ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) with bilateral decompression via unilateral approach and bilateral decompression via bilateral approaches in the treatment of single-segment lumbar spinal stenosis.MethodsBetween February 2015 and January 2017, 70 cases of single-segment lumbar spinal stenosis were treated with MIS-TLIF. The bilateral decompression via unilateral approach (group U) was performed in 36 cases and bilateral decompression via bilateral approaches (group B) in 34 cases. There was no significant difference in age, gender, body mass index, disease duration, distribution of responsibility segments, preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score of low back pain and leg pain and Oswestry disability index (ODI) score (P>0.05). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, hospitalization stay after operation, complications related to operation, incidence of asymptomatic lateral root symptoms, VAS scores of low back pain and leg pain, and ODI score before and after operation were compared between the two groups. X-ray film and CT scan at 12 months after operation were used to assessted the intervertebral bony fusion.ResultsThe operation time and intraoperative blood loss in group U were significantly less than those in group B (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in hospitalization stay after operation between the two groups (t=–0.311, P=0.757). During the operation, 1 case in group U and 2 cases in group B had dural tear. No screw placement related nerve injury or asymptomatic lateral root symptoms occurred after operation. The patients were followed up 24 to 38 months, with an average of 32.8 months in group U and 35.5 months in group B. The VAS scores of low back pain and leg pain at 2 days, 3, 6, and 12 months after operation were significantly lower than that before operation in the two groups (P<0.05), and there was no significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05). The ODI scores at 3, 6 and 12 months after operation were significantly lower than that before operation in the two groups (P<0.05), and there was no significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05). Radiographic examination showed interbody fusion at 12 months after operation in the two groups.ConclusionMIS-TLIF is safe and effective in the treatment of single-segment lumbar spinal stenosis with bilateral decompression via unilateral approach and bilateral decompression via bilateral approaches. Bilateral decompression via unilateral approach takes less operation time and has less intraoperative blood loss.
Objective To design the surgical strategy of percutaneous full-endoscopic bilateral decompression via unilateral posterior approach for bilateral lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) and to evaluate the effectiveness. Methods The percutaneous full-endoscopic bilateral decompression via unilateral posterior approach for bilateral LSS was designed according to the pathological features of LSS. The technique was used to treat 42 patients with LSS between January 2016 and January 2018. There were 18 males and 24 females with an average age of 61.7 years (range, 46-81 years). The duration of symptoms was 1-20 years, with an average of 9.7 years. The surgical segment at L4, 5 were 27 cases, at L5, S1 were 15 cases. The operation time and perioperative complications were recorded. Lumbar X-ray, CT, and MRI examinations were performed at 1 week, 3 months, and 1 year after operation. Visual analogue scale (VAS) score was used to evaluate the low back pain and leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI) was used to evaluate the lumbar function, and single continuous walking distance (SCWD) was used to evaluate lower extremity nerve function. The clinical efficacy was evaluated by MacNab criteria at 1 year after operation. Results All patients underwent surgery successfully. The operation time was 68-141 minutes with an average of 98.2 minutes. All 42 patients were followed up 12-24 months with an average of 18.8 months. There were 2 cases of dural tears during operation, and 1 case of transient dysfunction of the lower limbs of the decompression channel after operation. All of them were cured after corresponding treatment. No serious complications such as death, major bleeding, or irreversible nerve injury occurred during follow-up. No segmental instability was found according to postoperative lumbar hyperextension and flexion X-ray films, and postoperative CT and MRI imaging showed that the stenotic lumbar spinal canal was significantly enlarged, and the compression of the nerve root was sufficient. The VAS score of low back pain and leg pain, ODI score, and SCWD at each time point after operation were significantly improved when compared with those before operation (P<0.05); the indexes were significantly improved over time after operation, and the differences were significantly (P<0.05). The clinical efficacy was evaluated by MacNab standard at 1 year after operation, and the results were excellent in 18 cases, good in 20 cases, fair in 3 cases, and poor in 1 case. The excellent and good rate was 90.5%. Conclusion The percutaneous full-endoscopic bilateral decompression via unilateral posterior approach for LSS is a safe and effective procedure. A well-designed surgical strategy and mastery of its technical points are important guarantees for successful operation and satisfactory results.
Objective To compare microendoscopic discectomy (MED) with open discectomy (OD) for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis in terms of cl inical outcomes, and provide experience and therapeutic evidence for cl inical appl ication.Methods From May 2002 to October 2007, 215 patients with lumbar spinal stenosis were randomized into two groups, and underwent either MED or OD. In group A, 105 patients underwent MED, including 56 males and 49 females aged 34 to 83 years old (average 45 years old); the duration of the disease ranged from 9 months to 26 years (average 50 months); the spinal stenosis involved one segment in 76 cases, two segments in 27 cases, and three segments in 2 cases. In group B, 110 patients received OD, including 57 males and 53 females aged 35 to 85 years old (average 47 years old); the duration of the disease ranged from 8 months to 25 years (average 48 months); the spinal stenosis involved one segment in 78 cases, two segments in 29 cases, and three segments in 3 cases. No significant difference was evident between two groups in terms of the general information(P gt; 0.05). Results Operation was successfully performed in all cases. Volume of intraoperative blood loss was (82.14 ± 6.18) mL in group A and (149.24 ± 11.17) mL in group B. Length of hospital stay was (7.0 ± 2.1) days in group A and (12.0 ± 2.6) days in group B. Significant difference was noted between two groups in terms of the above parameters (P lt; 0.01). All the wounds healed by first intention. The patients were followed up for 13-54 months (average 27 months) in group A and 12-55 months (average29 months) in group B. Four patients in each group suffered from spinal dural rupture during operation and recovered after corresponding treatment. Three patients in group B had lumbar instabil ity 3 years after operation and recovered using lumbar interbody fusion combined with general spine system internal fixation. No such compl ications as wrong orientation, nerve root injury, cauda equina injury and infection occurred in each group, and radiology exam showed no relapse. Therapeutic effect was evaluated by Nakai standard, 52 cases in group A were graded as excellent, 45 as good, 7 as fair, 1 as poor, and the excellent and good rate was 92.4%; 53 cases in group B were graded as excellent, 48 as good, 8 as fair, 1 as poor, and the excellent and good rate was 91.8%; there was no significant difference between two groups (P gt; 0.05). Conclusion Two methods have the similar therapeutic effect, but MED el iminates the shortcomings of traditional OD, so it is one of ideal minimally invasive operative approaches for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.
Objective To assess the clinical application value of tranforaminal unilateral approach for bilateral decompression by comparing the short-term effectiveness of bilateral decompression via unilateral approach of intervertebral foramen with via small surgical incision of bilateral spinous process in lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. Methods Between July 2014 and June 2015, 48 patients with lumbar spinal stenosis underwent decompression and internal fixation by unilateral approach in 24 cases (trial group) and by bilateral small incision approach in 24 cases (control group). There was no significant difference in gender, age, disease duration, disease type, involved segment, combined medical diseases, preoperative level of creatine phosphokinase (CPK), the visual analogue scale (VAS), and Oswestry disability index (ODI) between 2 groups (P>0.05). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage, hospitalization time, and the incidence of complications were recorded. The CPK levels were evaluated at 1, 3, and 7 days after operation. VAS score and ODI were used to evaluate the effectiveness, and lumbar X-ray film or CT scanning to determine the intervertebral bony fusion. Results There was no significant difference in operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and hospitalization time between 2 groups (P>0.05), but significant difference was found in postoperative drainage (t=5.547,P=0.000). At 1 day after operation, the level of CPK in the trial group was significantly lower than that in the control group (t=3.129,P=0.005), but there was no significant difference at 3 and 7 days after operation between 2 groups (P>0.05). The patients were followed up 12-24 months (mean, 17 months). All the wounds healed primarily. Heart failure occurred in 1 case of the trial group, and cerebrospinal fluid leakage and pulmonary infection, and nerve root injury occurred in 1 case of the control group respectively. There was no significant difference in the incidence of complications between 2 groups (χ2=0.273,P=0.602). The interbody fusion rate was 95.8% (23/24) in the trial group and was 91.7% (22/24) in the control group, showing no significant difference (χ2=0.356,P=0.551). No cage sink, dislocation or plate and screw loosening and breakage was found in 2 groups. No adjacent segment degeneration occurred during the follow-up, and there was no change of scoliosis and lumbar sagittal curvature. At 3, 6, and 12 months after operation, the VAS score and ODI were significantly improved when compared with the preoperative scores in 2 groups (P<0.05), and the VAS score and ODI of the trial group were significantly better than those of control group (P<0.05). Conclusion The bilateral decompression via unilateral approach of intervertebral foramen and small surgical incision of bilateral spinous process in lumbar interbody fusion have satisfactory efficacy for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis, but the tranforaminal unilateral approach has the advantages of less trauma, avoidance of bilateral muscle stripping and soft paraspinal muscle injury, retention of posterior spinal structure, faster postoperative recovery, shorter hospital stay and good short-term effectiveness.
Objective To discuss the main points of technique and the range of fusion in posterior operation of spinal stenosis associated with lumbar degenerative kyphosis (LDK). Methods The cl inical data were retrospectively analysedfrom 20 cases of spinal stenosis associated with LDK which were performed posterior operation from February 2001 to February 2008. There were 1 male and 19 females, aged 52-81 years old with an average of 64 years old. The course of disease was 6-10 years. All patients had severe low back pain. According to Frankel’s neurologic function classification, there were 18 cases of grade E and 2 cases of grade D before operation. The apex of LDK included L1 in 3 cases, L2 in 10 and L3 in 7. The operational method was decided according to different characteristics of LDK. All patients were divided into three groups. Group 1 included 6 cases of sciatica and intermittent claudication with worse physical status, the segmental decompression of spinal canal, posterior intervertebral fusion and short transpedical instrument fixation were performed. Group 2 included 8 cases whose Cobb angle of LDK was less than 20°, the segmental decompression of spinal canal, posterior intervertebral fusion and one-level or multilevel lamina osteotomy were performed, instrumentation-assisted correction was used. Group 3 included 6 cases whose Cobb angle of LDK was more than 20°, the canal decompression and one-level transvertebral wedge osteotomy were performed, instrumentation-assisted correction, intervertebral fusion and posterior-lateral fusion were used. Results Incision healedby first intention in all patients. One patient suffered from superior mesenteric artery syndrome at 6 hours after operationand healed after symptomatic management. The neurologic function was improved to grade E at 2 weeks after opeartion. All patients were followed-up 24-54 months (average 26 months). At last follow-up，the Oswestry Disabil ity Index of all patients was 30.5% ± 9.6%; showing significant difference when compared with preoperation (55.9% ± 11.8%, P lt; 0.05). The back pain scoring and leg pain scoring were 2.8 ± 1.6 and 2.4 ± 1.6, respectively according to the Numeric Rating Scale score; showing significant differences when compared with preoperation (7.5 ± 0.5 and 7.3 ± 0.7, P lt; 0.05). The Numeric Rating Scale score and Oswestry Disabil ity Index in all patients were improved obviously when compared with before operation (P lt; 0.05). During the follow-up period, there was no instrumentation failure or correction loss and the fusion rate was up to 100%. Conclusion For spinal stenosis associated with LDK patients, the most important therapic purpose is to improve cl inical symptom through reconstruction lumbar stabil ization and spinal biomechanics l ine in sagittal plane. Overall estimate of the cl inical appearance and imageology character is necessary when making decision of which segments needed to be fixation and fusion. Individual ized treatment strategy may be the best choice.
ObjectiveTo evaluate early effectiveness of posterior 180-degree decompression via unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) combined with Michigan State University (MSU)-1 lumbar disc herniation (LDH). MethodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on clinical data from 33 patients with LSS combined with MSU-1 LDH, who met selection criteria and were treated between March 2022 and January 2024. All patients underwent UBE-assisted 180-degree spinal canal decompression. The cohort comprised 17 males and 16 females, aged 37-82 years (mean, 67.1 years). Preoperative presentations included bilateral lower limbs intermittent claudication and radiating pain, with disease duration ranging from 5 to 13 months (mean, 8.5 months). Affected segments included L3, 4 in 4 cases, L4, 5 in 28 cases, and L5, S1 in 1 case. LSS was rated as Schizas grade A in 4 cases, grade B in 5 cases, grade C in 13 cases, and grade D in 11 cases. LDH was categorized as MSU-1A in 24 cases, MSU-1B in 2 cases, and MSU-1AB in 7 cases. Intraoperative parameters (operation time, blood loss) and postoperative hospitalization length were recorded. The visual analogue scale (VAS) score and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were used to assess the lower limb pain and functional outcomes after operation. Clinical efficacy was evaluated at last follow-up via modified MacNab criteria. Quantitative radiological assessments included dural sac cross-sectional area (DSCA) measurements and spinal stenosis grading on lumbar MRI. Morphological classification of lumbar canal stenosis was determined according to the Schizas grading, categorized into four grades. Results The operation time was 60.4-90.8 minutes (mean, 80.3 minutes) and intraoperative blood loss was 13-47 mL (mean, 29.9 mL). The postoperative hospitalization length was 3-5 days (mean, 3.8 days). All patients were followed up 12-16 months (mean, 13.8 months). The VAS score and ODI improved at immediate and 3, 6, and 12 months after operation compared to before operation, and the differences between different time points were significant (P<0.05). At last follow-up, the clinical efficacy assessed by the modified MacNab criteria were graded as excellent in 23 cases, good in 9 cases, and poor in 1 case, with an excellent and good rate of 96.97%. Postoperative lumbar MRI revealed the significant decompression of the dural sac in 32 cases, with 1 case showing inadequate dural expansion. DSCA measurements confirmed progressive enlargement and stenosis reduction over time. The differences were significant (P<0.05) before operation, immediately after operation, and at 6 months after operation. At 6 months after operation, Schizas grading of spinal stenosis improved to grade A in 27 cases and grade B in 6 cases. ConclusionPosterior 180-degree decompression via UBE is a safe and feasible strategy for treating LSS combined with MSU-1 LDH, achieving effective neural decompression while preserving intervertebral disc integrity.
Objective To compare the effectiveness of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (UBE-TLIF) and endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) in the treatment of single-segment degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with lumbar spondylolisthesis. Methods Between November 2019 and May 2023, a total of 81 patients with single-segment degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with lumbar spondylolisthesis who met the selection criteria were enrolled. They were randomly divided into UBE-TLIF group (39 cases) and Endo-TLIF group (42 cases). There was no significant difference in baseline data between the two groups (P>0.05), including gender, age, body mass index, surgical segment, and preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for low back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and serum markers including creatine kinase (CK) and C reactive protein (CRP). Total blood loss (TBL), intraoperative blood loss, hidden blood loss (HBL), postoperative drainage volume, and operation time were recorded and compared between the two groups. Serum markers (CK, CRP) levels were compared between the two groups at 1 day before operation and 1, 3, and 5 days after operation. Furthermore, the VAS scores for low back and leg pain, and ODI at 1 day before operation and 1 day, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after operation, and intervertebral fusion rate at 12 months after operation were compared between the two groups. Results All surgeries were completed successfully without occurrence of incision infection, vascular or nerve injury, epidural hematoma, dural tear, or postoperative paraplegia. The operation time in UBE-TLIF group was significantly shorter than that in Endo-TLIF group, but the intraoperative blood loss, TBL, and HBL in UBE-TLIF group were significantly more than those in Endo-TLIF group (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in postoperative drainage volume between the two groups (P>0.05). The levels of CK at 1 day and 3 days after operation and CRP at 1, 3, and 5 days after operation in UBE-TLIF group were slightly higher than those in the Endo-TLIF group (P<0.05), while there was no significant difference in the levels of CK and CPR between the two groups at other time points (P>0.05). All patients were followed up 12 months. VAS score of low back and leg pain and ODI at each time point after operation significantly improved when compared with those before operation in the two groups (P<0.05); there was no significant difference in VAS score of low back and leg pain and ODI between the two groups at each time point after operation (P>0.05). There was no significant difference in the intervertebral fusion rate between the two groups at 12 months after operation (P>0.05). ConclusionUBE-TLIF and Endo-TLIF are both effective methods for treating degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with lumbar spondylolisthesis. However, compared to Endo-TLIF, UBE-TLIF requires further improvement in minimally invasive techniques to reduce tissue trauma and blood loss.
Objective To compare the effectiveness between unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) and endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) in treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis combined with intervertebral disc herniation. Methods A clinical data of 64 patients with lumbar spinal stenosis and intervertebral disc herniation, who were admitted between April 2020 and November 2021 and met the selection criteria, was retrospectively analyzed. Among them, 30 patients were treated with ULIF (ULIF group) and 34 patients with Endo-TLIF (Endo-TLIF group). There was no significant difference in baseline data such as gender, age, disease duration, lesion segment, preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score of low back pain and leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), spinal canal area, and intervertebral space height between the two groups (P>0.05). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, hospital stays, and postoperative complications were compared between the two groups, as well as the VAS scores of low back pain and leg pain, ODI, and imaging measurement indicators (spinal canal area, intervertebral bone graft area, intervertebral space height, and degree of intervertebral fusion according to modified Brantigan score). Results Compared with the Endo-TLIF group, the ULIF group had shorter operation time, but had more intraoperative blood loss and longer hospital stays, with significant differences (P<0.05). The cerebrospinal fluid leakage occurred in 2 cases of Endo-TLIF group and 1 case of ULIF group, and no other complication occurred. There was no significant difference in the incidence of complications between the two groups (P>0.05). All patients in the two groups were followed up 12 months. The VAS scores of lower back pain and leg pain and ODI in the two groups significantly improved when compared with those before operation (P<0.05), and there was no significant difference between different time points after operation (P>0.05). And there was no significant difference between the two groups at each time point after operation (P>0.05). Imaging examination showed that there was no significant difference between the two groups in the change of spinal canal area, the change of intervertebral space height, and intervertebral fusion rate at 6 and 12 months (P>0.05). The intervertebral bone graft area in the ULIF group was significantly larger than that in the Endo-TLIF group (P<0.05). ConclusionFor the patients with lumbar spinal stenosis combined with intervertebral disc herniation, ULIF not only achieves similar effectiveness as Endo-TLIF, but also has advantages such as higher decompression efficiency, flexible surgical instrument operation, more thorough intraoperative intervertebral space management, and shorter operation time.
To investigate the effectiveness and safety of microendoscopic decompression via unilateral approach for lumbar spinal stenosis. Methods Between May 2006 and June 2009, 79 patients with lumbar stenosis were treated and divided into 2 groups: posterior lamina fenestration decompression (group A, n=37), endoscopic decompression via unilateral approach (group B, n=42). There was no significant difference in age, sex, segment level, and disease duration between 2 groups (P gt; 0.05). The cl inical outcomes were assessed by using the visual analogue scale (VAS) score and Oswestry Disabil ity Index (ODI). The operation time, blood loss, compl ications were compared between 2 groups. Results Operations were successfully performed in all cases. The operation time, blood loss, and drainage volume were (75.0 ± 25.7) minutes, (140.3 ± 54.8) mL, and (46.5 ± 19.7) mL in group A, were (50.4 ± 18.2) minutes, (80.2 ± 35.7) mL, and (12.7 ± 5.3) mL in group B; there were significant differences between 2 groups (P lt; 0.05). All the wounds healed by first intention. All patients were followed up 12-39 months (mean, 16 months). In group A, 1 patient suffered from intervertebral space infection after operation and recovered after conservative treatment; 4 patients had lumbar instabil ity after operation and recovered after lumbar interbody fusion combined with spine system internal fixation. In group B, 2 patients suffered from spinal dural rupture during operation and recovered after corresponding treatment, and no lumbar instabil ity was found. There was no significant difference in VAS score and ODI between 2 groups at preoperation (P gt; 0.05). Both VAS score and ODI were significantly improved at early stage after operation and last follow-up when compared with preoperation in each group (P lt; 0.05). Comparing with group A, there was significant improvement in VAS score at 24 hours postoperatively and in ODI at 1 month postoperatively in group B (P lt; 0.05), but no significant difference was observed at last follow-up (P gt; 0.05). According to cl inical evaluation of ODI mprovement rate, the excellent and good rate was 89.2% in group A and 92.9% in group B, showing no significant difference (χ2=0.896, P=0.827). Conclusion Comparing with posterior decompression surgery, microendoscopic decompression via unilateral approach is one of effective method to treat lumbar stenosis, with less trauma of fenestration yield and good early outcomes.
Objective To investigate the technique and effectiveness of modified laminoplasty for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) and to explore the application value of modified laminoplasty in maintaining the stability of the spine by comparing with the conventional laminectomy. Methods Fifty-six patients with LSS were included between June 2012 and July 2013, and they were divided into 2 groups: 27 patients underwent modified laminoplasty in group A, and 29 patients received conventional laminectomy in group B. There was no significant difference in sex, age, disease duration, narrow segment, visual analogue scale (VAS) score of low back pain and leg pain, Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, and walking tolerance between 2 groups (P > 0.05). The postoperative VAS score of low back pain and leg pain, JOA score, walking tolerance, X-ray film, and CT were used to evaluate the clinical results. Results Dural tear occurred in 2 cases of group A and 1 case of group B and were repaired during operation. All incisions primarily healed without infection. The patients were followed up 24-31 months (mean, 24.7 months) in group A, and 24-37 months (mean, 26.2 months) in group B. The bone healing time was 6-12 months (mean, 9 months) in group A. CT showed healing at the junction of spinous process and vertebral plate in group A at 12 months after operation; new scar in varying degre es was observed in group B. At last follow-up, lumbar spondylolisthesis and instability occurred in 4 and 2 cases of group B respectively, and received re-operation. The change value of slip distance was (0.27±0.23) mm in group A and was (0.83±1.22) mm in group B, showing significant difference (t=-2.405, P=0.023). The postoperative JOA score, VAS score, and walking tolerance were significantly improved when compared with preoperative ones in 2 groups (P < 0.05). At last follow-up, group A was better than group B in VAS score of low back pain (P < 0.05), but no significant difference was found in the other indexes between 2 groups (P > 0.05). Conclusion The modified laminoplasty is better than the conventional laminectomy in relieving low back pain and maintaining the stability of the lumbar spine.