Decompression For Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Research Articles

Polytomous Rasch Analyses of Surgeons' Decision-Making on Choice of Procedure in Endoscopic Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Decompression Surgeries.

With the growing prevalence of lumbar spinal stenosis, endoscopic surgery, which incorporates techniques such as transforaminal, interlaminar, and unilateral biportal (UBE) endoscopy, is increasingly considered. However, the patient selection criteria are debated among spine surgeons. This study used a polytomous Rasch analysis to evaluate the factors influencing surgeon decision-making in selecting patients for endoscopic surgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. A comprehensive survey was distributed to a representative sample of 296 spine surgeons. Questions encompassed various patient-related and clinical factors, and responses were captured on a logit scale graphically displaying person-item maps and category probability curves for each test item. Using a Rasch analysis, the data were subsequently analyzed to determine the latent traits influencing decision-making. The Rasch analysis revealed that surgeons' preferences for transforaminal, interlaminar, and UBE techniques were easily influenced by comfort level and experience with the endoscopic procedure and patient-related factors. Harder-to-agree items included technological aspects, favorable clinical outcomes, and postoperative functional recovery and rehabilitation. Descriptive statistics suggested interlaminar as the best endoscopic spinal stenosis decompression technique. However, logit person-item analysis integral to the Rasch methodology showed highest intensity for transforaminal followed by interlaminar endoscopic lumbar stenosis decompression. The UBE technique was the hardest to agree on with a disordered person-item analysis and thresholds in category probability curve plots. Surgeon decision-making in selecting patients for endoscopic surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis is multifaceted. While the framework of clinical guidelines remains paramount, on-the-ground experience-based factors significantly influence surgeons' selection of patients for endoscopic lumbar spinal stenosis surgeries. The Rasch methodology allows for a more granular psychometric evaluation of surgeon decision-making and accounts better for years-long experience that may be lost in standardized clinical guideline development. This new approach to assessing spine surgeons' thought processes may improve the implementation of evidence-based protocol change dictated by technological advances was endorsed by the Interamerican Society for Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery (SICCMI), the International Society for Minimal Intervention in Spinal Surgery (ISMISS), the Mexican Spine Society (AMCICO), the Brazilian Spine Society (SBC), the Society for Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery (SMISS), the Korean Minimally Invasive Spine Society (KOMISS), and the International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery (ISASS).

Efficacy of Biportal Endoscopic Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Meta-Analysis With Single-Arm Analysis and Comparative Analysis With Microscopic Decompression and Uniportal Endoscopic Decompression.

Biportal endoscopic decompression is a minimally invasive surgical technique for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of biportal endoscopic decompression through both a single-arm analysis and a comparative analysis. A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify eligible studies reporting the outcomes of biportal endoscopic decompression for LSS. Single-arm analysis and comparisons with microscopic and uniportal endoscopic decompression were performed. Evaluated outcomes included visual analog scale (VAS) scores for back pain and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, operation time, estimated blood loss, duration of hospital stay, and adverse events. Single-arm analysis demonstrated significant improvements in VAS back pain, VAS leg pain, and ODI scores after biportal endoscopic decompression at postoperative 1-day to 36-month follow-up (all P < .001), compared with preoperative levels. The pooled mean single-level operation time was 71.44 min, and the pooled mean hospital stay was 3.63 days. The overall adverse event rate was 4.0%, with dural tear being the most common complication (3.0%). Compared with microscopic decompression, biportal endoscopic decompression showed significantly lower VAS back pain at 1-month (P < .001) and 6-month (P < .001) follow-up; lower VAS leg pain at 1-month (P = .045) follow-up; lower ODI scores at 3-month (P < .001), 12-month (P = .017), and >12-month (P = .007) follow-up; lower estimated blood loss (P = .003); and shorter hospital stay (P < .001). Adverse event rates did not differ between the techniques. No significant differences were observed between biportal endoscopic and uniportal endoscopic decompression groups for most efficacy and safety outcomes. Biportal endoscopic decompression emerges as a safe and effective alternative for LSS, presenting potential advantages over the microscopic technique and comparable efficacy with the uniportal endoscopic technique.

Left-digit bias in surgical decision-making for lumbar spinal stenosis

BACKGROUND CONTEXTLeft-digit bias is a behavioral heuristic or cognitive “shortcut” in which the leftmost digit of a number, such as patient age, disproportionately influences surgical decisions. PURPOSETo determine if left-digit bias in patient age influences the decision to perform arthrodesis with instrumentation vs decompression in lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). DESIGNRetrospective cohort. PATIENT SAMPLEPatients with an ICD-10 diagnosis of lumbar stenosis or spondylolisthesis identified in the 2017-2021 National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. OUTCOME MEASURESThe primary outcome was the percent of patients who underwent arthrodesis with instrumentation (AwI). Matched age group comparisons without left-digit differences (ie, 76/77 vs 78/79, 80/81 vs 82/83, etc.) were performed to isolate the effect of the heuristic. Secondary outcomes including peri-operative events and complications were also compared within AwI and decompression cohorts. METHODSUsing CPT codes, procedures were classified as either AwI or decompression. Patients were grouped into 6 cohorts based on 2-year age windows (74/75, 76/77, 78/79, 80/81, 82/83, 84/85). The cohorts were propensity matched with neighboring age groups based on the presence of spondylolisthesis, demographics, and comorbidities. The primary comparison was between those aged 78/79 vs 80/81. RESULTSAfter matching, the primary cohort consisted of two groups of 1,550 patients (aged 78/79 and 80/81). Patients aged 80/81 were less likely to undergo AwI than patients aged 78/79 (23.5% vs 27.2%, p=.021). AwI procedures occurred at similar rates between age groups with the same left digit. Within the decompression and AwI cohorts, there were no differences in secondary outcomes between patients aged 78/79 and 80/81. CONCLUSIONSLSS patients aged 80/81 are less likely to undergo AwI than patients aged 78/79, regardless of comorbidities. This was not seen when comparing patients with similar left digits in age. Until objective measures of physiologic capacity are established, left-digit bias may influence clinical decisions.

Ten-Year Clinical Outcomes of Endoscope-Assisted Minimally Invasive Surgical Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis with Degenerative Spondylolisthesis and Comparison with Conservative Treatment.

This study aimed to evaluate the 10-year clinical outcomes of endoscope-assisted, minimally invasive surgical (MIS) decompression for lumbar spinal canal stenosis (LSS) with lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) and to compare the radiographic changes in patients who underwent this procedure with those who underwent conservative therapy at 10-year follow-up. Between April 2007 and April 2010, 347 consecutive patients with DS and evidence of LSS underwent conservative treatment first from 2 to 4 weeks. The 114 patients who failed conservative treatment were then treated surgically by endoscope-assisted MIS decompression. Of them, 91 patients were followed for more than 10 years (group S), and 146 of the 233 patients treated conservatively were followed for more than 10 years (group C). Clinical outcomes of endoscope-assisted MIS decompression were assessed using the Short Form Health Survey-36 score (SF-36), the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RDQ), and the neurological leg symptoms of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Score (JOA score). Radiographic changes of the two groups were assessed by %slip, dynamic %slip, range of motion (ROM), and the height of the disc (DH) on plain radiographs. Significant improvements in clinical outcomes on the SF-36, RDQ, and neurological leg symptoms of the JOA were observed. Radiographic assessment did not show significant differences in the assessed items between the two groups at baseline and after last treatment. Both groups had significantly decreased ROM and DH. The 10-year clinical outcomes of endoscope-assisted MIS decompression for DS were generally good. Furthermore, on radiographic comparison, the progress of spondylolisthesis after this procedure was virtually the same as in the natural course of the disease at 10-year follow-up.

Acute disc herniation following surgical decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis: a retrospective comparison of mini-open and minimally invasive techniques

BackgroundDisc herniation following decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis is a less familiar surgical complication. Previous studies suggested that open lumbar decompression techniques, associated with relative segmental instability especially in the presence of degenerated disc in older patients, are more likely to result in disc herniation compared to minimally invasive techniques. The current study compares the incidence of acute disc herniation following mini-open and minimally invasive decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis.MethodsThis was a retrospective study reviewing 563 patients who underwent spinal decompression for symptomatic lumbar stenosis by mini-open bilateral partial laminectomy technique or minimally invasive laminotomy utilizing a tubular system. Demographic and clinical data were collected and compared between the groups.ResultsPostoperative disc herniation rate was significantly lower in the minimally invasive group with 2 of 237 cases (0.8%) versus 19 of 326 cases (5.8%) in the mini-open group (p = 0.002). This finding was more noticeable following multi-level procedures with no case of postdecompression disc herniation in the minimally invasive group compared to 8 of 39 cases (20.5%) in the mini-open group (p = 0.003).ConclusionThe incidence of postoperative disc herniation following spinal decompression for symptomatic lumbar stenosis was 5.8% following mini-open bilateral partial laminectomy compared to only 0.8% after minimally invasive laminotomy (p = 0.002). These findings highlight the more extensive nature of mini-open surgery associated with relative segmental instability that poses a greater risk for postoperative disc herniation.

The association between disability and physical performance, pain intensity, and pain-related anxiety in patients after lumbar decompression surgery: a cross-sectional study

BackgroundMost patients with lumbar spinal stenosis improve significantly within 6 months of lumbar decompression surgery, however, unfavorable long-term disability may persist in some patients. It was unclear which potential influencing factors were more likely to be associated with disability. This study aimed to assess the association between disability and physical performance, pain, and pain-related anxiety in patients after lumbar decompression surgery.MethodsPatients who underwent decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis were included. Participants completed the visual analog scale, Oswestry Disability Index, and Pain Anxiety Symptoms Scale-20 to collect pain intensity, disability, and pain-related anxiety information. For physical performance assessment, participants performed timed up and go (TUG), functional reach test (FRT), 6-min walking test, and modified Sorensen test, 6–12 months after lumbar decompression surgery. The associations were examined with bivariate and multivariable linear regression analyses.ResultsA total of 80 patients were included. A significant association between disability and pain-related anxiety, the FRT, and the modified Sorensen test scores was confirmed in multivariable analyses. Both bivariate (r = − 0.75) and multivariable (β = 0.60, 95% CI, 0.24, 0.54; P = 0.00) analyses confirmed that pain-related anxiety was the strongest indicator of disability. The association between disability and pain intensity, TUG, and 6-min walking test scores was not confirmed.ConclusionPain-related anxiety should be considered in the rehabilitation programs after lumbar decompression surgery. The evaluation of all aspects of physical performance following lumbar decompression surgery is also recommended.

Unilateral laminotomy with bilateral spinal canal decompression: systematic review of outcomes and complications

BackgroundUnilateral laminotomy with bilateral spinal canal decompression has gained popularity recently.AimTo systematically review the literature of unilateral laminotomy with bilateral spinal canal decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) aiming to assess outcomes and complications of the different techniques described in literature.MethodsOn August 7, 2022, Pubmed and EMBASE were searched by 2 reviewers independently, and all the relevant studies published up to date were considered based on predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The subject headings “unilateral laminotomy”, “bilateral decompression” and their related key terms were used. The Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement was used to screen the articles.ResultsA total of seven studies including 371 patients were included. The mean age of the patients was 69.0 years (range: 55–83 years). The follow up duration ranged from 1 to 3 years. Rate of postoperative pain and functional improvement was favorable based on VAS, JOA, JOABPEQ, RMDW, ODI and SF-36, for example improved from a range of 4.2–7.5 preoperatively on the VAS score to a range of 1.4–3.0 postoperatively at the final follow up. Insufficient decompression was noted in 3% of the reported cases. The overall complication rate was reported at 18–20%, with dural tear at 3.6–9% and hematoma at 0–4%.ConclusionUnilateral laminotomy with bilateral decompression has favorable short- and mid-term pain and functional outcomes with low recurrence and complication rates. This, however, needs to be further confirmed in larger, long-term follow-up, prospective, comparative studies between open, and minimally invasive techniques.

Ten-step minimally invasive slalom unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (sULBD) with navigation

BackgroundUnilateral 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.MethodsWe 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).ResultsIn 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.ConclusionThe 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.

Consecutive Case Series of Uniportal Full-endoscopic Unilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Decompression in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Relationship between Decompression Range and Functional Outcomes.

Uniportal full-endoscopic unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (UFE-ULBD) has been used to treat lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) with satisfactory outcomes. However, a limited number of studies have investigated the relationship between decompression range and clinical outcomes. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of UFE-ULBD for single-segment LSS and to explore the relationship between the decompression range and functional outcomes. Single-segment LSS patients who had undergone UFE-ULBD using an interlaminar approach between November 2021 and February 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. Patient demographics, visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for leg and back pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores, modified MacNab grades, and radiological outcomes, including the decompression ratio of the disc-flava ligament space and osseous lateral recess, the enlargement ratio of superior articular process interval, lamina interval dural sac cross-sectional area (DSCA), were collected. The independent sample t-tests, paired sample t-tests, chi-square tests, Fisher's exact tests, and Pearson's and Spearman's correlation analyses were used. Forty patients (23 males, and 17 females) were retrospectively enrolled in this study. The mean follow-up period was 12 months. At the last follow-up, VAS scores for leg pain and back pain decreased from 6.0 ± 0.8 to 1.0 ± 1.9 (p < 0.001), and from 6.0 ± 0.8 to 1.2 ± 1.8 (p < 0.001) respectively; ODI score decreased from 71.7 ± 6.2 to 24.3 ± 21.3 (p < 0.001). According to the modified MacNab criteria, the results were excellent in 28 (70%), good in 5 (12.5%), fair in 6 (15%), and poor in 1 (2.5%), with an excellent-good rate of 82.5%. The postoperative DSCA enlarged from 57.69 ± 21.86 to 150.75 ± 39.33 mm2 (p < 0.001), with an enlargement ratio of 189.43 ± 107.83%. No difference in clinical or radiological parameters was detected between patients with excellent, good, fair, or poor outcomes based on the modified MacNab criteria. UFE-ULBD can provide satisfactory clinical and radiological outcomes in single-segment LSS patients. With sufficient exposure to the dural sac boundary, the functional outcome was not related to the radiological decompression range in LSS patients who had undergone UFE-ULBD.

Antithrombotic therapy and spinal surgery: a retrospective cohort study of 289 consecutive elderly patients with degenerative lumbar stenosis.

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a disabling degenerative process of the spine, mainly affecting older patients. LSS manifests with low-back and leg pain and neurogenic claudication. Disability and impairment in activities of daily living are consequences of the progressive narrowing of the lumbar spinal canal. Surgical decompression has been shown to be superior to conservative management. Nonetheless, intraoperative and postoperative blood loss in elderly patients taking antiplatelet or anticoagulant drugs owing to cardiovascular comorbidities may be a special issue. This study describes and compares early outcomes after surgical procedures in different groups of patients receiving antithrombotic drugs. The authors' study retrospectively recruited 289 consecutive patients aged ≥ 65 years who received lumbar decompression for spinal stenosis between January 2021 and May 2022. First, 183 patients taking antiplatelet therapy were divided into two groups according to the rationale for use: primary versus secondary prophylaxis of cardiovascular events (group 1 vs group 2). Primary prevention was stopped preoperatively, or secondary prevention was not discontinued during the perioperative period. Secondly, 106 patients who were not taking antiplatelet mediation were divided into two groups, depending on whether preoperative low-molecular-weight heparin had not been administered or had been (group A vs group B). Intraoperative blood loss, surgical time, and postoperative hospitalization were analyzed. No significant statistical differences were observed between groups 1 and 2 in terms of intraoperative blood loss and time of surgery, or between groups A and B in terms of all analyzed variables. No early or delayed complications were observed, perioperatively or during the postoperative 3-month follow-up period. The results of this study suggest that the use of anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapies in elective decompressive surgery could be devoid of early complications and could be safely continued perioperatively.

Application of Unilateral Double-Channel Endoscopic Lamina Fenestration Decompression in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

Objective: This paper aims to observe and explore the application effect of unilateral double-channel endoscopic lamina fenestration decompression in the clinical treatment of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Methods: The study period is from January 2020 to December 2022, 60 patients with lumbar spinal stenosis were recruited and divided into the control group (traditional interlaminar fenestration) and the study group (unilateral double-channel endoscopic lamina fenestration decompression) according to the method of coin tossing, with 30 cases in each group. The operation time, perioperative blood loss, incision diameter, total hospitalization time, postoperative complications, Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA), Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) pain score, and excellent rate of lumbar recovery were compared. Results: The operation time of the study group was longer than that of the control group, the amount of perioperative blood loss was lower than that of the control group, the incision diameter was smaller than that of the control group, and the total hospitalization time was shorter than that of the control group (P &lt; 0.05). Postoperative complications such as dural tear, cerebrospinal fluid leakage, infection, and paravertebral muscle injury in the study group were less than those in the control group (P &lt; 0.05). The JOA score of the study group was higher than that of the control group, and the NRS score was lower than that of the control group 6 months after operation (P &lt; 0.05). The operation effect was evaluated according to the modified MacNab standard 6 months after operation, and the excellent rate of lumbar spine recovery in the study group was higher than that in the control group (P &lt; 0.05). Conclusion: Unilateral double-channel endoscopic fenestration decompression of the lamina has a definite application effect, it can significantly reduce postoperative complications of lumbar spinal stenosis, and promote the recovery of lumbar spine function. It has the advantages of mild pain, high safety, less bleeding, small incision, and other advantages, which can be recommended in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis.

Associations between future health expectations and patient satisfaction after lumbar spine surgery: a longitudinal observational study of 9929 lumbar spine surgery procedures

ObjectiveThis study aimed to investigate the associations between general health expectations and patient satisfaction with treatment for the two common spine surgery procedures diskectomy for lumbar disk herniation (LDH) and...

P73. Non-smokers and smokers undergoing decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis and lumbar disc herniation experience similar clinical improvement at twelve months

P73. Non-smokers and smokers undergoing decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis and lumbar disc herniation experience similar clinical improvement at twelve months

Research progress of different minimally invasive spinal decompression in lumbar spinal stenosis

To review the application and progress of different minimally invasive spinal decompression in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). 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. At 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. 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.

Decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis at the intrathecal catheter insertion site during intrathecal baclofen therapy: a case report

BackgroundIntrathecal baclofen therapy can substantially improve symptoms in most patients with severe spasticity due to traumatic spinal cord injury, multiple sclerosis, or cerebral paresis. To the best of our knowledge, decompression surgeries at the intrathecal catheter insertion site in patients with a preexisting intrathecal pump for drug delivery have not been reported.Case presentationWe report the case of a 61-year-old Japanese man with lumbar spinal stenosis who underwent intrathecal baclofen therapy. We performed decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis at the intrathecal catheter insertion site during intrathecal baclofen therapy. The yellow ligament was removed by partial resection of the lamina under a microscope to avoid damage to the intrathecal catheter. The dura mater was distended. No obvious cerebrospinal fluid leakage was observed. Postoperatively, lumbar spinal stenosis symptoms improved, and spasticity remained well controlled with intrathecal baclofen therapy.ConclusionsThis is the first reported case of lumbar spinal stenosis decompression at an intrathecal catheter insertion site during intrathecal baclofen therapy. Preoperative preparation is necessary, as the intrathecal catheter may be replaced during surgery. We performed surgery without removing or replacing the intrathecal catheter, taking care not to damage the spinal cord by migrating the intrathecal catheter.

Radiological Outcomes of Unilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Decompression in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis With and Without Discectomy

Unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) is a minimally invasive surgical technique widely used in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis and low-grade spondylolisthesis. However, few studies have investigated the long-term effects of the unilateral approach of ULBD on postoperative coronal imbalance, and the effect of additional discectomy on ULBD has not yet been evaluated in detail. Sixty-one patients with lumbar spinal stenosis who underwent ULBD with or without discectomy were identified. The ULBD with discectomy group included 27 patients, and the ULBD without discectomy group included 34 patients. We analyzed the changes in various radiographic parameters, such as global lordosis (GL), segmental lordosis (SL), global coronal angle (GCA), segmental coronal angle (SCA), disc height (DH), global range of motion (GROM), and segmental range of motion (SROM) following the surgery and compared these parameters between the two groups. In patients who underwent ULBD with discectomy, SCA significantly decreased from 0.42 ± 4.41 (°±SD) preoperatively to -0.31 ± 4.87 postoperatively (p = 0.026), while DH decreased from 8.80 ± 2.49 (mm ± SD) to 7.32 ± 2.60 (p < 0.001). These findings suggest a reduction in convexity as disc height decreased on the laminotomy side. However, the absolute SCA value tended to approach 0° postoperatively regardless of discectomy, indicating that the preoperative scoliosis has improved. In both groups, the lordotic angles and ROM parameters showed no changes before and after surgery. ULBD preserved lumbar lordosis and motion with or without discectomy during the 2-year follow-up period. Improvement in coronal balance was observed after ULBD regardless of discectomy, without significant negative effects on sagittal and coronal spine stability.

435 Non-smokers and Smokers Undergoing Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis and Lumbar Disc Herniation Experience Similar Clinical Improvement at 12 Months

INTRODUCTION: Smoking has been shown to be detrimental on patient reported outcomes (PROs) and fusion with lumbar arthrodesis. Evidence is unclear whether smoking affects PROs in patients undergoing decompression only. METHODS: Patients who underwent 1 or 2-level decompression only for LDH or LSS enrolled in QOD were identified. Demographics, surgical variables, smoking status and PROs at baseline and 12 months postoperatively were collected. RESULTS: 3038 Smokers and 14,233 Nonsmokers met inclusion criteria. Smokers were younger (50.3 vs 56.7, p&lt;0.000), had worse ASA grades (2.3 vs 2.2, p&lt;0.000) and had more males (1663, 55% vs 7130, 50%, p&lt;0.000) compared to Nonsmokers. Number of surgical levels was similar between groups (1.7, p = 0.169). For all PROs, both Smokers and Nonsmokers improved following surgery. Preoperative PROs in Smokers were worse (p&lt;0.000) for BP (7.0 vs 6.1), LP (7.4 vs 6.9), ODI (52.2 vs 45.9) and EQ-5D (0.5 vs 0.6). PRO improvement in Smokers was less than in Nonsmokers at 12-months (p&lt;0.001), but may be clinically irrelevant: BP (3.2 vs 3.3), LP (4.3 vs 4.6), ODI (25.0 vs 26.8) and EQ-5D (0.24 vs 0.26). Only 60 LSS and 38 LDH cases could be propensity matched, with no significant differences in improvements in PROs in the LSS group (ΔBP:3.2 vs 3.5, p = 0.577; ΔLP:3.3 vs 4.5, p = 0.097; ΔODI:18.1 vs 23.5, p = 0.155; ΔEQ5D: 0.2 vs 0.2, p = 0.948) or in the LDH group (ΔBP:3.1 vs 3.7, p = 0.530; ΔLP:3.7 vs 5.3, p = 0.050; ΔODI:24.6 vs 28.6, p = 0.463; ΔEQ5D: 0.2 vs 0.3, p = 0.301). CONCLUSIONS: Although Nonsmokers demonstrated greater improvement in all PROs, these differences were small and less evident in a propensity-matched sub-analysis. Compared to fusion surgery, both smokers and non-smokers treated with decompression only for LDH or LSS exhibit significant clinical improvement in PROs.

Determination of Work Related to Endoscopic Decompression of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.

Background: Effective 1 January 2017, single-level endoscopic lumbar discectomy received a Category I Current Procedural Terminology (CPT®) code 62380. However, no work relative value units (wRVUs) are currently assigned to the procedure. A physician's payment needs to be updated to commensurate with the work involved in the modern version of the lumbar endoscopic decompression procedure with and without the use of any implants to stabilize the spine. In the United States, the American Medical Association (AMA) and its Specialty Society Relative Value Scale Update Committee (RUC) proposes to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) what wRVUs to assign for any endoscopic lumbar surgery codes. Methods: The authors conducted an independent survey between May and June 2022 which reached 210 spine surgeons using the TypeForm survey platform. The survey link was sent to them via email and social media. Surgeons were asked to assess the endoscopic procedure's technical and physical effort, risk, and overall intensity without focusing just on the time required to perform the surgery. Respondents were asked to compare the work involved in modern comprehensive endoscopic spine care with other commonly performed lumbar surgeries. For this purpose, respondents were provided with the verbatim descriptions of 12 other existing comparator CPT® codes and associated wRVUs of common spine surgeries, as well as a typical patient vignette describing an endoscopic lumbar decompression surgery scenario. Respondents were then asked to select the comparator CPT® code most reflective of the technical and physical effort, risk, intensity, and time spent on patient care during the pre-operative, peri- and intra-operative, and post-operative periods of a lumbar endoscopic surgery. Results: Of the 30 spine surgeons who completed the survey, 85.8%, 46.6%, and 14.3% valued the appropriate wRVU for the lumbar endoscopic decompression to be over 13, over 15, and over 20, respectively. Most surgeons (78.5%; <50th percentile) did not think they were adequately compensated. Regarding facility reimbursement, 77.3% of surgeons reported that their healthcare facility struggled to cover the cost with the received compensation. The majority (46.5%) said their facility received less than USD 2000, while another 10.7% reported less than USD 1500 and 17.9% reported less than USD 1000. The professional fee received by surgeons was <USD 1000 for 21.4%, <USD 2000 for 17.9%, and <USD 1500 for 10.7%, resulting in a fee less than USD 2000 for 50% of responding surgeons. Most responding surgeons (92.6%) recommended an endoscopic instrumentation carveout to pay for the added cost of the innovation. Discussion and Conclusions: The survey results indicate that most surgeons associate CPT® 62380 with the complexity and intensity of a laminectomy and interbody fusion preparation, considering the work in the epidural space using the contemporary outside-in and interlaminar technique and the work inside the interspace using the inside-out technique. Modern endoscopic spine surgery goes beyond the scope of a simple soft-tissue discectomy. The current iterations of the procedure must be considered to avoid undervaluing its complexity and intensity. Additional undervalued payment scenarios could be created if technological advances continue to replace traditional lumbar spinal fusion protocols with less burdensome, yet no less complex, endoscopic surgeries that necessitate a high surgeon effort in terms of time required to perform the operation and its intensity. These undervalued payment scenarios of physician practices, as well as the facility and malpractice expenses, should be further discussed to arrive at updated CPT® codes reflective of modern comprehensive endoscopic spine care.

Case-matched radiological and clinical outcome evaluation of interlaminar versus microsurgical decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis

PurposeEndoscopic spine surgery is a globally expanding technique advocated as less invasive for spinal stenosis treatment compared to the microsurgical approach. However, evidence on the efficiency of interlaminar full-endoscopic decompression (FED) vs. conventional microsurgical decompression (MSD) in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis is still scarce. We conducted a case-matched comparison for treatment success with consideration of clinical, laboratory, and radiologic predictors.MethodsWe included 88 consecutive patients (FED: 36/88, 40.9%; MSD: 52/88, 59.1%) presenting with lumbar central spinal stenosis. Surgery-related (operation time, complications, length of stay (LOS), American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status (ASA) score, C-reactive protein (CRP), white blood cell count, side of approach (unilateral/bilateral), patient-related outcome measures (PROMs) (Oswestry disability index (ODI), numeric rating scale of pain (NRS; leg-, back pain), EuroQol questionnaire (eQ-5D), core outcome measures index (COMI)), and radiological (dural sack cross-sectional area, Schizas score (SC), left and right lateral recess heights, and facet angles, respectively) parameters were extracted at different time points up to 1-year follow-up. The relationship of PROMs was analyzed using Spearman’s rank correlation. Surgery-related outcome parameters were correlated with patient-centered and radiological outcomes utilizing a regression model to determine predictors for propensity score matching.ResultsComplication (most often residual sensorimotor deficits and restenosis due to hematoma) rates were higher in the FED (33.3%) than MSD (13.5%) group (p < 0.05), while all complications in the FED group were observed within the first 20 FED patients. Operation time was higher in the FED, whereas LOS was higher in the MSD group. Age, SC, CRP revealed significant associations with PROMs. We did not observe significant differences in the endoscopic vs. microsurgical group in PROMs. The correlation between ODI and COMI was significantly high, and both were inversely correlated with eQ-5D, whereas the correlations of these PROMs with NRS findings were less pronounced.ConclusionsEndoscopic treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis was similarly successful as the conventional microsurgical approach. Although FED was associated with higher complication rates in our single-center study experience, the distribution of complications indicated surgical learning curves to be the main factor of these findings. Future long-term prospective studies considering the surgical learning curve are warranted for reliable comparisons of these techniques.

Delta large-channel technique versus microscopy-assisted laminar fenestration decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: a one-year prospective cohort study

PurposeWhen it comes to treating lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), a procedure known as microscope-assisted fenestration decompression has expediently become the gold standard. With the advancement of spinal endoscopy, the Delta large-channel approach has shown promising clinical outcomes in the management of lumbar spinal stenosis. However, case studies of this method being used to treat lumbar spinal stenosis are still uncommon. The purpose of this research was to examine how well microscopy-assisted laminectomy and the Delta large-channel approach work in treating LSS in the clinic.MethodsFrom May 2018 to June 2020, 149 patients diagnosed with LSS were divided into 80 patients in Delta large-channel technique groups (FE group) and 69 patients in microscope groups (Micro group). Lower back and lower limb pain were measured using the visual analogue scale (VAS-LBP and VAS-LP), while lower limb numbness was evaluated using the 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS-LN); modified Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) was used to evaluate the quality of life, and modified MacNab criteria were used to assess the clinical efficacy before surgery and at one week, three months, six months, and 12 months after surgery. All patients had single-level lumbar spinal stenosis, and clinical data such as hospital stay, operation time, intraoperative blood loss were statistically analyzed.ResultsFinally, 111 patients (62 in FE group and 49 in Micro group) completed follow-up. Compared with preoperative results, postoperative VAS-LBP, VAS-LP, NRS-LN score and modified ODI score were significantly improved in 2 groups (P < 0.05), but there was no significant difference in postoperative follow-up at each time point (P > 0.05), Except 1 week after surgery, VAS-LBP in FE group was lower than that in Micro group (P < 0.05). It is noteworthy that the FE group had a shorter hospital stay, less intraoperative blood loss, and a quicker time of getting out of bed when compared with the microscope group，but the operation time was just the opposite (P < 0.05). The excellent and good rate was 83.87% in FE group and 85.71% in Micro group (P > 0.05).ConclusionsBoth microscope-assisted laminar fenestration decompression and Delta large-channel procedures provide satisfactory treatment outcomes, however the Delta large-channel approach has some potential advantages for the treatment of LSS, including quicker recovery and sooner reduced VAS-LBP. Long-term consequences, however, will necessitate additional follow-up and research.