| Literature DB >> 27127783 |
P Stavrinou1, R Härtl2, B Krischek1, C Kabbasch3, A Mpotsaris3, R Goldbrunner1.
Abstract
Purpose. Extraforaminal decompression of the L5 nerve root remains a challenge due to anatomic constraints, severe level-degeneration, and variable anatomy. The purpose of this study is to introduce the use of navigation for transmuscular transtubular decompression at the L5/S1 level and report on radiological features and clinical outcome. Methods. Ten patients who underwent a navigation-assisted extraforaminal decompression of the L5 nerve root were retrospectively analyzed. Results. Six patients had an extraforaminal herniated disc and four had a foraminal stenosis. The distance between the L5 transverse process and the para-articular notch of the sacrum was 12.1 mm in patients with a herniated disc and 8.1 mm in those with a foraminal stenosis. One patient had an early recurrence and another developed dysesthesia that resolved after 3 months. There was a significant improvement from preoperative to postoperative NRS with the results being sustainable at follow-up. ODI was also significantly improved after surgery. According to the Macnab grading scale, excellent or good outcomes were obtained in 8 patients and fair ones in 2. Conclusions. The navigated transmuscular transtubular approach to the lumbosacral junction allows for optimal placement of the retractor and excellent orientation particularly for foraminal stenosis or in cases of complex anatomy.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27127783 PMCID: PMC4834392 DOI: 10.1155/2016/3487437
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Figure 1Screenshot from the Brainlab neuronavigation system. Orientation and identification of the anatomic landmarks with the use of pointer through the tubular retractor.
Figure 2Axial T2-weighted MRI reveals extraforaminal ruptured disc on the left side (patient number 5). Therapy consists of removal of the fragmented disc segment without bone removal or discectomy. Navigation allows for a safe transmuscular approach.
Case summaries. LDH indicates lumbar disc herniation; RP: radicular pain; FF: foot flexion paresis; BTF: big-toe flexion paresis; SD: sensory deficit; PA: per os analgetics; IV: intravenous analgetics; Ph: physiotherapy; PRI: periradicular infiltration.
| Case number | Age (yrs), sex | Pathology | Preoperative symptoms | Duration of symptoms (weeks) | VAS (preop) | Conservative treatment | VAS (postop-follow-up) | ODI | Macnab | Complications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 42, F | LDH | RP | 5 | 7 | PA, IV | 3-2 | 6 | 2 | None |
| 2 | 58, M | LDH | RP, FF(4), SD | 48 | 10 | PA, IV, PRI | 2-5 | 32 | 3 | Dysesthesia (3 months) |
| 3 | 62, F | Stenosis | RP, FF(3), BTF(4) | 4 | 8 | PA, Ph | 1-0 | 2 | 2 | None |
| 4 | 35, F | LDH | RP | 2 | 9 | PA, IV | 2-2 | 12 | 2 | Recurrence |
| 5 | 37, F | LDH | RP, SD | 2 | 9 | PA, IV, PRI | 5-2 | 22 | 2 | None |
| 6 | 48, F | Stenosis | RP | 32 | 8 | PA, PRI | 2-0 | 2 | 1 | None |
| 7 | 44, F | Stenosis | RP | 48 | 10 | PA, IV, PRI | 1-4 | 24 | 3 | None |
| 8 | 51, F | Stenosis | RP, SD | 4 | 8 | PA, IV | 1-1 | 4 | 2 | None |
| 9 | 75, F | LDH | RP, FF(3), BTF(4) | 5 | 9 | PA, IV | 2-1 | 4 | 1 | None |
| 10 | 51, M | LDH | RP | 6 | 8 | PA, IV | 2-2 | 4 | 1 | None |
Summary of the radiographic measurements of the intertransversal space at the L4/5 and L5/S1 level as well as of the optimal angle of approach at the axial level.
| Mean | Min | Max | SD | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intertransversal space L4/5† | 21.6 | 16.2 | 25.4 | 2.8 |
| Intertransversal space L5/S1† | 10.5 | 3 | 15.4 | 3.9 |
| Angle of approach | 21° | 14° | 26° | 21 |
Interrater reliability r = 0,71 indicating substantial agreement between the two raters (P. Stavrinou and C. Kabbasch).
†Measurements in millimeter (mm).
Figure 3(a) Mean NRS preoperatively, postoperatively, and on follow-up. (b) Mean ODI-D preoperatively and on follow-up. Error bars show 95% CI.
Figure 4Extraforaminal stenosis at the lumbosacral junction. The degeneration of the lower lumbar spine leads to collapsing of the L5-S1 segment, contact between the sacrum and the L5-transverse process, and a very narrow operating window on the symptomatic side (left) that requires significant bone removal (patient number 3).