| Literature DB >> 35599795 |
Xingchen Li1, Honghan Huang1, Zhong Zheng2, Yunxuan Liu1, Guicai Wei2, Xiaoxin Chen1, Yusheng Xu1.
Abstract
Objective: To explore the clinical efficacy, characteristics and safety of endoscopic-assisted resection of single-segment posterior longitudinal ligament ossification in the treatment of thoracic spinal stenosis (TSS). Method: Fifteen TSS patients, including 6 males and 9 females aged 43-70 years treated with endoscopic-assisted resection of single-segment posterior longitudinal ligament ossification through the transfacet joint approach by our team from November 2016 to June 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative complications were recorded. The VAS score, ODI and JOA score (full score, 11 points) were recorded before the operation, after the operation and at the last follow-up to evaluate the clinical efficacy and calculate the improvement rate.Entities:
Keywords: OPLL (ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament); TSS; minimally invasive; posterior longitudinal ligament ossification; spinal endoscopy; thoracic spinal stenosis
Year: 2022 PMID: 35599795 PMCID: PMC9121015 DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.897182
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Surg ISSN: 2296-875X
Figure 1(A,B) Percutaneous puncture to the dorsal side of the facet joint, followed by insertion of a working cannula. (C–E) Removal of the ossified posterior longitudinal ligament by decompression using a power drill system, blue forceps and osteotome. (F) Complete removal of ossified tissue and full decompression of the meninges after the operation.
Figure 2Diagram of the surgical procedure. (A) The spinal cord is compressed by the ossified posterior longitudinal ligament. (B,C) Removal of the ossified posterior longitudinal ligament through the facet joint approach. (D) The ossified posterior longitudinal ligament was completely removed and the ventral side of the spinal cord was completely decompressed.
Summary of the JOA scoring system for the assessment of thoracic myelopathy.
| Neurological status | Score |
|---|---|
| Lower-limb motor dysfunction | |
| No dysfunction | 4 |
| Lack of stability and smooth reciprocation of gait | 3 |
| Able to walk on flat floor with walking aid | 2 |
| Able to walk up/downstairs with handrail | 1 |
| Unable to walk | 0 |
| Lower-limb sensory deficit | |
| No deficit | 2 |
| Mild sensory deficit | 1 |
| Severe sensory loss or pain | 0 |
| Trunk sensory deficit | |
| No deficit | 2 |
| Mild sensory deficit | 1 |
| Severe sensory loss or pain | 0 |
| Sphincter dysfunction | |
| No dysfunction | 3 |
| Minor difficulty in micturition | 2 |
| Marked difficulty in micturition | 1 |
| Unable to void | 0 |
Figure 3A 46-year-old male with OPLL at T11-12. (A–D) Preoperative CT and MRI showed T11-12 posterior longitudinal ligament ossification and spinal cord was compressed. (E–H) Postoperative CT and MRI showed that the ossified posterior longitudinal ligament was removed and the ventral side of the spinal cord was completely decompressed. (I–L) The three-dimensional reconstruction of the CT images showed right side facet joint of T11-12 was resected (red arrow).
Patient characteristics and surgical outcomes.
| NO | Age (years) | Sex | Segment | F-up (months) | Approach | Operation time (min) | Blood loss (mL) | Hospitalization time (days) | Complication |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 47 | M | T9/10 | 13 | Single | 65 | 30 | 6 | None |
| 2 | 50 | F | T9/10 | 23 | Single | 76 | 40 | 5 | None |
| 3 | 57 | F | T8/9 | 19 | Single | 70 | 30 | 3 | None |
| 4 | 62 | F | T11/12 | 17 | Single | 74 | 40 | 5 | None |
| 5 | 68 | F | T4/5 | 20 | Double | 101 | 45 | 7 | Dura rupture |
| 6 | 46 | M | T11/12 | 25 | Double | 87 | 40 | 6 | None |
| 7 | 66 | M | T10/11 | 22 | Single | 86 | 35 | 4 | None |
| 8 | 43 | M | T8/9 | 18 | Single | 99 | 40 | 5 | None |
| 9 | 49 | M | T7/8 | 26 | Single | 90 | 35 | 4 | None |
| 10 | 63 | F | T10/11 | 22 | Single | 86 | 30 | 6 | Dura rupture |
| 11 | 51 | F | T10/11 | 17 | Single | 78 | 30 | 5 | None |
| 12 | 60 | F | T7/8 | 27 | Single | 96 | 35 | 6 | None |
| 13 | 70 | M | T5/6 | 19 | Single | 98 | 45 | 5 | None |
| 14 | 55 | F | T6/7 | 15 | Double | 105 | 50 | 6 | None |
| 15 | 64 | F | T11/12 | 21 | Single | 61 | 20 | 4 | None |
Preoperative and postoperative JOA, VAS and ODI scores.
| NO | JOA | RR (%) | VAS | Improvement rate (%) | ODI | Improvement rate (%) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Preop | Postop | Last | Preop | Postop | Last | Preop | Post | Last | ||||
| 1 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 14.29 | 8 | 5 | 3 | 62.50 | 84 | 56 | 18 | 78.57 |
| 2 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 40.00 | 7 | 4 | 2 | 71.43 | 80 | 47 | 13 | 83.75 |
| 3 | 6 | 8 | 10 | 80.00 | 7 | 3 | 2 | 71.43 | 78 | 50 | 15 | 80.77 |
| 4 | 8 | 8 | 9 | 33.33 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 75.00 | 60 | 42 | 11 | 81.67 |
| 5 | 7 | 8 | 10 | 75.00 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 80.00 | 65 | 38 | 10 | 84.62 |
| 6 | 6 | 7 | 9 | 60.00 | 7 | 3 | 2 | 71.43 | 70 | 48 | 12 | 82.86 |
| 7 | 6 | 8 | 9 | 60.00 | 7 | 4 | 2 | 71.43 | 72 | 50 | 14 | 80.56 |
| 8 | 6 | 8 | 9 | 60.00 | 6 | 4 | 1 | 83.33 | 69 | 48 | 10 | 85.51 |
| 9 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 40.00 | 7 | 3 | 1 | 85.71 | 74 | 40 | 9 | 87.84 |
| 10 | 5 | 7 | 8 | 50.00 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 66.67 | 70 | 47 | 12 | 82.86 |
| 11 | 5 | 6 | 9 | 66.67 | 7 | 3 | 1 | 85.71 | 66 | 41 | 13 | 80.30 |
| 12 | 6 | 8 | 10 | 80.00 | 7 | 4 | 2 | 71.43 | 72 | 46 | 12 | 83.33 |
| 13 | 3 | 4 | 7 | 50.00 | 8 | 5 | 3 | 62.50 | 78 | 53 | 16 | 79.49 |
| 14 | 4 | 6 | 9 | 71.43 | 7 | 2 | 1 | 85.71 | 68 | 40 | 11 | 83.82 |
| 15 | 5 | 7 | 9 | 66.67 | 7 | 3 | 2 | 71.43 | 75 | 43 | 12 | 84.00 |
| 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | |||||||