Search

Abstract Background Unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) is a MIS surgical technique that offers safe and effective decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) with a long-term resolution of symptoms. Advantages over conventional open laminectomy include reduced expected blood loss, muscle damage, mechanical instability, and less postoperative pain. The slalom technique combined with navigation is used in multi-segmental LSS to improve the workflow and effectiveness of the procedure. Methods We outline ten technical steps to achieve a slalom unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (sULBD) with navigation. In a retrospective case series, we included patients with multi-segmental LSS operated in our institution using the sULBD between 2020 and 2022. The primary outcome was a reduction in pain measured by Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for back pain and leg pain and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Results In our case series (N = 7), all patients reported resolution of initial symptoms on an average follow-up of 20.71 ± 9 months. The average operative time and length of hospital stay were 196.14 min and 1.67 days, respectively. On average, VAS (back pain) was 4.71 pre-operatively and 1.50 on long-term follow-up of an average of 19.05 months. VAS (leg pain) decreased from 4.33 to 1.21. ODI was reported as 33% pre-operatively and 12% on long-term follow-up. Conclusion The sULBD with navigation is a safe and effective MIS surgical procedure and achieves the resolution of symptoms in patients presenting with multi-segmental LSS. Herein, we demonstrate the ten key steps required to perform the sULBD technique. Compared to the standard sULBD technique, the incorporation of navigation provides anatomic localization without exposure to radiation to staff for a higher safety profile along with a fast and efficient workflow.

Background: Unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) is a MIS surgical technique that offers safe and effective decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) with a long-term resolution of symptoms. Advantages over conventional open laminectomy include reduced expected blood loss, muscle damage, mechanical instability, and less postoperative pain. The slalom technique combined with navigation is used in multi-segmental LSS to improve the workflow and effectiveness of the procedure. Methods: We outline ten technical steps to achieve a slalom unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (sULBD) with navigation. In a retrospective case series, we included patients with multi-segmental LSS operated in our institution using the sULBD between 2020 and 2022. The primary outcome was a reduction in pain measured by Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for back pain and leg pain and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Results: In our case series (N = 7), all patients reported resolution of initial symptoms on an average follow-up of 20.71 ± 9 months. The average operative time and length of hospital stay were 196.14 min and 1.67 days, respectively. On average, VAS (back pain) was 4.71 pre-operatively and 1.50 on long-term follow-up of an average of 19.05 months. VAS (leg pain) decreased from 4.33 to 1.21. ODI was reported as 33% pre-operatively and 12% on long-term follow-up. Conclusion: The sULBD with navigation is a safe and effective MIS surgical procedure and achieves the resolution of symptoms in patients presenting with multi-segmental LSS. Herein, we demonstrate the ten key steps required to perform the sULBD technique. Compared to the standard sULBD technique, the incorporation of navigation provides anatomic localization without exposure to radiation to staff for a higher safety profile along with a fast and efficient workflow. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design.: Prospective cohort study Objective.: To report reoperation rates after lumbar tubular microdecompression (LTM) and to compare patient-reported outcomes (PROs) six years after surgery between those who did and did not need revision at the index level. Summary of Background Data.: Long-term data describing PROs and reoperation rates after LTMs are lacking. Materials and Methods.: Patients with lumbar spinal stenosis underwent one or more of three LTM procedures. Demographic, PROs [Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analog scale (VAS) for back and leg pain], and reoperation data were collected. Failure of an index LTM was defined as any revision surgery at the index level. Revision LTM at a different level was not considered failure. Failure and revision LTM incidence at a different level and cumulative incidence were prospectively collected up to six years. Mixed effects linear regressions with 95% CIs were performed to assess potential differences in ODI and reported VAS back and leg pain between patients that reported failure and those that did not. Results.: A total of 418 patients were included with median follow-up of 3.0 (1.9, 4.1) years. In all, 25% had a reoperation by six years. Sixty-five (16%) failed and 35 (9%) underwent a second LTM at another level. Cumulative failure incidence was 9% within the first two years. Failure patients had a statistically higher ODI [12.1 (95% CI, 3.2, 20.1) and VAS back [2.3 (95% CI, 0.9, 3.8)] and leg pain [1.6 (95% CI, 0.2, 3.1)] throughout follow-up. The overall dural tear rate was 7.2%. Conclusions.: LTM is an effective treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis with sustained six-year PROs. Most failures occur within two years postoperatively and stabilize to 4% yearly incidence by year 5. The yearly incidence of reoperation with LTM stabilizes at 3% by year 6 postoperatively. Level of Evidence.: 2. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To evaluate the technical feasibility and assess the clinical outcomes of tubular decompression (TD) in cases of multilevel lumbar canal stenosis operated through a single incision. TD has established itself in the surgical management of single level lumbar stenosis. Literature on performance of TD for multilevel stenosis through a single incision are non-existent. Methods All patients undergoing TD for multilevel lumbar stenosis through a single incision from January 2007 to January 2018 were included. Patient demographics, operative and peri-operative details were documented. Patient based clinical outcomes, namely Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scale for back and leg pain and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were assessed. Results Favorable tube trajectory and adequate decompression could be achieved through a single incision to decompress multiple levels. The VAS improved from mean 3±1.5 (2–5) to 2±0.8 (1–4) and 7±1.4 (4–9) to 2±1 (1–5) for back and leg pain respectively; while the ODI improved from a mean 44.6±8.6 (32–68) to 20.2±5.3 (16–42) at 3 months post-op and was maintained at 1±0.8 (1–4), 1.6±0.67 (1–3) and 19±2.9 (16–26) respectively at 2 years follow-up. Conclusion TD for multilevel stenosis done through a single incision is a feasible option with good to excellent results.

Integration of technological advancements across multiple modalities enabled different surgical specialties to embrace various minimally invasive approaches. Such advancements related to spine surgery are gaining popularity due to focal nature of majority of the spine pathologies. Tubular retractors of various types and dimensions have proved their worth by giving very good results when used with either microscope or endoscope. They enable surgical decompression and fusion with minimal alteration of the normal musculoligamentous anatomy of back and have proven their versatility by delivering excellent outcomes for different conditions. The evolution of the techniques of full endoscopy opened new paths which seem promising to further refinement of spine surgery. This progress has brought us to the crossroads of either carrying out the satisfactory techniques of tubular retractors or to try something different by taking another steep learning curve and shifting to full endoscopic techniques. It has to be seen whether the transition to full endoscopic intervention is worth exploring new horizons by taking a longer trajectory of learning when similar advantages are being achieved by existing tubular techniques. In this report, we discuss the pathologies dealt with and the changing trends for developing to full endoscopic techniques under the experience of tubular endoscopic spine surgery.

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study.Objectives: To report the feasibility, nuances, technical tips as well as outcomes of managing single-level grade D (extreme stenosis) and to compare the outcomes with nonextreme stenosis using the tubular retractor system.Summary Of Background Data: Minimally invasive decompression in extreme stenosis is a challenge due to technical difficulty, feasibility of adequate decompression, and a steep learning curve.Methods: Consecutive patients from January 2007 to January 2017 presenting with neurogenic claudication secondary to single-level spinal stenosis operated using tubular retractors were included in the study. The patients were divided into two groups; extreme-stenosis and nonextreme stenosis. The outcomes of surgery were evaluated and compared using visual analogue score (VAS) for leg and back pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), and MacNab's criteria.Results: A total of 325 patients (out of 446 patients after excluding the multilevel cases) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. One hundred forty patients were cases of extreme stenosis and 185 were nonextreme stenosis. The mean VAS for back and leg pain for extreme stenosis improved from 3.23 ± 1.30 to 2.15 ± 0.91 and 7.33 ± 0.78 to 1.66 ± 1.03 respectively as compared with nonextreme stenosis where the mean VAS for back and leg pain improved from 3.01 ± 1.15 to 1.86 ± 1.10 and 6.57 ± 1.00 to 1.54 ± 1.12 respectively. The mean ODI changed from 66.47 ± 7.53 to 19.95 ± 2.90 in extreme stenosis as compared with nonextreme stenosis where mean ODI changed from 59.05 ± 5.08 to 19.88 ± 2.67. As per MacNab's criteria 102 (of 120 patients) and 139 (of 157 patients) reported excellent and good outcomes in extreme and nonextreme stenosis respectively.Conclusion: Tubular decompression is feasible in patients with extreme-stenosis with no difference in the outcomes as well as complication rates when compared with a cohort of nonextreme stenosis.Level Of Evidence: 3. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study investigated differences between patients < 65 and > 65 years of age following lumbar microdecompression. Differences between age groups were investigated with univariate analyses. A linear mixed effects model was fit to the study outcomes. 144 patients were studied. There was no difference in two-year outcomes between the age groups. Outcome measures showed improvement compared to baseline at one- and two-years (p < 0.001). Age group had a significant effect on back pain (p = 0.016). Patients ≥ 65 years of age may experience greater relief in back pain following microdecompression. Nonetheless, significant improvement is observed in both age groups at two-years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To assess factors that may predict failure to improve at 12 and 24 months after unilateral laminotomy with bilateral decompression (ULBD) for the management of lumbar spinal stenosis. A database of 255 patients who underwent microdecompression surgery by a single orthopedic spine surgeon between 2014 and 2018 was queried. Patients who underwent primary single-level ULBD of the lumbar spine were included. Visual analog scale (VAS) for back pain and leg pain and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) results were collected preoperatively and at 12 and 24 months postoperatively. Demographic, radiographic, and operative factors were assessed for associations with failure to improve. Clinically important improvement was defined as reaching or surpassing the previously established minimum clinically important difference for ODI (12.8) and not requiring revision. A total of 68 patients were included. Compared with preoperative values for back pain, leg pain, and ODI (7.32, 7.53, and 51.22, respectively), there were significant improvements on follow-up at 12 months (2.89, 2.23, and 22.40, respectively; P < 0.001) and 24 months (2.80, 2.11, 20.32, respectively; P < 0.001). Based on the defined criteria, 50 patients showed clinically important improvement after ULBD. Of the 18 patients who failed to improve, 12 required revision. Independent predictors of failure to improve included female sex (adjusted odds ratio, 5.06; 95% confidence interval, 1.49–21.12; P = 0.014) and current smoker status (adjusted odds ratio, 5.39; 95% confidence interval, 1.39–23.97; P = 0.018). ULBD for the management of lumbar spinal stenosis leads to clinically important improvement that is maintained over a 24-month follow-up period. Female sex and tobacco smoking are associated with poorer outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design: Technical note, retrospective case series., Objective: Lumbar stenosis can be effectively treated using tubular unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD). For multilevel stenosis, a multilevel ULBD through separate, alternating crossover approaches has been described as the "slalom technique." To increase efficacy, we introduced this approach with 2 microscopes simultaneously., Methods: We collected data on 13 patients, with multilevel lumbar stenosis, operated at our institution between 2015 and 2016 by the aforementioned technique. We assessed surgical time (ST), estimated blood loss (EBL), complications, and revision surgeries. Furthermore, we provide a stepwise instruction for performing the tandem microscopic slalom technique in a safe and efficient manner., Results: The mean age of the patients was 68 ± 8 years. The ST per level was 68 ± 19 minutes with an EBL per level of 39 ± 30 mL. We had no intraoperative complications and none of our patients required a revision surgery during a mean follow-up of 12 months., Conclusions: We have shown that this technique is feasible and can be performed safely for multisegmental lumbar spinal stenosis with minimal tissue trauma and low EBL. Furthermore, randomized controlled studies with a larger sample size may be necessary to drive any final conclusions., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Roger Härtl receives consultant fees from DePuy Synthes, Brainlab, and Ulrich and royalties from Zimmer Biomet., (© The Author(s) 2019.)

This study investigated differences between patients <65 and ≥65 years of age following lumbar microdecompression. Differences between age groups were investigated with univariate analyses. A linear mixed effects model was fit to the study outcomes. 144 patients were studied. There was no difference in two-year outcomes between the age groups. Outcome measures showed improvement compared to baseline at one- and two-years (p < 0.001). Age group had a significant effect on back pain (p = 0.016). Patients ≥65 years of age may experience greater relief in back pain following microdecompression. Nonetheless, significant improvement is observed in both age groups at two-years., (© 2019 Professor P K Surendran Memorial Education Foundation. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)