Literature DB >> 24403742

Minimally invasive surgery through endoscopic laminotomy and foraminotomy for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis.

John A Polikandriotis1, Elizabeth M Hudak1, Michael W Perry1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Lumbar spinal stenosis is a common cause of radicular and generalized back pain among older adults. Endoscopic minimally invasive surgery, in contrast to open decompression, may provide the opportunity for a less invasive surgical intervention. Thus, the purpose of this study is to evaluate the safety (operative complications, estimated blood loss, operative room time) and effectiveness (pre- versus postoperative level of disability and pain severity) of minimally invasive surgery using endoscopic laminotomy and foraminotomy among a large sample of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.
METHODS: This study is composed of 320 consecutive patients with lumbar spinal stenosis who underwent posterior lumbar laminotomy and foraminotomy between 2008 and 2011. Outcome measures consisted of perioperative complications, estimated blood loss, operative room time, level of disability, and pain severity. Pain severity and level of disability were prospectively analyzed to an average of 18 months (12-36 months) post-surgery.
RESULTS: There was an average estimated blood loss of 39.3 cc and a mean operative room time of 74 min. Seven patients experienced minor operative complications. All patients were discharged the same day as surgery and reported a significantly lower level of disability (p = 0.00) and pain severity (p = 0.00) postoperative compared to preoperative.
CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive surgery using endoscopy for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis has a short operative time, a low operative complication rate, and minimal estimated blood loss. This study also indicates that MIS for the treatment of LSS can significantly reduce pain and disability level. Thus, minimally invasive surgery using endoscopic laminotomy and foraminotomy appears to be a safe and effective alternative surgical treatment for open decompression surgery in adult patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Back pain; Decompression; Laminotomy; Nerve; Spinal cord

Year:  2013        PMID: 24403742      PMCID: PMC3768246          DOI: 10.1016/j.jor.2013.01.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Orthop        ISSN: 0972-978X


  14 in total

1.  Comparative reliability and validity of chronic pain intensity measures.

Authors:  M P Jensen; J A Turner; J M Romano; L D Fisher
Journal:  Pain       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 6.961

2.  Incidence of complications associated with spinal endoscopic surgery: nationwide survey in 2007 by the Committee on Spinal Endoscopic Surgical Skill Qualification of Japanese Orthopaedic Association.

Authors:  Morio Matsumoto; Toru Hasegawa; Manabu Ito; Toshimi Aizawa; Shinichi Konno; Masatsune Yamagata; Sohei Ebara; Yudo Hachiya; Hiroaki Nakamura; Shoji Yagi; Kimiaki Sato; Akira Dezawa; Muneto Yoshida; Kenichi Shinomiya; Yoshiaki Toyama; Katsuji Shimizu; Kensei Nagata
Journal:  J Orthop Sci       Date:  2010-02-12       Impact factor: 1.601

3.  Complications of open compared to minimally invasive lumbar spine decompression.

Authors:  Patrick Shih; Albert P Wong; Timothy R Smith; Amy I Lee; Richard G Fessler
Journal:  J Clin Neurosci       Date:  2011-07-19       Impact factor: 1.961

4.  Two-year fusion and clinical outcomes in 224 patients treated with a single-level instrumented posterolateral fusion with iliac crest bone graft.

Authors:  John R Dimar; Steven D Glassman; J Kenneth Burkus; Philip W Pryor; James W Hardacker; Leah Y Carreon
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2009-05-17       Impact factor: 4.166

5.  Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery. Part 2: Histologic and histochemical analyses in humans.

Authors:  Y Kawaguchi; H Matsui; H Tsuji
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1994-11-15       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Comparison of techniques for decompressive lumbar laminectomy: the minimally invasive versus the "classic" open approach.

Authors:  M Rahman; L E Summers; B Richter; R I Mimran; R P Jacob
Journal:  Minim Invasive Neurosurg       Date:  2008-04

7.  Surgical versus nonoperative treatment for lumbar disc herniation: four-year results for the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT).

Authors:  James N Weinstein; Jon D Lurie; Tor D Tosteson; Anna N A Tosteson; Emily A Blood; William A Abdu; Harry Herkowitz; Alan Hilibrand; Todd Albert; Jeffrey Fischgrund
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2008-12-01       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Transforaminal arthroscopic decompression of lateral recess stenosis.

Authors:  P Kambin; K Casey; E O'Brien; L Zhou
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  1996-03       Impact factor: 5.115

9.  Minimally invasive surgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: Two-year follow-up in 54 patients.

Authors:  Sylvain Palmer; Lisa Davison
Journal:  Surg Neurol Int       Date:  2012-03-24

10.  Endoscopic laminoforaminoplasty success rates for treatment of foraminal spinal stenosis: report on sixty-four cases.

Authors:  Scott M W Haufe; Anthony R Mork; Morgan A Pyne; Ryan A Baker
Journal:  Int J Med Sci       Date:  2009-03-22       Impact factor: 3.738

View more
  8 in total

1.  Full-endoscopic (bi-portal or uni-portal) versus microscopic lumbar decompression laminectomy in patients with spinal stenosis: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Saran Pairuchvej; Janisa Andrea Muljadi; Jei-Chen Ho; Alisara Arirachakaran; Jatupon Kongtharvonskul
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2019-12-20

2.  Learning Curve Associated with Complications in Biportal Endoscopic Spinal Surgery: Challenges and Strategies.

Authors:  Dae-Jung Choi; Chang-Myong Choi; Je-Tea Jung; Sang-Jin Lee; Yong-Sang Kim
Journal:  Asian Spine J       Date:  2016-08-16

3.  Efficacy of Biportal Endoscopic Spine Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.

Authors:  Dae-Jung Choi; Ju-Eun Kim
Journal:  Clin Orthop Surg       Date:  2019-02-18

4.  Comparative Study Between Uniportal Full-Endoscopic Interlaminar and Tubular Approach in the Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Pilot Study.

Authors:  Angela Carrascosa-Granada; Willian Velazquez; Ralf Wagner; Anwar Saab Mazzei; Andrés Vargas-Jimenez; Manuela Jorquera; Juan Antonio Barcia Albacar; Kita Sallabanda
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2020-05-28

5.  Microscopic decompressive laminectomy versus percutaneous endoscopic decompressive laminectomy in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Rong Wang; Xiuxia Li; Xiaogang Zhang; Daping Qin; Guodong Yang; Guodong Gao; Hua Zhang
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-09-09       Impact factor: 2.692

6.  Outcome of lumbar lateral recess stenosis with percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal decompression in patients 65 years of age or older and in younger patients.

Authors:  Xiaoxiang Li; Tao Liu; Junjun Fan; Hongtao Zhang; Chunbao Yang; Xin Yin; Haoran Gao; Jixian Qian; Siguo Sun
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2020-07-17       Impact factor: 1.817

7.  Correlation between preoperative CT imaging parameters and clinical outcome of lumbar spinal stenosis treated with endoscopic transforaminal decompression.

Authors:  Lijun Li; Yong Hai; Jincai Yang; Cheng Xu; Jie Yuan; Jiuqiang Sun; Qinghua Wang; Xiaowen Yang
Journal:  J Int Med Res       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 1.671

8.  Clinical effect evaluation and correlation between preoperative imaging parameters and clinical effect of endoscopic Transforaminal decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Lijun Li; Feng Chang; Yong Hai; Jincai Yang; Cheng Xu; Jie Yuan; Jiuqiang Sun; Qinghua Wang; Shengqiang Ding; Xiaowen Yang
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2020-02-03       Impact factor: 2.362

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.