Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
Published in: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 1/2021

Open Access 01-12-2021 | Magnetic Resonance Imaging | Research article

Percutaneous spinal endoscopy with unilateral interlaminar approach to perform bilateral decompression for central lumbar spinal stenosis: radiographic and clinical assessment

Authors: Jingbo Xue, Haoxiang Chen, Bin Zhu, Xuelin Li, Zhihua Ouyang, Shan Li, Zhun Xu, Yong Xie, Yiguo Yan

Published in: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders | Issue 1/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Recently, a percutaneous spinal endoscopy unilateral posterior interlaminar approach to perform bilateral decompression has been proposed for use in treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis, As a development and supplement to traditional surgery, its advantages regarding therapeutic effects and prognosis, such as minor soft tissue damage, little intraoperative blood loss, and a quick return to daily life. However, there are few analyses of this surgery with a follow-up of more than 1 year,we conducted this study in order to quantitatively investigate radiographic and clinical efficacies of this surgery for central lumbar spinal stenosis.

Materials and methods

Forty-six patients with central lumbar spinal stenosis were enrolled from January 2017 to July 2018. The visual analog scale (VAS) for back pain and leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), modified MacNab criteria were used to evaluate clinical efficiency at preoperative and postoperative time points. The intervertebral height index (IHI), cross-sectional area of the spinal canal (CSAC), calibrated disc signal (CDS) and spinal stability were examined to assess radiographic decompression efficiency via magnetic resonance imaging and X-ray at preoperative and postoperative time points.

Results

The VAS score for lower back pain and leg pain improved from 7.50 ± 0.78 to 1.70 ± 0.66 and from 7.30 ± 0.79 to 1.74 ± 0.68, respectively, and the ODI improved from 72.35 ± 8.15 to 16.15 ± 4.51. In terms of modified MacNab criteria, 91.3% of the patients achieved good or excellent outcomes. Furthermore, significant changes after surgery were observed for the percentage of CSAC, increasing from 125.3 ± 53.9 to 201.4 ± 78 mm2; however, no significant differences were observed for the remaining measurement indicators.

Conclusions

The clinical and radiographic efficacies of this surgery for central lumbar spinal stenosis were good in short-term follow-up, and this surgery did not cause meaningful changes in IHI, CDS, and spine stability in short-term follow-up. The effect of long-term follow-up needs further investigation.
Literature
1.
Weinstein J, Tosteson T, Lurie J, et al. Surgical versus nonsurgical therapy for lumbar spinal stenosis. New Engl J Med. 2008;358(8):794–810.PubMedCrossRef
2.
Hu ZJ, Fang XQ, Zhou ZJ, et al. Effect and possible mechanism of muscle-splitting approach on Multifidus muscle injury and atrophy after posterior lumbar spine surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(24):e1921–9.CrossRef
3.
Huang YH, Ou CY. Significant blood loss in lumbar fusion surgery for degenerative spine. World Neurosurgery. 2015;84(3):780–5.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Kim J, Ryu D, Paik H, et al. Paraspinal muscle, facet joint, and disc problems: risk factors for adjacent segment degeneration after lumbar fusion. Spine J. 2016;16(7):867–75.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Jansson KÅ, Németh G, Granath F, Blomqvist P. Spinal stenosis re-operation rate in Sweden is 11% at 10 years—a national analysis of 9,664 operations. Eur Spine J. 2005;14(7):659–63.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
6.
Lee JC, Kim Y, Soh JW, Shin BJ. Risk factors of adjacent segment disease requiring surgery following lumbar spinal fusion: comparison of PLIF and PLF. Spine. 2013;39(5):E339–45.CrossRef
7.
Ogura Y, Kitagawa T, Kobayashi Y, et al. Risk factors for persistent numbness following decompression surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2020;196:105952.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Leinonen V, Määttä S, Taimela S, et al. Impaired lumbar movement perception in association with postural stability and motor and somatosensory evoked potentials in lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine. 2002;27(9):975–83.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Ahn,Yong. Percutaneous endoscopic decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis. Expert Rev Med Devic 2014;11(6): 1–12.
10.
Wen B, Zhang X, Zhang L, et al. Percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar spinal canal decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis. Medicine. 2016;95(50):e5186.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
11.
Kim SK, Lee SC, Park SW, et al. Complications of lumbar disc herniations following trans-sacral epiduroscopic lumbar decompression: a single-center, retrospective study. J Orthop Surg Res. 2017;12(1):187.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
12.
Akeda K, Yamada T, Inoue N, et al. Risk factors for lumbar intervertebral disc height narrowing: a population-based longitudinal study in the elderly. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2015;16(1):344.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
13.
Sipola P, Leinonen V, Niemeläinen R, et al. Visual and quantitative assessment of lateral lumbar spinal canal stenosis with magnetic resonance imaging. Acta Radiol. 2011;52(9):1024–31.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Fay LY, Wu JC, Tsai TY, et al. Intervertebral disc rehydration after lumbar dynamic stabilization: magnetic resonance image evaluation with a mean Followup of four years. Adv Orthop. 2013;24:437570.
15.
Eun S, Lee S-H, Sabal G. Long-term follow-up results of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy. Pain Physician. 2016;19(8):E1161–6.PubMed
16.
Watters W, Baisden J, Gilbert T, et al. An evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (update). Spine J. 2013;8(2):305–10.CrossRef
17.
18.
19.
Kalichman L, Hunter D. Lumbar facet joint osteoarthritis: a review. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2007;37(2):69–80.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Jaumard N, Welch W, Winkelstein B, et al. Spinal facet joint biomechanics and mechanotransduction in normal, injury and degenerative conditions. J Biomech Eng. 2011;133(7):071010.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Liu Y, Shi C, Wang X, et al. Timing of surgical decompression for traumatic cervical spinal cord injury. Int Orthop. 2015;39(12):2457–63.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Boyd L, Richardson W, Chen J, et al. Osmolarity regulates gene expression in intervertebral disc cells determined by gene array and real-time quantitative RT-PCR. Ann Biomed Eng. 2005;33(8):1071–7.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Urban J. The role of the physicochemical environment in determining disc cell behaviour. Biochem Soc Trans. 2002;30(Pt6):858–64.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Masui T, Yukawa Y, Nakamura S, et al. Natural history of patients with lumbar disc herniation observed by magnetic resonance imaging for minimum 7 years. J Spinal Disord. 2005;18(2):121–6.CrossRef
25.
Barth M, Diepers M, Weiss C, Thomé C. Two-year outcome after lumbar microdiscectomy versus microscopic Sequestrectomy: part 2: radiographic evaluation and correlation with clinical outcome. Spine. 2008;33(3):273–9.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Colombini A, Lombardi G, Corsi Romanelli M, et al. Pathophysiology of the human intervertebral disc. Int J Biochem Cell B. 2008;40(5):837–42.CrossRef
27.
Milbrandt T, Sucato D. The position of the aorta relative to the spine in patients with left thoracic scoliosis. Spine. 2007;32(12):E348–53.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Guo S, Sun J, Tang G. Clinical study of bilateral decompression via vertebral lamina fenestration for lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of lower lumbar instability. Exp Ther Med. 2013;5(3):922–6.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
29.
Johnsson K, Willner S. Postoperative instability after decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine. 1986;11(2):107–10.PubMedCrossRef
30.
Mobbs R, Li J, Sivabalan P, Raley D, et al. Outcomes after decompressive laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis: comparison between minimally invasive unilateral laminectomy for bilateral decompression and open laminectomy: clinical article. J Neurosurg-Spine. 2014;21(2):1–8.CrossRef
31.
Yang J, Kim S, Kim T, Park K. Analysis of factors contributing to postoperative spinal instability after lumbar decompression for spinal stenosis. Korean J Spine. 2013;10(3):149–54.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
32.
Hamasaki T, Tanaka N, Kim J, et al. Biomechanical assessment of minimally invasive decompression for lumbar Spinal Canal stenosis a cadaver study. J Spinal Disord. 2009;22(7):486–91.CrossRef
33.
Bresnahan L, Fessler R, Natarajan R. Evaluation of change in muscle activity as a result of posterior lumbar spine surgery using a dynamic modeling system. Spine. 2010;35(16):E761–7.PubMedCrossRef
34.
Sasai K, Umeda M, Maruyama T, et al. Microsurgical bilateral decompression via a unilateral approach for lumbar spinal canal stenosis including degenerative spondylolisthesis: clinical article. J Neurosurg-Spine. 2009;9(6):554–9.CrossRef
35.
Postacchini F, Cinotti G, Perugia D, et al. The surgical treatment of central lumbar stenosis. Multiple laminotomy compared with total laminectomy. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1993;75(3):386–92.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Issack P, Cunningham M, Pumberger M, et al. Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: evaluation and management. J Am Acad Orthop Sur. 2012;20(8):527–35.CrossRef
37.
Roberson G, Llewellyn H, Taveras J. The narrow lumbar Spinal Canal syndrome 1. Radiology. 1973;107(1):89–97.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Zhang L, Chen R, Xie P, et al. Diagnostic value of the nerve root sedimentation sign, a radiological sign using magnetic resonance imaging, for detecting lumbar spinal stenosis: a meta-analysis. Skelet Radiol. 2014;44(4):519–27.CrossRef
39.
Kanbara S, Yukawa Y, Ito K, et al. Dynamic changes in the dural sac of patients with lumbar canal stenosis evaluated by multidetector-row computed tomography after myelography. Eur Spine J. 2013;23(1):74–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
40.
Englund J. Lumbar spinal stenosis. Curr Sports Med Rep. 2007;6(1):50–5.PubMed
41.
42.
Hf N, Cheng Z, Song YM, et al. Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for L5-S1 disc herniation via an Interlaminar approach versus a Transforaminal approach: a prospective randomized controlled study with 2-year follow up. Spine. 2016;41(suppl 19):B30–7.
43.
Wang B, Lv G, Patel AA, et al. An evaluation of the learning curve for a complex surgical technique: the full endoscopic interlaminar approach for lumbar disc herniations. Spine J. 2011;11(2):122–30.PubMedCrossRef
44.
Pan M, Li Q, Li S, et al. Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy: indications and complications. Pain Physician. 2020;23(1):49–56.PubMed
45.
Wu B, Xiong C, Tan L, et al. Clinical outcomes of MED and iLESSYS Delta for the treatment of lumbar central spinal stenosis and lateral recess stenosis: a comparison study. Exp Ther Med. 2020;20(6):252.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
46.
Lee C, Yoon K, Ha S, et al. Comparative analysis between three different lumbar decompression techniques (microscopic, tubular, and endoscopic) in Lumbar Canal and lateral recess stenosis: preliminary report. Biomed Res Int. 2019;3:6078469.
47.
Lee C, Yoon K, Jun J, et al. Percutaneous endoscopic Laminotomy with Flavectomy by Uniportal, unilateral approach for the Lumbar Canal or lateral recess stenosis. World Neurosurg. 2018;113:e129–37.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Percutaneous spinal endoscopy with unilateral interlaminar approach to perform bilateral decompression for central lumbar spinal stenosis: radiographic and clinical assessment
Authors
Jingbo Xue
Haoxiang Chen
Bin Zhu
Xuelin Li
Zhihua Ouyang
Shan Li
Zhun Xu
Yong Xie
Yiguo Yan
Publication date
01-12-2021
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2474
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-021-04100-3

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 1/2021 Go to the issue

Research

Predicting change in symptoms and function in patients with persistent shoulder pain: a prognostic model development study

Research

Value of passive anterior tibial subluxation on axial MRI in identifying anterior cruciate ligament functional deficiency in patients with advanced anteromedial osteoarthritis of the knee: a case-control study

Technical advance

Use of Gracile and semi-tendinosus tendons (GRAST) for the reconstruction of irreparable rotator cuff tears

Research

From bowel inflammation to the bone and joints: musculoskeletal examination in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)

Research

Intralesional nerve-sparing surgery versus non-surgical treatment for giant cell tumor of the sacrum

Research

Randomised, double-blind comparison of a fixed co-formulation of intra-articular polynucleotides and hyaluronic acid versus hyaluronic acid alone in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: two-year follow-up