 day before operation and at 3 days, 3 months, and 1 year after operation, and the ODI scores at 1 day before operation and at 3 months and 1 year after operation were recorded and compared between the two groups. ResultsThere was no significant difference in operation time and hospitalization stay between the two groups (P>0.05). The intraoperative blood loss and postoperative drainage in the PE-LIF group were significantly lower than those in the MIS-TLIF group (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in serum CK between the two groups before operation (P>0.05), and the serum CK in the PE-LIF group at 1 and 3 days after operation were significantly lower than those in the MIS-TLIF group (P<0.05). All patients were followed up regularly for 1 year. The postoperative VAS scores of low back pain and lower extremity pain and ODI score in both groups were significantly lower than those before operation (P<0.05); there was no significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05). At 1 year after operation, 48 patients in PE-LIF group had successful interbody fusion, and 77 patients in MIS-TLIF group had successful interbody fusion. There was no significant difference in the interbody fusion distribution between the two groups at 3 months and 1 year after operation (P>0.05). There were 2 and 3 cases of lower limb numbness, 1 and 3 cases of neuroedema pain, 1 and 1 case of Cage displacement, 1 and 1 case of pedicle screw loosening in the PE-LIF group and MIS-TLIF group, respectively. No infection or dural sac tearing occurred in the two groups. There was no significant difference in the incidence of complications between the two groups (9.6% vs. 9.8%) (χ2=0.001, P=0.979). ConclusionIn the treatment of single-segment degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis, PE-LIF can achieve similar effectiveness as MIS-TLIF, and PE-LIF has less intraoperative blood loss and less muscle damage.