Treatment Of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Research Articles

Comparative efficacy of unilateral biportal and percutaneous endoscopic techniques in unilateral laminectomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) for lumbar spinal stenosis

BackgroundUnilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) has yielded positive results in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). Unilateral biportal ULBD (UB-ULBD) and percutaneous endoscopic ULBD (PE-ULBD) are gaining popularity because of the progress that has been made in minimally invasive surgery (MIS). The objective of this study was to evaluate and compare the radiographic and clinical results of UB-ULBD and PE-ULBD.MethodsThis study retrospectively enrolled patients who underwent ULBD surgery for LSS. The patients were categorized into two groups on the basis of the surgical method: the UB-ULBD group and the PE-ULBD group. Data on the general demographic data, surgical details, clinical efficacy, radiography and complications were compared between the two groups were compared. The minimum follow-up duration was 12 months.ResultsA total of 113 LSS patients who had undergone ULBD at our institution were included, of whom 61 patients underwent UB-ULBD surgery and 52 underwent PE-ULBD surgery. The UB-ULBD group had a significantly shorter operation time (P < 0.05). The facet was significantly better preserved in the UB-ULBD group than in the PE-ULBD group, and the angle of ipsilateral facet joint resection in the UE-ULBD group was significantly smaller (P < 0.05). The ODI score, VAS score and modified Macnab criteria improved postoperatively in both groups. The UB-ULBD group had a 95.08% rate of excellent or good patient outcomes, whereas the PE-ULBD group had a 92.30% rate.ConclusionBoth UB-ULBD and PE-ULBD can provide favourable clinical outcomes when used to treat LSS. UB-ULBD is beneficial because of its shorter operation time, smaller angle of ipsilateral facet joint resection and better facet preservation, making it a viable and safe option for treating LSS while ensuring spinal stability.

Impact of Racial and Socioeconomic Disparities on Access to Interspinous Spacer for Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Nationwide Medicare Analysis.

In mild to moderate lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) where conservative care treatments fail, minimally invasive treatments, such as interspinous spacers without decompression or fusion (ISD), may be appropriate. While previous studies have demonstrated racial and socioeconomic disparities in the surgical treatment of LSS, there are limited data on how those factors impact accessibility to these procedures. This study explored demographic, socioeconomic, and geographic differences in the use of ISD. Using the Medicare 100% files from 2017 through 2022, this retrospective claims analysis identified when and if patients diagnosed with LSS received ISD implantation. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to examine the association between racial and socioeconomic characteristics and the rate of ISD implantation, stratified by geographic region. A total of 1,316,622 individuals met the inclusion criteria; 4730 (0.4%) underwent ISD implantation, with a mean (standard deviation) time to treatment of 11.9 (13.2) months after diagnosis. The likelihood of ISD implantation was higher for older patients (except for the oldest group), males, those with lower disease burden, and White patients. Cox regression revealed that the associations of racial and socioeconomic factors with ISD implantation varied by U.S. region. In the Midwest and Northeast, lower median household income was associated with a decreased likelihood of ISD implantation regardless of race, while in the South, Black patients were less likely to undergo ISD implantation regardless of income. The observed disparities in access to ISD implantation mirror existing trends in surgical interventions for LSS, suggesting further study and interventions are needed to address inequities.

Nonsurgical therapy for lumbar spinal stenosis caused by ligamentum flavum hypertrophy: A review.

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) can cause a range of cauda equina symptoms, including lower back and leg pain, numbness, and intermittent claudication. This disease affects approximately 103 million people worldwide, particularly the elderly, and can seriously compromise their health and well-being. Ligamentum flavum hypertrophy (LFH) is one of the main contributing factors to this disease. Surgical treatment is currently recommended for LSS caused by LFH. For patients who do not meet the criteria for surgery, symptom relief can be achieved by using oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and epidural steroid injections. Exercise therapy and needle knife can also help to reduce the effects of mechanical stress. However, the effectiveness of these methods varies, and targeting the delay in LF hypertrophy is challenging. Therefore, further research and development of new drugs is necessary to address this issue. Several new drugs, including cyclopamine and N-acetyl-l-cysteine, are currently undergoing testing and may serve as new treatments for LSS caused by LFH.

Assessment of the Effectiveness of Surgical Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

Assessment of the Effectiveness of Surgical Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

The safety of perioperative antiplatelet continuation without selection biases in microsurgical decompression surgery for single level lumbar spinal stenosis and lumbar disc herniotomy.

Each institution or physician has to decide on an individual basis whether to continue or discontinue antiplatelet (AP) therapy before spinal surgery. The purpose of this study was to determine if perioperative AP continuation is safe during single-level microsurgical decompression (MSD) for treating lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) and lumbar disc hernia (LDH) without selection bias. Patients who underwent single-level MSD for LSS and LDH between April 2018 to December 2022 at our institute were included in this retrospective study. We collected data regarding baseline characteristics, medical history/comorbidities, epidural hematoma (EDH) volume, reoperation for EDH, differences between preoperative and one-day postoperative blood cell counts (ΔRBC), hemoglobin (ΔHGB), and hematocrits (ΔHCT), and perioperative thromboembolic complications. Patients were divided into two groups: the AP continuation group received AP treatment before surgery and the control group did not receive antiplatelet medication before surgery. Propensity scores for receiving AP agents were calculated, with one-to-one matching of estimated propensity scores to adjust for patient baseline characteristics and past histories. Reoperation for EDH, EDH volume, ΔRBC, ΔHGB, ΔHCT, and perioperative thromboembolic complications were compared between the groups. The 303 enrolled patients included 41 patients in the AP continuation group. After propensity score matching, the rate of reoperation for EDH, the EDH volume, ΔRBC, ΔHGB, ΔHCT, and perioperative thromboembolic complication rates were not significantly different between the groups. Perioperative AP continuation is safe for single-level lumbar MSD, even without biases.

Repeated epidural delivery of Shinbaro2: effects on neural recovery, inflammation, and pain modulation in a rat model of lumbar spinal stenosis.

The choice of treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) depends on symptom severity. When severe motor issues with urinary dysfunction are not present, conservative treatment is often considered to be the priority. One such conservative treatment is epidural injection, which is effective in alleviating inflammation and the pain caused by LSS-affected nerves. In this study, Shinbaro2 (Sh2), pharmacopuncture using natural herbal medicines for patients with disc diseases, is introduced as an epidural to treat LSS in a rat model. The treatment of primary sensory neurons from the rats' dorsal root ganglion (DRG) neurons with Sh2 at various concentrations (0.5, 1, and 2mg/mL) was found to be safe and non-toxic. Furthermore, it remarkably stimulated axonal outgrowth even under H2O2-treated conditions, indicating its potential for stimulating nerve regeneration. When LSS rats received epidural injections of two different concentrations of Sh2 (1 and 2mg/kg) once daily for 4 weeks, a significant reduction was seen in ED1+ macrophages surrounding the silicone block used for LSS induction. Moreover, epidural injection of Sh2 in the DRG led to a significant suppression of pain-related factors. Notably, Sh2 treatment resulted in improved locomotor recovery, as evaluated by the Basso, Beattie, and Bresnahan scale and the horizontal ladder test. Additionally, hind paw hypersensitivity, assessed using the Von Frey test, was reduced, and normal gait was restored. Our findings demonstrate that epidural Sh2 injection not only reduced inflammation but also improved locomotor function and pain in LSS model rats. Thus, Sh2 delivery via epidural injection has potential as an effective treatment option for LSS.

Decompression Alone vs Decompression and Fusion: Spin in Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis.

Cross-sectional. Spin, a prevalent bias, can distort outcomes in well-validated research. Treatment of lumbar stenosis with spondylolisthesis through decompression alone (DA) vs decompression and fusion (DF) remains a controversial topic. We aimed to identify the prevalence of spin in meta-analyses and systematic reviews regarding DA vs DF in the treatment of spinal stenosis with concomitant degenerative spondylolisthesis. MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched for meta-analyses and systematic reviews comparing DA vs DF treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis accompanied by degenerative spondylolisthesis. Each study was evaluated for the nine most severe spin types. We also explored the association between spin and methodological quality of a systematic review using the revised A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews appraisal tool. The search yielded 1506 articles, of which 13 met inclusion. It was found that 46.2% (6/13) of the articles contained spin within the abstract. Of the nine most severe types, type 5 was found to be the most prevalent (4/13, 30.8%), followed by types 9 (2/13, 15.4%), 3 (1/13, 7.7%), 4 (1/13, 7.7%), and 6 (1/13, 7.7%). Spin types 1, 2, 7 and 8 were not found. According to AMSTAR-2, 53.8% (7/13) of the studies were appraised as "critically low" quality and 46.2% (6/13) as "low" quality. This study demonstrated the presence of spin in 46.2% of abstracts pertaining to the treatment for spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis. Spine surgeons should learn to recognize spin as they review articles before implementing them into practice.

Short-term lumbar disc and lumbar stability changes of one-hole split endoscope technique treatment of spinal stenosis

ObjectiveInvestigating the early biomechanical effects of the one-hole split endoscope (OSE) technique on lumbar spine after decompression surgery.MethodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on 66 patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) who underwent OSE technique surgery at the affiliated hospital of Binzhou Medical University from September 2021 to September 2022. The patients had complete postoperative follow-up records. The mean age was (51.73 ± 12.42) years, including 33 males and 33 females. The preoperative and postoperative imaging data were analyzed, including disc height (DH), foraminal height (FH), lumbar lordosis angle (LLA), changes in disc angle, anterior-posterior translation distance, and lumbar intervertebral disc Pfirrmann grading. The visual analogue scale (VAS) was applied to evaluate the severity of preoperative, postoperative day 1, postoperative 3 months, and final follow-up for back and leg pain. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) was applied to assess the functionality at all the listed time points. The modified MacNab criteria were applied to evaluate the clinical efficacy at the final follow-up.ResultsIn 66 patients, there were statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) in DH and FH at the affected segments compared to preoperative values, whereas no significant differences (p > 0.05) were found in DH and FH at the adjacent upper segments compared to preoperative values. There was no statistically significant difference in the LLA compared to preoperative values (p > 0.05). Both the affected segments and adjacent upper segments showed statistically significant differences in Pfirrmann grading compared to preoperative values (p < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in the changes in disc angle or anterior-posterior translation distance in the affected or adjacent segments compared to preoperative values (p > 0.05). The VAS scores for back and leg pain, as well as the ODI, significantly improved at all postoperative time points compared to preoperative values. Among the comparisons at different time points, the differences were statistically significant (p < 0.05). The clinical efficacy was evaluated at the final follow-up using the modified MacNab criteria, with 51 cases rated as excellent, 8 cases as good, and 7 cases as fair, resulting in an excellent-good rate of 89.39%.ConclusionsThe OSE technique, as a surgical option for decompression in the treatment of LSS, has no significant impact on lumbar spine stability in the early postoperative period. However, it does have some effects on the lumbar intervertebral discs, which may lead to a certain degree of degeneration.

Percutaneous image-guided lumbar decompression and outpatient laminectomy for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: a 2-year Medicare claims benchmark study

BackgroundThis prospective longitudinal study compares outcomes for Medicare beneficiaries receiving outpatient percutaneous image-guided lumbar decompression (PILD) using the mild® procedure to patients undergoing outpatient laminectomy. All patients were diagnosed with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) with neurogenic claudication (NC). MethodsAll medical claims for 100 % of Medicare beneficiaries were reviewed, with study subjects identified using Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Research Identifiable Files. Baseline data were extracted individually to allow for longitudinal analysis through two-year follow-up. The index procedure was defined as the first mild or outpatient laminectomy during the enrollment period. The rate of subsequent surgical procedures and incidence of harms were used as study outcomes. ResultsCohorts included 2197 mild and 7416 laminectomy patients. mild patients were significantly older (76.7 years versus 73.4 years, respectively; p < 0.0001), and 57.4 % of mild were female, compared to 43.3 % of laminectomy (p < 0.0001). mild patients presented with significantly more baseline comorbidities compared to laminectomy patients (mean of 5.7 versus 4.8, respectively; p < 0.0001). Subsequent surgical procedure rate of 9.0 % for mild was significantly higher than 5.5 % for laminectomy (p < 0.0001). mild experienced harms at a significantly lower rate than laminectomy (1.9 % versus 5.8 %, respectively; p < 0.0001). The composite rate of subsequent surgical procedures and harms was similar between groups at 10.8 % for mild and 11.0 % for laminectomy. Conclusionsmild can be considered a viable option for treatment of LSS with NC as evidenced by real-world data in this study. At two-years, mild patients experienced fewer harms and underwent more subsequent surgical procedures than laminectomy patients. The higher rate of subsequent surgical procedures for mild may be attributable to its position earlier in the LSS treatment algorithm. The overall rate of harms and subsequent surgical procedures was similar between groups, suggesting that mild should be considered as a treatment option, particularly for older patients with multiple comorbidities.

One-hole split endoscope versus unilateral biportal endoscopy for lumbar spinal stenosis: a retrospective propensity score study

BackgroundThe one-hole split endoscopy (OSE) was first proposed and clinically applied in China in 2019. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of one-hole split endoscopy (OSE) and unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) for treating lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).MethodsOne hundred sixty patients with LSS who met the inclusion from November 2020 to August 2022 were analyzed and divided into OSE and UBE groups. The propensity score matching (PSM) method was used to adjust the imbalanced confounding variables between the two groups. After matching, surgical outcomes were recorded, and clinical data, including functional scores and imaging findings, were compared. Functional scores included the visual analog scale of leg pain (VAS-LP) and back pain (VAS-BP), the Japanese Orthopedic Association score (JOA), and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Imaging data included dural sac cross-sectional area (DCSA), lumbar range of motion (ROM), and sagittal translation (ST).ResultsAfter PSM, 104 LSS patients were included in the study, and all covariates were well-balanced between the two groups. Among the matched patients, the OSE showed advantages over the UBE regarding operative time (62.42 ± 4.86 vs. 68.96 ± 4.56) and incision length (2.30 ± 0.14 vs. 2.70 ± 0.15) (P < 0.001). However, differences between the two groups in intraoperative blood loss, hospital length of stay, and complication rates were not statistically significant (P > 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference regarding VAS-BP, VAS-LP, JOA, and ODI between the two groups (P > 0.05). However, all clinical and functional scores significantly improved postoperatively (P < 0.05). Postoperative DCSA of both groups was significantly found to be improved (P < 0.05), ROM and ST remained within the normal range, and no cases of lumbar instability were recorded. According to the modified MacNab criteria, the excellent and good rates in the OSE and UBE groups were 94.23% and 90.38%, respectively, with no statistically significant difference (P = 0.713).ConclusionOSE is an alternative technique to UBE for the treatment of LSS, with similar satisfactory clinical outcomes, shorter operative time, and smaller incision length. Further studies are needed for long-term efficacy.

Risk Factors for Surgical Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Disc Disease in Middle-aged and Older Women: A Prospective Case-Control Study of 2370 Subjects.

Given the distinct physiological and societal traits between women and men, we propose that there are distinct risk factors for lumbar degenerative disc disease surgeries, including lumbar disc herniation (LDH) and lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), in middle-aged and older populations. However, few studies have focused on middle-aged and older women. This study aims to identify these risk factors specifically in this population. In this case-control study, the study group comprised 1202 women aged ≥ 45 years who underwent operative treatment of lumbar degenerative disc disease (LDH, n = 825; LSS, n = 377), and the control group comprised 1168 women without lumbar disease who visited a health examination clinic during the same period. The study factors included demographics (age, body mass index [BMI], smoking, labor intensity, and genetic history), female-specific factors (menopausal status, number of deliveries, cesarean section, and simple hysterectomy), surgical history (number of abdominal surgeries, hip joint surgery, knee joint surgery, and thyroidectomy), and systemic diseases (hypercholesterolemia, hypertriglyceridemia, hyper-low-density lipoprotein cholesterolemia, hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cerebrovascular disease). Multivariate binary logistic regression analysis was used to calculate the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) of associated factors. The risk factors for surgical treatment of LDH in middle-aged and older women included BMI (OR = 1.603), labor intensity (OR = 1.189), genetic history (OR = 2.212), number of deliveries (OR = 1.736), simple hysterectomy (OR = 2.511), hypertriglyceridemia (OR = 1.932), and hyper-low-density lipoprotein cholesterolemia (OR = 2.662). For surgical treatment of LSS, the risk factors were age (OR = 1.889), BMI (OR = 1.671), genetic history (OR = 2.134), number of deliveries (OR = 2.962), simple hysterectomy (OR = 1.968), knee joint surgery (OR = 2.527), hypertriglyceridemia (OR = 1.476), hyper-low-density lipoprotein cholesterolemia (OR = 2.413), and diabetes (OR = 1.643). Cerebrovascular disease was a protective factor against surgery for LDH (OR = 0.267). BMI, genetic history, number of deliveries, simple hysterectomy, hypertriglyceridemia, and hyper-low-density lipoprotein cholesterolemia were independent risk factors for surgical treatment of both LDH and LSS in middle-aged and older women. Two disparities were found: labor intensity was a risk factor for LDH patients, and knee joint surgery and diabetes were risk factors for LSS patients.

Pain-related single nucleotide polymorphisms: association with lumbar spinal stenosis patient experience and non-surgical treatment outcomes.

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is common in our aging population resulting in pain and functional impairment. Recent advances in pain research have identified several single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) associated with inter-individual symptom and treatment response. The goal of the current study was to investigate the association of SNPs in Neuropeptide Y (NPY) and Catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) with pain, function, and treatment outcomes in Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) patients receiving non-surgical treatments. An exploratory observational biomarker study was performed ancillary to a previously published clinical trial evaluating three different non-surgical treatments for LSS. Saliva samples were obtained for single nucleotide polymorphism genotyping and blood samples were collected for NPY protein. Data on pain and function collected as part of the clinical trial at baseline, 2 and 6 months were examined for association with known polymorphisms in NPY and COMT. Subjects with the NPY rs16147 TT genotype exhibited higher baseline symptom severity but also a higher likelihood of responding to non-surgical treatments. Subjects with the COMT rs4680 GG genotype also exhibited higher baseline symptom severity but did not demonstrate greater response to treatment. NPY rs16147 and COMT rs4680 are important potential biomarkers associated with pain and function. NPY genotype may be useful in predicting response to non-surgical treatments in older adults with LSS.

Preoperative spinal education for lumbar spinal stenosis: A feasibility study.

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a leading cause of chronic musculoskeletal pain among older adults. A common and costly intervention for the treatment of LSS is lumbar decompression with or without fusion (LSS surgery), which has mixed outcomes among patients. Prehabilitation is a strategy designed to optimize the consistency of positive surgical outcomes and promote patient self-efficacy, while attempting to mitigate postoperative complications. No efforts have investigated the prehabilitation strategies specifically for patients undergoing LSS surgery. To determine the feasibility of delivery and acceptability by participants of a novel prehabilitation intervention for patients undergoing LSS surgery. Feasibility study. Outpatient orthopedic clinic at an academic medical center. Patients at least 50 years of age, who were scheduled for LSS surgery between October 2020 and October 2021. PreOperative Spinal Education for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis (POSE-LSS), is a novel multimodal, education-focused, time-efficient prehabilitation program for patients undergoing LSS surgery. Participants received the following: (1) Educational booklet and video; (2) In-person physical therapy (PT) session; and (3) Telemedicine visit with a physiatrist. The primary outcomes of interest were feasibility and acceptability of intervention by participants. Key potential surgical outcomes were length of stay and discharge disposition. POSE-LSS was completed by all eligible participants enrolled (n = 15) indicating feasibility and acceptability. Potential effectiveness measures including length of stay and discharge disposition were positively associated with the POSE-LSS intervention. This study demonstrates that a novel prehabilitation intervention is feasible, acceptable, and appears positively associated with important short-term measures of postoperative recovery that may impact the trajectory of patient care following LSS surgery.

Five-step unilateral biportal endoscopic surgery for central lumbar canal stenosis: "Z" technique nuance.

The treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis has advanced through the use of minimally invasive surgery techniques. Endoscopic methods go even further, with studies showing that both uniportal and biportal endoscopic techniques have outcomes comparable to traditional approaches. However, there is limited knowledge of the step-by-step decompression process when using the unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE). To address this, the authors introduce the five steps in the "Z" sequence, which aims to reduce surgical time and complications. The video can be found here: https://stream.cadmore.media/r10.3171/2024.1.FOCVID23182.

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).

Surgical treatment of degenerative stenotic lesions of the lumbar spine. Own experience of using minimally invasive techniques

Lumbar spinal stenosis is a multifactorial progressive condition mainly affecting older individuals, characterized by narrowing of the natural anatomical pathways passage of nerve structures, resulting in typical clinical symptoms. The disease affects about 103 million people in worldwide with an incidence of absolute lumbar spinal stenosis 19.4% among individuals aged 60-69 years. In the United States, about 600,000 surgical interventions for lumbar spinal stenosis are performed annually. This disease is one of the most common causes of lumbar pain and lower limbs in the elderly individuals, accompanied by claudication and ultimately leading to disability. The main cause of clinical symptoms of the lumbar spinal stenosis is the discrepancy between the sizes of nerve structures and their osteofibrous sheaths, resulting from gradually developing degenerative-dystrophic changes. Objective: To compare the outcomes of surgical treatment of patients with degenerative stenotic lesions of the lumbar spine using open and minimally invasive methods. Materials and methods. The results of surgical treatment of 97 patients with lumbar spinal stenosis aged from 28 to 81 years on the basis of the Department of Minimally Invasive and Laser Spinal Neurosurgery of the State Institution " A.P. Romodanov Neurosurgery Institute, Ukraine", " Neurosurgical Department №20 of Vinnytsia Regional Clinical Psychoneurological Hospital named after Acad. O.I. Yushchenko" of Vinnytsia Regional Council and "Spinex" Medical Center following all clinical research protocols. Patients were divided into four groups depending on the surgical intervention method. Results. The development of concepts regarding the mechanisms of occurrence and treatment methods of lumbar spinal stenosis are highlighted, as well as personal experience of using minimally invasive treatment techniques for this pathology in combination with the use of the ERAS (Enhanced Recovery After Surgery) protocol of perioperative patient management. It was found that the duration of hospital stay for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis statistically significantly desreased when using minimally invasive decompression (p≤0.05) and the ERAS rehabilitation protocol (p≤0.05). When comparing the average length of stay in the hospital of patients of the four groups, a statistically significant (p≤0.05) shorter length of stay in the hospital was observed for patients who underwent minimally invasive decompression using the ERAS rehabilitation protocol. The greatest reduction in pain intensity (according to the Numeric Pain Scale (NPS)) at 6 months post- intervention and rehabilitation was also noted in patients of this group. Conclusions. The use of minimally invasive techniques, the correct choice of surgical procedure volume (interbody fusion is desirable in surgery for degenerative spinal diseases) combined with Enhanced Recovery after Surgery protocol (ERAS) significantly improves postoperative well-being of patients, accelerates patient mobilization, and reduces the length of stay in the hospital.

Analysis of effectiveness of one-hole split endoscopy technique in treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis

To investigate the effectiveness of one-hole split endoscope (OSE) technique in the treatment of single segment lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). The clinical data of 32 single segment LSS patients treated with OSE technique for simple spinal canal decompression between January 2022 and December 2022, who met the selection criteria, were retrospectively analysed. There were 18 males and 14 females, the age ranged from 45 to 82 years, with an average of 65.1 years. The disease duration was 9-72 months, with an average of 34.9 months. The surgical segments included L 3, 4 in 3 cases, L 4, 5 in 19 cases, and L 5, S 1 in 10 cases. The incision length, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative radiation exposure frequency, postoperative mobilization time, and the area of the patient's lesion segment dural sac before operation and at 1 month after operation were recorded. Low back pain and leg pain were assessed by visual analogue scale (VAS) score before operation and at 3 days, 3 months, and 12 months after operation; functional recovery was assessed by Oswestry disability index (ODI) before operation and at 3 months and 12 months after operation; the effectiveness was assessed by modified MacNab criteria at last follow-up. All 32 patients successfully completed the operation, with an average incision length of 2.05 cm, an average operation time of 88.59 minutes, an average intraoperative blood loss of 46.72 mL, an average intraoperative radiation exposure frequency of 3.84 times, and an average postoperative mobilization time of 11.66 hours. All patients were followed up 12-16 months, with an average of 13.5 months. One patient experienced lower limb numbness, pain, and decreased muscle strength after operation, while the remaining patients did not experience complications such as dural tear or important nerve damage. The VAS scores of low back pain and leg pain and ODI in patients at various time points after operation were significantly better than preoperative ones, and each indicator further improved with time. The differences between time points were significant ( P<0.05). At 1 month after operation, the area of the patient's lesion segment dural sac was (123.13±19.66) mm 2, which significantly increased compared to preoperative (51.25±9.50) mm 2 ( t=-18.616, P<0.001). At last follow-up, the improved MacNab criteria were used to evaluate the effectiveness, with 18 cases achieving excellent results, 11 cases being good, and 3 cases being fair, with an excellent and good rate of 90.6%. The effectiveness of using OSE technique for simple spinal canal decompression treatment of single segment LSS is satisfactory, with the advantages of minimal surgical trauma and fast recovery.

Comparison of effectiveness between unilateral biportal endoscopic and uniportal interlaminar endoscopic decompression in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis

To compare the effectiveness between unilateral laminotomy and bilateral decompression (ULBD) with unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) and uniportal interlaminar endoscopy (UIE) in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. A clinical data of 52 patients with lumbar spinal stenosis, who met the selection criteria and treated with ULBD between March 2021 and November 2022, was retrospectively analyzed. The patients were allocated into UBE group (23 cases) and UIE group (29 cases) according to the surgical methods. There was no significant difference ( P>0.05) in age, gender, body mass index, surgical segment, type of lumbar stenosis, and preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score of low back pain, VAS score of leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), disc height, and dural sac area between the two groups. Perioperative indexes (incision length, operation time, hospital stay, and surgical complications), clinical indicators (VAS score of low back pain, VAS score of leg pain, and ODI before operation and at 3 days, 1 month, 6 months, and 12 months after operation), and imaging indicators (disc height and dural sac area before operation and at 1, 12 months after operation, and dural sac expansion area) were recorded and compared between the two group. All operations in both groups were successfully completed. Compared with the UIE group, the UBE group had shorter operation time and longer incision length, with significant differences ( P<0.05). But there was no significant difference in hospital stay and incidence of complications between the two groups ( P>0.05). All patients were followed up 12-20 months (mean, 14 months). The VAS scores of low back pain and leg pain and ODI after operation significantly improved when compared with preoperative values ( P<0.05), and there was no significant difference in the above indicators between different time points after operation ( P>0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups at different time points ( P>0.05). Imaging examination showed that there was no significant difference in disc height between the two groups at different time points after operation ( P>0.05). However, the dural sac area and dural sac expansion area were significantly larger in the UBE group than in the UIE group ( P<0.05). ULBD with UBE and UIE can achieve satisfactory effectiveness in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. But the former has more thorough decompression and better dural sac expansion than the latter.

Clinical effects of arthroscopic-assisted uni-portal spinal surgery and unilateral bi-portal endoscopy on unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: a retrospective cohort study

ObjectiveTo investigate the clinical effectiveness of Arthroscopic-assisted Uni-portal Spinal Surgery (AUSS) in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis.MethodsA total of 475 patients with lumbar spinal stenosis from January 2019 to January 2023 were included in this study. Among them, 240 patients were treated with AUSS (AUSS group); the other 235 patients were treated with unilateral bi-portal endoscopy treatment (UBE group). The differences in surgery-related clinical indicators, pain degree before and after surgery, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), CT imaging parameters of spinal stenosis, and clinical efficacy were compared between the two groups.ResultsPatients in the AUSS group had a shorter operative time than those in the UBE group, and the length of incision and surgical bleeding were less than those in the UBE group, with statistically significant differences (P < 0.05). Before operation, there was no significant difference in the VAS score of low back pain and leg pain between the two groups (P > 0. 05). After operation, patients in both groups showed a significant reduction in low back and leg pain, and their VAS scores were significantly lower than before the operation (P < 0.05). Three months after surgery, the results of CT re-examination in both groups showed that the spinal stenosis of the patients was well improved, and the measurements of lumbar spinal interspace APDC, CAC, ICA, CAD and LAC were significantly higher than those before surgery (P < 0. 05). Besides, the lumbar function of patients improved significantly in both groups, and ODI measurements were significantly lower than those before surgery (P < 0.05).ConclusionBoth AUSS and UBE with unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression can achieve good clinical results in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis, but the former has the advantages of simpler operation, shorter operation time, shorter incision length, and less surgical blood loss.

Unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) versus endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis along with intervertebral disc herniation: a retrospective analysis

ObjectiveThis study aims to compare the clinical effects and imaging data of patients who underwent endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) with those who received unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF).MethodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on the clinical data of 69 patients presenting with typical intermittent claudication and signs and symptoms indicative of unilateral lower extremity nerve root compression, meeting inclusion criteria between April 2022 and June 2022. Among the cohort, 35 patients underwent ULIF group, while 34 patients underwent Endo-TLIF group. We compared perioperative parameters, including intraoperative blood loss, duration of hospital stay, and operation time between the two groups. Pre-operative and post-operative changes in the height and cross-sectional area of the target intervertebral space were also compared between the groups. Finally, we evaluated bone graft size and interbody fusion rates at 6 and 12 months post-surgery using the Brantigan scoring system.ResultsThe ULIF group had significantly shorter operative times compared to the Endo-TLIF group (P < 0.05). Conversely, the Endo-TLIF group exhibited significantly shorter hospital stays compared to the ULIF group (P < 0.05). However, there were no significant differences in intraoperative bleeding between the two groups (P > 0.05). Furthermore, both groups exhibited postoperative increases in vertebral canal volume compared to baseline (P < 0.05), with no significant difference in the change in the cross-sectional area of the target intervertebral space between the two surgical methods (P > 0.05). Interbody fusion rates were comparable between the two groups at both 6 and 12 months after surgery (P > 0.05). Lastly, the ULIF group had a significantly larger area of bone graft than the Endo-TLIF group (P < 0.05).ConclusionIn summary, the ULIF technique, as a novel spinal endoscopy approach, is a safer and more effective minimally invasive surgical method for addressing lumbar spinal stenosis and intervertebral disc herniation in patients. Both surgical methods have their own advantages and drawbacks. With the development of technology and related instruments, the limitations of both techniques can be mitigated for to a certain extent, and they can be applied by more doctors in diverse medical fields in the future.