Literature DB >> 32195421

Patient selection protocols for endoscopic transforaminal, interlaminar, and translaminar decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis.

Álvaro Dowling1,2, Kai-Uwe Lewandrowski3,4, Fabio Henrique Pinto da Silva5,6, Jaime Andrés Araneda Parra7, Daniela Molero Portillo6, Yohanna Carolina Pineda Giménez6.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The indications of different endoscopic and endoscopically assisted translaminar approaches for lumbar spinal stenosis are not well-defined, and validated protocols for the use of the transforaminal over the interlaminar approach are lacking.
METHODS: We performed a retrospective study employing an image-based patient stratification protocol of stenosis location (type I-central canal, type II-lateral recess, type III-foraminal, type IV-extraforaminal) and clinical outcomes on 249 patients consisting of 137 (55%) men and 112 (45%) women with an average age of 56.03±16.8 years who underwent endoscopic surgery for symptomatic spinal stenosis from January 2013 to February 2019. The average follow-up of 38.27±27.9 months. The primary clinical outcome measures were the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), and modified Macnab criteria.
RESULTS: The frequency of stenosis configuration in decreasing order was as follows: type I-121/249; 48.6%, type III-104/249; 41.8%, type II-15/249; 6%, and type IV-9/249; 3.6%. The transforaminal approach (137/249; 55.0%) was used in most type II to IV lesions followed by the interlaminar approach (78/249; 31.3%), and the full endoscopic approach (12/249; 4.8%), and the endoscopically assisted translaminar approach (8/249; 3.2%) which was exclusively used for type I lesions. Macnab outcomes analysis showed Excellent in 47 patients (18.9%), Good in 178 (71.5%), Fair in 18 (7.2%) and Poor in 6 (2.4%), respectively. Paired two-tailed t-test showed statistically significant VAS (5.46±2.1; P<0.0001) and ODI (37.1±16.9; P<0.0001) reductions as a result of the endoscopic decompression surgery. Cross-tabulation of the Macnab outcomes versus the endoscopic approach and surgical technique confirmed beneficial association of the approach selection with Excellent (P=0.001) and Good (P<0.0001) outcomes with statistically significance.
CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that in the hands of skilled endoscopic spines surgeon use of an image-based stenosis location protocol may contribute to obtaining Excellent and Good clinical outcomes in a high percentage (93%) of patients suffering from lumbar stenosis related radiculopathy. Additional comparative studies should examine the prognostic value of choosing the endoscopic approach on the basis of the proposed four-type stenosis protocol by correlating its impact on outcomes with preoperative diagnostic injections and intraoperative direct visualization of symptomatic pain generators under local anesthesia and sedation. 2020 Journal of Spine Surgery. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Endoscopic decompression; patient selection algorith; spinal stenosis

Year:  2020        PMID: 32195421      PMCID: PMC7063319          DOI: 10.21037/jss.2019.11.07

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Spine Surg        ISSN: 2414-4630


  55 in total

Review 1.  Lumbar spinal stenosis. Treatment strategies and indications for surgery.

Authors:  Dilip K Sengupta; Harry N Herkowitz
Journal:  Orthop Clin North Am       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 2.472

Review 2.  Minimally invasive techniques for the management of lumbar disc herniation.

Authors:  Anthony T Yeung; Christopher A Yeung
Journal:  Orthop Clin North Am       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 2.472

3.  The surgery of lumbar disc degeneration.

Authors:  I Macnab
Journal:  Surg Annu       Date:  1976

4.  Decompression surgery for lumbar spinal canal stenosis in octogenarians; a single center experience of 121 consecutive patients.

Authors:  Alexander Antoniadis; Nils H Ulrich; Samuel Schmid; Mazda Farshad; Kan Min
Journal:  Br J Neurosurg       Date:  2016-09-20       Impact factor: 1.596

5.  Posterolateral endoscopic excision for lumbar disc herniation: Surgical technique, outcome, and complications in 307 consecutive cases.

Authors:  Anthony Tung Yeung; Paul Moody Tsou
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2002-04-01       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Full-endoscopic interlaminar operations in lumbar compressive lesions surgery: prospective study of 350 patients - "ENDOS" Study.

Authors:  Marko Marković; Nenad Živković; Spaić Milan; Anđela Gavrilović; Dragoš Stojanović; Vuk Aleksić; Sebastian Ruetten
Journal:  J Neurosurg Sci       Date:  2016-06-30       Impact factor: 2.279

7.  Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis in Individuals Aged 80 and Older: A Multicenter Observational Study.

Authors:  Charalampis Giannadakis; Ole Solheim; Asgeir S Jakola; Trond Nordseth; Agnete M Gulati; Ulf S Nerland; Øystein P Nygaard; Tore K Solberg; Sasha Gulati
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2016-09-09       Impact factor: 5.562

8.  Posterolateral transforaminal selective endoscopic discectomy and thermal annuloplasty for chronic lumbar discogenic pain: a minimal access visualized intradiscal surgical procedure.

Authors:  Paul M Tsou; Christopher Alan Yeung; Anthony T Yeung
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2004 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 4.166

9.  Endoscopic Transforaminal and Lateral Recess Decompression After Previous Spinal Surgery.

Authors:  Kai-Uwe Lewandrowski
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2018-08-03

10.  The "inside out" transforaminal technique to treat lumbar spinal pain in an awake and aware patient under local anesthesia: results and a review of the literature.

Authors:  Satishchandra Gore; Anthony Yeung
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2014-12-01
View more
  4 in total

1.  Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion With a Single Oblique PEEK Cage and Posterior Supplemental Fixation.

Authors:  Álvaro Dowling; Kai-Uwe Lewandrowski
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2020-10-29

2.  Durability of Endoscopes Used During Routine Lumbar Endoscopy: An Analysis of Use Patterns, Common Failure Modes, Impact on Patient Care, and Contingency Plans.

Authors:  Kai-Uwe Lewandrowski; Friedrich Tieber; Stefan Hellinger; Paulo Sérgio Teixeira de Carvalho; Max Rogério Freitas Ramos; Zhang Xifeng; André Luiz Calderaro; Thiago Soares Dos Santos; Jorge Felipe Ramírez León; Marlon Sudário de Lima E Silva; Girish Datar; Jin-Sung Kim; Hyeun Sung Kim; Anthony Yeung
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2021-12

3.  Difficulties, Challenges, and the Learning Curve of Avoiding Complications in Lumbar Endoscopic Spine Surgery.

Authors:  Kai-Uwe Lewandrowski; Albert E Telfeian; Stefan Hellinger; Max R F Ramos; Hyeun Sung Kim; Daniel W Hanson; Nimar Salari; Anthony Yeung
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2021-12

4.  A Proposed Personalized Spine Care Protocol (SpineScreen) to Treat Visualized Pain Generators: An Illustrative Study Comparing Clinical Outcomes and Postoperative Reoperations between Targeted Endoscopic Lumbar Decompression Surgery, Minimally Invasive TLIF and Open Laminectomy.

Authors:  Kai-Uwe Lewandrowski; Ivo Abraham; Jorge Felipe Ramírez León; Albert E Telfeian; Morgan P Lorio; Stefan Hellinger; Martin Knight; Paulo Sérgio Teixeira De Carvalho; Max Rogério Freitas Ramos; Álvaro Dowling; Manuel Rodriguez Garcia; Fauziyya Muhammad; Namath Hussain; Vicky Yamamoto; Babak Kateb; Anthony Yeung
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2022-06-29
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.