Microscopic Decompression Research Articles

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.

Spondylolisthesis and Scoliosis Progression and Associated Revision Rates Following Bilateral Lumbar Spine Microscopic Decompression

Spondylolisthesis and Scoliosis Progression and Associated Revision Rates Following Bilateral Lumbar Spine Microscopic Decompression

Craniofacial Fibrous Dysplasia in Fronto-Orbital Region: A Single-Center Retrospective Study of 38 Cases

This study presents the clinical characteristics, imaging manifestations, and surgical experience in 38 patients diagnosed with craniofacial fibrous dysplasia in fronto-orbital region (foFD). We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data from 38 patients who had surgery for foFD. The surgical procedure typically involved extensive tumor removal, followed by immediate reconstruction of the frontal bone and orbit using synthetic materials. Additionally, 9 patients underwent simultaneous microscopic decompression of the optic canal. Common clinical manifestations included progressive fronto-orbital bone deformity (35), proptosis (28), orbital dystopia (21), and visual impairment (9). The disease primarily affecting the frontal bone (38), the sphenoid bone (28), and the ethmoid bone (24). The optic canal was involved in 9 patients with functional impairment. Computed tomography scans in all 38 cases revealed satisfactory repair material positioning and complete resolution of frontal deformities. Among the 9 patients who underwent optic canal decompression, 7 experienced partial recovery of visual acuity after surgery. In the surgical treatment of foFD, it is crucial to achieve maximal bone resection and repair skull defects, while decompressing the optic canal can provide significant benefits for patients with decreased visual function preoperatively. The use of preformed artificial materials offers advantages in aesthetic restoration after lesion excision.

Value of paraspinal muscle myography in diagnosing L5 radiculopathy

Introduction. Electromyography (EMG) is an important diagnostic tool for the evaluation of radiculopathy. Since 1990s a paraspinal mapping technique is used, which detects spontaneous activity in paraspinal muscles (PM) at the level of several vertebral segments. This modality seems to be highly conclusive for diagnosing radicular lesions. The main limitation of this method is spontaneous activity dependence on the disease duration.&#x0D; The aim of the study is to assess if PM EMG with motor unit potential (MUP) analysis is conclusive for diagnosing lumbar radiculopathy.&#x0D; Materials and methods. The study examined 58 patients (26 men and 32 women) aged 2673 years with MRI-confirmed symptomatic L5 mono-radiculopathy due to L4L5 herniated discs. The study assessed the neurological status and needle EMG of m. tensor fasciae latae (TFL) and PM at L4L5 and L3L4 levels on both symptomatic and healthy sides immediately before radicular microscopic decompression surgery. Surgery outcomes were evaluated by early and late postoperative questioning.&#x0D; Results. In PMs of the affected level and side, the average MUP duration was significantly different from opposite MUPs at the higher segment (р 0.001). At 3-month disease duration, a neurogenic pattern was significantly more frequent in affected PMs (p = 0.031) with neurogenic PM MUP rearrangement in 73.3% of patients. In the TFL (L5), neurogenic changes were reported only in 47.4% of patients. When compared to normal values, significant differences were found in the average duration of TFL MUPs (р = 0.001) and PM MUPs of the affected level and side (р 0.001) both in patients with motor disorders and those with isolated pain syndrome or sensory disorders.&#x0D; Conclusions. For diagnosing radiculopathy, the sensitivity of needle PM EMG is 82.6% (48/58; 95% CI 70.691.4%). Compared to limb myotome assessment, the highest informative value of PM EMG was reported in patients with the disease duration for up to 3 months. PM EMG was conclusive for diagnosing radicular lesions in patients with isolated pain syndrome or sensory disorders.

Outcomes of Microscopic-Assisted Decompression Surgery Without Instrumented Fixation in Patients With Spinal Canal Stenosis and First-Degree Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: A Prospective Case Series

Objective: To describe the minimally invasive, microscopic-assisted over-the-top technique and report its clinical and radiological outcomes in cases of spinal canal stenosis and first-degree degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.Methods: Twenty-two patients with grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal canal stenosis who underwent microscopic decompression without fusion between April 2017 and December 2020 were included in the study. Results: The study population included 13 men and 9 women, with an average age of 66.7 years (range, 55–79 years) and a mean duration of symptoms of 14.8 ± 11.6 months. The mean follow-up was 49.3 months (range, 24–67 months). At the last follow-up, 13 patients were fully satisfied, 7 patients were partially satisfied, and 2 patients (9%) were not satisfied and required revision surgery with fusion. At the final follow-up, the mean leg pain numerical pain rating scale (NPRS), back pain NPRS, Oswestry Disability Index score, and Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire showed significant improvements in all patients, and no patients showed progression of the degree of spondylolisthesis.Conclusion: The minimally invasive, over-the-top technique using surgical microscopy is a viable option in cases with first-degree degenerative spondylolisthesis and predominantly stenosis symptoms.

Efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopy compared with microscopic decompression in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: A systematic review and updated meta‑analysis.

The incidence of lumbar spinal stenosis is increasing annually, and with an ever-aging population and longer life expectancies, this trend will further continue. It is hoped that a more effective treatment can be found so that the patients can be relieved of their pain. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopic surgery (UBE) and microscopic decompression surgery (MD) for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. A literature search of related studies published until April 2022 was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, Google Scholar, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and other databases. After filtering of references, 12 eligible studies were identified that compared UBE with MD as a treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis. Data were extracted and analysed using R. A total of 12 articles (four randomized controlled and eight cohort studies) were included, with a total of 1,067 patients: 250 men and 249 women in the UBE group and 290 men and 278 women in the MD group. The meta-analysis showed that the mean intraoperative blood loss in the UBE group [standardized mean difference (SMD)=-2.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) (-3.97, -0.23), P=0.03] was lower than that in the MD group. The postoperative Visual analogue scale (VAS) score for back pain [SMD=-0.52, 95% CI (-0.76, -0.27), P<0.01], leg pain [SMD=-0.30, 95% CI (-0.51, -0.08), P<0.01], postoperative Oswestry disability index [(ODI); SMD=-0.25, 95% CI (-0.48, -0.03), P=0.03], and postoperative C-reactive protein [(CRP); odds ratio (OR)=-0.92, 95% CI (-1.80, 0.03), P=0.04] were lower than those in the MD group. Complications (OR=0.60, 95% CI (0.37, 0.98), P=0.04) and hospital stay (SMD=-1.84, 95% CI (-2.85, 0.83), P <0.01] were also lesser in the UBE group than in the MD group. UBE was preferable to that in the MD group according to the modified MacNab score [OR=2.28, 95% CI (1.28, 4.06), P<0.01]. No significant differences were observed in the operation times between the groups. UBE surgery was found to be a better option for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis than MD surgery.

Unilateral biportal endoscopy versus microscopic decompression in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: A meta-analysis.

The aim of this study was to evaluate whether there is a superior clinical effect of unilateral biportal endoscopy compared with microscopic decompression in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. We searched CNKI, WANFANG, CQVIP, CBM, PubMed, and Web of Science up to January 2022, and selected studies that met our inclusion criteria. The results of this meta-analysis indicated that unilateral biportal endoscopy was demonstrated to be more beneficial for patients compared with microscopic decompression for the following outcomes: Operation time [standardized mean difference (SMD) = -0.943, 95% confidence interval (CI) (-1.856, -0.031), P = .043], hospital stays [SMD = -2.652, 95% CI (-4.390, -0.914), P = .003], EuroQol 5-Dimension questionnaire [SMD = 0.354, 95% CI (0.070, 0.638), P = .014], back pain visual analogue score [SMD = -0.506, 95% CI (-0.861, -0.151), P = .005], leg pain visual analogue score [SMD = -0.241, 95% CI (-0.371, -.0112), P = .000], the C-reactive protein level [SMD = -1.492,95% CI (-2.432, -0.552), P = .002]. Other outcomes demonstrated no significant differences between the 2 groups. For patients with lumbar spinal stenosis, unilateral biportal endoscopy was found to be more superior than microscopic decompression in terms of operation time, hospital stays, EuroQol 5-Dimension questionnaire, back visual analogue score, leg visual analogue score and the C-reactive protein level. There was no significant difference between the 2 groups in other outcome indicators.

Comparison of full-endoscopic and tubular-based microscopic decompression in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized controlled trial.

We aimed to demonstrate non-inferiority in terms of functional outcomes in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis who underwent full-endoscopic decompression compared with tubular-based microscopic decompression. This prospective, randomized controlled, non-inferiority trial included 60 patients with single-level lumbar spinal stenosis who required decompression surgery. The patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to the full-endoscopic group (FE group) or the tubular-based microscopic group (TM group). Based on intention-to-treat analysis, the primary outcome was the Oswestry Disability Index score at 24 months postoperative. The secondary outcomes included the visual analog scale (VAS) score for back and leg pain, European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) score, walking time, and patient satisfaction rate according to the modified MacNab criteria. Surgery-related outcomes were also analyzed. Of the total patients, 92% (n = 55) completed a 24-month follow-up. The primary outcomes were comparable between the two groups (p = 0.748). However, the FE group showed a statistically significant improvement in the mean VAS score for back pain at day 1 and at 6, 12, and 24months after surgery (p < 0.05). No significant difference was observed in the VAS score for leg pain, EQ-5D score, or walking time (p > 0.05). Regarding the modified MacNab criteria, 86.7% of patients in the FE group and 83.3% in the TM group had excellent or good results at 24months after surgery (p = 0.261). Despite the similar results in surgery-related outcomes, including operative time, radiation exposure, revision rate, and complication rate, between the two groups (p > 0.05), less blood loss and shorter length of hospital stay were observed in the FE group (p ≤ 0.001 and 0.011, respectively). This study suggests that full-endoscopic decompression is an alternative treatment for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis because it provides non-inferior clinical efficacy and safety compared with tubular-based microscopic surgery. In addition, it offers advantages in terms of less invasive surgery. Trial registration number (TRN): TCTR20191217001.

Comparison of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy Decompression and Microscopic Decompression Effectiveness in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

This study aimed to compare the safety and effectiveness between unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) technique and microscopic decompression (MD) technique in lumbar spinal stenosis treatment. PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and other databases were used to conduct extensive literature searches. RevMan ver. 5.3 software was used for the statistical analysis. Eleven studies were included with 930 patients, including 449 patients in the UBE group and 521 in the MD group. Both techniques revealed similar operative times at -1.77 minutes (95% confidence interval [CI], -7.59 to 4.05 minutes; p =0.55), the postoperative dural expansion area at -1.27 (95% CI, -19.30 to 16.77; p =0.89), the postoperative complications at 0.76 (95% CI, 0.47 to 1.22; p =0.26), the preoperative Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for leg pain, and the last follow-up (>12 months) VAS for leg pain at -0.04 (95% CI, -0.14 to 0.06; p =0.47), the preoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the last follow-up (>12 months) ODI scores at -0.18 (95% CI, -0.76 to 0.40; p =0.54), and patient satisfaction (the modified MacNab score) at 1.15 (95% CI, 0.54 to 2.42; p =0.72). However, intraoperative bleeding was lower following the UBE technique at -52.78 mL (95% CI, -93.47 to -12.08 mL; p =0.01) and was shorter following the UBE technique at -3.06 (95% CI, -3.84 to -2.28; p <0.01). UBE and MD technology have no significant differences in efficacy or safety in the treatment of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis based on this meta-analysis. However, the UBE technique has less intraoperative bleeding and a shorter hospital stay. It has a slight advantage and is a better surgical option than the MD technique. It can be an alternative minimally invasive spinal surgery method.

Minimally Invasive Spinal Fusion Using Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Instrumentation Can Provide a Better Health-Related QOL in Early Stage Than Conventional Methods in the Treatment of Single-Level Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Diseases.

To investigate whether the minimally invasive spinal fusion can provide the better outcome than conventional fusion surgery in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal diseases. One hundred and thirteen patients who had undergone single-level fusion surgery for degenerative lumbar spinal diseases were examined with a minimum of one-year follow-up. There were 56 men and 57 women with a median age of 70s ranging 47-88. The following three-types of fusion surgery were performed; minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusion after microscopic decompression through a unilateral approach with percutaneous pedicle screwing (MTLIF), transforaminal interbody fusion after microscopic decompression through a unilateral approach (TLIF), and posterior lumbar interbody fusion with posterolateral fusion after open decompression through a bilateral approach (PLIF). The purpose for limiting on single level degenerative spinal disease was that it would be easy to compare the surgical outcomes among the three groups. There were no statistically significant differences among three groups in terms of VAS scores, RDQ scores, and all of the domains in the JOABPEQ scores at the baseline. The JOABPEQ score for pain-related disorders at 6 months after surgery was statistically significantly higher in MTLIF group than the other two groups (P = 0.023). There were no statistically significant differences in the scores of the other outcome measures among three groups in whole follow-up period. The current study demonstrated that the JOABPEQ score for pain-related disorders at 6 months postoperatively was significantly better in MTLIF group than in the other groups. Since lumbar degenerative diseases mostly consisted in elderly patients, less invasive surgeries are desirable. MTLIF resulted in a better health-related QOL at 6 months after surgery, and its outcomes at the final follow-up were non-numerical inferiority. The results strongly indicate that MTLIF is desirable surgery especially for elderly patients with degenerative spinal diseases.

Comparison of Microscopic Decompression and Biportal Endoscopic Spinal Surgery in the Treatment of Lumbar Canal Stenosis and Herniated Disc: A One-year Follow-up

Backgrounds. Microscopic decompression (MD) has been widely used as an alternative to open decompression. Lately, biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (BESS) - a new approach in minimal-invasive spinal surgery – has also been used with good results. Although both groups can achieve adequate lumbar decompression, there is still a lack of evidence regarding their comparison. We aim to compare the outcomes of both techniques in a one-year follow-up.&#x0D; Methods. This is a retrospective study in 100 consecutive patients with symptomatic lumbar spine compression due to herniated nucleus pulposus (HNP) and lumbar canal stenosis (LCS) that was treated by either BESS or MD. Clinical evaluations using Visual Analog Score (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and SF-36 questionnaire were obtained. Objective data such as surgery duration, amount of postoperative drain production, and hospital length of stay were collected. Complications were noted throughout the follow-up time.&#x0D; Results. The BESS group had a significantly lesser surgical duration, drain production, and length of stay. At one year follow-up, both groups achieved significant improvement in VAS, ODI, and SF-36 compared to the preoperative condition. Complications were not observed in the BESS group.&#x0D; Conclusions. Both procedures were comparably effective to treat lumbar stenosis. Although this study shows superiority with BESS technique in immediate and long-term follow-up, the final choice may depend on the surgeon's preference

Surgical interventions for Bertolotti\u2019s syndrome: case report and review of unsatisfactory cases in the literature

BackgroundBertolotti’s syndrome (BS) is characterized by the enlargement of transverse processes in caudal lumbar segments, causing chronic and persistent low back pain or sciatica. The present study aimed to describe our surgical technique for BS treatment and to review existing literature describing unsatisfactory outcomes.Case presentationWe report a patient who complained of lower back pain and soreness that intermittently radiated to his left leg for longer than 10 years. Based on an examination of his symptoms and signs, including imaging and electrical physiology assessments, in addition to the report of temporary pain relief after a local steroid injection to a diagnostic trigger site (articulation between the transverse process and the sacral ala or iliac crest), the patient was diagnosed with BS. The applied surgical techniques included minimally invasive, three-dimensional C-arm guidance, a tubing approach, and microscopic and bone cavitron ultrasonic surgical aspirator–assisted operations. After surgery, improvements were reported on the visual analog scale (from 8 to 2 points on a 10-point scale) and the straight leg raising test for the left leg (20° to 90°) within 3 days. The patient gained an ordinary life and returned to work within one week of surgery, with no observed postoperative complications.ConclusionsMinimally invasive tubular microscopic decompression and disarticulation is an effective method for treating BS. However, to achieve a successful outcome, it is recommended to use physician-proficient techniques that are in line with the patient’s diagnosis.

Efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopy compared with microscopic decompression in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objective:Systematic evaluation of the efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis.Methods:We conducted a systematic literature search and compared the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective studies of unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) and microscopic decompression (MD) in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis from several databases.Results:Seven studies were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that the operation time of UBE was shorter than that of MD. [SMD = −0.443, 95% CI (−0.717, −0.169), P = .002]. Compared with MD, the patients’ back pain was slighter on the 1st day, 1–2 months and 6 months after UBE. During the long-term follow-up, there was no significant difference in back pain between MD and UBE [SMD = −0.519, 95% CI (−0.934, −0.104), P = .014]. There was no significant difference in lower limb visual analogue score (VAS) score between UBE decompression and MD [SMD = −0.105, 95% CI (−0.356, 0.146), P = .412]. The results of meta-analysis showed that the C-reactive protein (CRP) level of UBE was lower than that of MD [weighted mean difference = −1.437, 95% CI (−2.347, −0.527), P = .002]. There was no significant difference in other clinical effects between the 2 groups.Conclusion:The operation time of UBE was shorter than that of MD, and it was superior to micro decompression in early back VAS score, lower limb VAS score and early postoperative CRP level. There was no statistical difference between UBE and MD in other outcomes.

Letter to the Editor Regarding “Biportal Endoscopic Spinal Surgery versus Microscopic Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis”

Letter to the Editor Regarding “Biportal Endoscopic Spinal Surgery versus Microscopic Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis”

Uniportal Endoscopic Interlaminar Decompression in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Comprehensive Review.

From the 1990s, there has been growth in the literature demonstrating the feasibility of minimally invasive approaches for treating variety lumbar spinal disorders. There is still much work to be done in overcoming the technical challenges and explicate relative advantages of endoscopic techniques in lumbar spine surgery. In this comprehensive literature review, we discuss the history, indications, contraindications, surgical techniques, learning curves, technical tips, adverse events, and examine peer-reviewed studies addressing uniportal endoscopic interlaminar decompression in lumbar spinal surgery. This literature review was conducted with keywords "endoscopic," "minimally invasive," "uniportal endoscopic decompression," "interlaminar decompression," and "lumbar spinal surgery" using PubMed, Embase, ClinicalKey, and Google Scholar. Review of 423 patients who underwent uniportal endoscopic interlaminar lumbar decompression showed satisfying results with 82% of patients no longer having leg pain, and 13% of patients having only occasional pain, with no significant operation-related deterioration in leg or back pain. To compare the outcomes between endoscopic and microscopic technique, a comparative review of 192 lumbar lateral recess stenosis patients demonstrated the uniportal endoscopic group had 29% shorter operation duration, 1.2% fewer perioperative complications, and significantly reduced postoperative pain (visual analog scale) over 5 days, and reduced use of pain medications. Multiple retrospective studies echoed the outcomes of endoscopic decompression surgery, showed shorter hospitalization time, lower mean dural expansion, lower increment of horizontal displacement measured, and less elevated levels of postoperative serum CPK (creatine phosphokinase) and CRP (c-reactive protein). Lastly, a systematic review and meta-analysis that enrolled 994 patients found that patients who received the full-endoscopic decompression technique showed statistically lower levels of back pain and leg pain and a 40% lower chance of having complications compared with those receiving microscopic decompression in lumbar stenosis. Based on our literature review, there are multiple positive outcomes with endoscopic interlaminar lumbar decompression, which reduces operation duration, perioperative complications, and better postoperative outcomes. However, the technical challenge highlights the importance of further training and innovation in this rapidly evolving field.

Letter to the Editor Regarding “Biportal Endoscopic Spinal Surgery Versus Microscopic Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis—A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis”

Letter to the Editor Regarding “Biportal Endoscopic Spinal Surgery Versus Microscopic Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis—A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis”

Minimally Invasive Interlaminar Decompression with a 10-mm Endoscope and Microscope in Cases of Adult Degenerative Scoliosis

Adult degenerative (de novo) scoliosis (ADS) usually occurs due to degenerative changes and is accompanied by progressive low-back pain and/or symptomatic lumbar stenosis. Interlaminar decompression is considered an effective treatment of lumbar stenosis, but some surgical contraindications to traditional open surgery limit its application in elderly patients with many disorders. A 10-mm endoscope has been used in the treatment of stenosis in individuals with ADS and its safety and efficacy should be assessed. The objective was to conduct a retrospective analysis to compare interlaminar decompression with a 10-mm endoscope versus a microscope. Retrospective study. This study took place at the First Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University. The data of 34 ADS patients treated in our hospital from January 2018 to December 2019, who underwent decompression with a 10-mm endoscope (ES group, 19 patients) or microscope (MS group, 15 patients) were retrospectively reviewed. The two methods were compared using the visual analog scale (VAS), Japanese orthopedic association (JOA) scale, and Oswestry disability index (ODI). Lumbar stability was also evaluated by the progression of scoliosis. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in demographic or clinical characteristics. The mean preoperative Cobb angle of all patients was 23.34° ± 6.44°, which indicated degenerative scoliosis. The mean JOA and ODI scores were 8.09 ± 1.44 and 55.47 ± 11.91. The mean preoperative pelvic incidence (PI) and lumbar lordosis (LL) angles were 51.02° ± 7.21 and 38.26° ± 6.98 and the mean PI-LL mismatch was 12.76° ± 5.63. There was no significant difference in the VAS scores for back/leg pain between the groups at 1 week after the operation, but the scores of the ES group were significantly higher than those of the MS group at 3 months and 12 months. There were no significant differences of mean JOA and ODI between the ES and MS groups preoperatively, at 3 months, or at 12 months, but the JOA and ODI scores of the ES group were significantly higher than those of the MS group 1 week after the operation. The study showed that a novel method for the minimally invasive treatment of ADS is feasible; the safety and outcomes of this method should be verified with more cases. Minimally invasive decompression with a 10-mm endoscope was suggested to be a safe and effective method, as expected, for the treatment of lumbar stenosis in ADS patients.

Clinical Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Posterior Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis with Degenerative Spondylolisthesis.

Retrospective cohort study. To compare the clinical outcomes 5 years after minimally invasive posterior decompression for lumber spinal stenosis (LSS) between patients with and without degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS). Indications for surgical procedures for patients with LSS and DS are still under investigation. Since minimally invasive surgery does not affect most anatomical structures, preoperative DS may not negatively affect the clinical outcomes of minimally invasive posterior decompression. Overall, 198 patients with LSS who underwent microendoscopic or microscopic decompression and were followed up for more than 5 years postoperatively were included in the present study. Patients who showed a segmental kyphosis >5° at the surgical level during flexion were treated with fusion surgery. However, other patients, including those with DS, were treated with posterior decompression. The patients were divided into two groups: the DS group included 82 patients with >3-mm slip and the non-DS group included 112 patients with ≤3-mm slip or without slip. A mixed-effects model adjusted for age and sex was used to compare the improvements in the visual analog scale score for low-back pain and the Japanese Orthopaedic Association score of the two groups. For subgroup analysis (n = 53), the changes in the preoperative physical component summary and the mental component summary of Short Form-36 of the two groups at 5 years after surgery were evaluated. There was no significant difference in the improvement of preoperative low-back pain visual analog scale score and Japanese Orthopaedic Association score 5 years after surgery between the two groups. Subgroup analysis showed no significant difference between the two groups in the improvement of preoperative physical component summary and mental component summary 5 years after surgery. After carefully eliminating patients with segmental instability, DS did not affect the clinical outcomes of minimally invasive decompression surgery.Level of Evidence: 3.

Less Invasive Combined Micro- and Endoscopic Neurolysis of Superficial Peroneal Nerve Entrapment: Technical Note.

As superficial peroneal nerve (S-PN) entrapment neuropathy is relatively rare, it may be an elusive clinical entity. For decompression surgery addressing idiopathic S-PN entrapment, narrow- area decompression may be insufficient and long-area decompression along the S-PN from the peroneus longus muscle (PLM) to the peroneal nerve exit site may be required. To render it is less invasive, we performed S-PN neurolysis in a combined microscope/endoscope procedure. We report our surgical procedure and clinical outcomes. We microsurgically decompressed the affected S-PN under local anesthesia without a proximal tourniquet. We made a small linear skin incision at the distal portion of the S-PN, performed distal decompression of the S-PN where it penetrated the deep fascia, and then performed proximal decompression under an endoscope. At the site where the S-PN exited the PLM, we placed additional small incisions and proceeded to microscopic decompression. We surgically treated three patients with S-PN entrapment. They were two men and one woman ranging in age from 66 to 85 years. The mean postoperative follow-up was 22 months. Their symptoms before treatment and at the latest follow-up visit were recorded on the numerical rating scale (NRS). The mean incision length was 5.5 cm and 17.3 cm of the S-PN was decompressed. All three patients reported postoperative symptom improvement. There were no complications. In patients with idiopathic S-PN entrapment, long-site neurolysis under local anesthesia using a microscope/endoscope combination is useful.

Minimally Invasive Microscopic Decompression for Focal Lumbar Spinal Canal Stenosis

Abstract Background: Lumbar canal stenosis is the reduction of the surface area of the spinal canal and it is a prevalent disease which has several etiologies. It is a gradual degenerative and aging process. The cut off is the anteroposterior diameter is 12mm of the spinal canal below that it is relative stenosis and below 10mm it is absolute stenosis. Causes of canal stenosis include congenital and acquired causes (degenerative, spond-ylolithetic and iatrogenic). It is anatomically classified into central, lateral recess foraminal and extraforaminal. Micro-scopic unilateral laminectomy for bilateral decompression is a recently developed minimally invasive technique for decom-pression of the spinal canal with unilateral exposure minimizing soft tissue trauma. Aim of Study: To evaluate the outcome of the procedure and its efficacy in relieving symptoms. Patients and Methods: A prospective study including 32 patients with single level focal lumbar canal stenosis were included, perioperative assessment with history taking full neurological examination VAS score for pain is done, all had minimally invasive microscopic decompression via a unilateral approach postoperative status complications VAS score was done at 1,3 and 6th months intervals also patient satisfaction was considered. Results: Thirty two patients were included all had focal type stenosis, 27 at L4, 4 at L3 and one at L5. Sixty percent relieved at first month ,95% at 3 month and five percent were not satisfied. Conclusion: The technique is a good option with fast recovery and early ambulation with less post-operative back pain.