RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: 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. OBJECTIVE: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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).
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Effective 1 January 2017, single-level endoscopic lumbar discectomy received a Category I Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code 62380. However, no work relative value units (RVUs) are currently assigned to the procedure. An international team of endoscopic spine surgeons conducted a study, endorsed by several spine societies, analyzing the learning curve, difficulty, psychological intensity, and estimated work RVUs of endoscopic lumbar spinal decompression compared with other common lumbar spine surgeries. METHODS: A survey comparing CPT 62380 to 10 other comparator CPT codes reflective of common spine surgeries was developed to assess the work RVUs in terms of learning curve, difficulty, psychological intensity, and work effort using a paired Rasch method. RESULTS: The survey was sent to 542 spine specialists. Of 322 respondents, 150 completed the survey for a 43.1% completion rate. Rasch analysis of the submitted responses statistically corroborated common knowledge that the learning curve with lumbar endoscopic spinal surgery is steeper and more complex than with traditional translaminar lumbar decompression surgeries. It also showed that the psychological stress and mental and work effort with the lumbar endoscopic decompression surgery were perceived to be higher by responding spine surgeons compared with posterior comparator decompression and fusion surgeries and even posterior interbody and posterolateral fusion surgeries. The regression analysis of work effort vs procedural difficulty showed the real-world evaluation of the lumbar endoscopic decompression surgery described in CPT code 62380 with a calculated work RVU of 18.2464. CONCLUSION: The Rasch analysis suggested the valuation for the endoscopic lumbar decompression surgery should be higher than for standard lumbar surgeries: 111.1% of the laminectomy with exploration and/or decompression of spinal cord and/or cauda equina (CPT 63005), 118.71% of the laminectomy code (CPT 63047), which includes foraminotomy and facetectomy, 152.1% of the hemilaminectomy code (CPT 63030), and 259.55% of the interlaminar or interspinous process stabilization/distraction without decompression code (CPT 22869). This research methodology was endorsed by the Interamerican Society for Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery (SICCMI), the Mexican Society of Spinal Surgeons (AMCICO), the International Society For Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery (ISMISS), the Brazilian Spine Society (SBC), the Society for Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery (SMISS), the Korean Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery (KOMISS), and the International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery (ISASS). CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study provides an updated reimbursement recommendation for endoscopic spine surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Durotomy during endoscopic spine surgery can cause a patient's neurological or cardiovascular status to deteriorate unexpectedly intra- or postoperatively. There is currently limited literature regarding appropriate fluid management strategies, irrigation-related risk factors, and clinical consequences of incidental durotomy during spinal endoscopy, and no validated irrigation protocol exists for endoscopic spine surgery. Thus, the present article sought to (1) describe 3 cases of durotomy, (2) investigate standard epidural pressure measurements, and (3) survey endoscopic spine surgeons on the incidence of adverse effects believed to result from durotomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors first reviewed clinical outcomes and analyzed complications in 3 patients with intraoperatively recognized incidental durotomy. Second, the authors conducted a small case series with intraoperative epidural pressure measurements during gravity-assisted irrigated video endoscopy of the lumbar spine. Measurements were conducted on 12 patients with a transducer assembly that was introduced through the endoscopic working channel of the RIWOSpine Panoview Plus and Vertebris endoscope to the decompression site in the spine. Third, the authors conducted a retrospective, multiple-choice survey of endoscopic spine surgeons to better understand the frequency and seriousness of problems they attributed to irrigation fluid escaping from the surgical decompression site into the spinal canal and neural axis. Descriptive and correlative statistical analyses were performed on the surgeons' responses. RESULTS: In the first part of this study, durotomy-related complications during irrigated spinal endoscopy were observed in 3 patients. Postoperative head computed tomographic (CT) images revealed massive blood in the intracranial subarachnoid space, the basal cisterns, the III and IV ventricle, and the lateral ventricles characteristic of an arterial fisher grade IV subarachnoid hemorrhage, and hydrocephalus without evidence of aneurysms or angiomas. Two additional patients developed intraoperative seizures, cardiac arrhythmia, and hypotension. The head CT image in 1 of these 2 patients had intracranial air entrapment.In the second part, epidural pressure measurements in 12 patients who underwent uneventful routine lumbar interlaminar decompression for L4-L5 and L5-S1 disc herniation showed an average epidural pressure of 24.5 mm Hg.In the third part, the online survey was accessed by 766 spine surgeons worldwide and had a response rate of 43.6%. Irrigation-related problems were reported by 38% of responding surgeons. Only 11.8% used irrigation pumps, with 90% running the pump above 40 mm Hg. Headaches (4.5%) and neck pain (4.9%) were observed by nearly a 10th (9.4%) of surgeons. Seizures in combination with headaches, neck and abdominal pain, soft tissue edema, and nerve root injury were reported by another 5 surgeons. One surgeon reported a delirious patient. Another 14 surgeons thought that they had patients with neurological deficits ranging from nerve root injury to cauda equina syndrome related to irrigation fluid. Autonomic dysreflexia associated with hypertension was attributed by 19 of the 244 responding surgeons to the noxious stimulus of escaped irrigation fluid that migrated from the decompression site in the spinal canal. Two of these 19 surgeons reported 1 case associated with a recognized incidental durotomy and another with postoperative paralysis. CONCLUSIONS: Patients should be educated preoperatively about the risk of irrigated spinal endoscopy. Although rare, intracranial blood, hydrocephalus, headaches, neck pain, seizures, and more severe complications, including life-threatening autonomic dysreflexia with hypertension, may arise if irrigation fluid enters the spinal canal or the dural sac and migrates from the endoscopic site along the neural axis rostrally. Experienced endoscopic spine surgeons suspect a correlation between durotomy and irrigation-related extra- and intradural pressure equalization that could be problematic if associated with high volumes of irrigation fluid LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL) may cause cervical myelopathy. In its multilevel form, it may not be easy to manage. Minimally invasive endoscopic posterior cervical decompression may be an alternative to traditional laminectomy surgery. METHODS: Thirteen patients with multilevel OPLL and symptomatic cervical myelopathy were treated with endoscopic spine surgery from January 2019 to June 2020. In this consecutive observational cohort study, pre- and postoperative Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score and Neck Disability Index (NDI) were analyzed at a final follow-up of 2 years postoperatively. RESULTS: There were 13 patients consisting of 3 women and 10 men. The patient's average age was 51.15 years. At the final 2-year follow-up, the JOA score improved from a preoperative value of 10.85 ± 2.91 to 14.77 ± 2.13 postoperatively (P < 0.001). The corresponding NDI scores decreased from 26.61 ± 12.88 to 11.12 ± 10.85 (P < 0.001). There were no infections, wound complications, or reoperations. CONCLUSION: Direct posterior endoscopic decompression for multilevel OPLL is feasible in symptomatic patients when executed at a high skill level. While 2-year outcomes were encouraging and on par with historic data obtained with traditional laminectomy, future studies will need to show whether any long-term shortcomings exist.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Typically, open surgery is advocated for cauda equina patients. The goal of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of full endoscopic lumbar discectomy and laminectomy in the treatment of cauda equina syndrome (CES) caused by lumbar disc herniation. METHODS: Forty-three patients with CES either underwent endoscopic or laminectomy surgery from May 2015 to April 2016, and data were collected and retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into 2 groups according to the surgical methods: the endoscopy group (with 21 patients, 14 males and 7 females, and an average age of 42.67 with a standard deviation of 9.70 years) and the laminectomy group (with 22 patients, 16 males and 6 females, and an average age of 44.55 with a standard deviation of 9.36 years). The modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) "leg-trunk-bladder" score was used to assess the efficacy of the respective surgical methods. RESULTS: Analysis showed longer surgery time, more bleeding, and longer hospital stay in the laminectomy group than in the endoscopy group with statistical significance. The postoperative JOA scores improved in both groups when compared with those before the operation, and the differences were statistically significant. There were no significant differences in JOA scores between the 2 groups at preoperation and 6-month and 1-year follow-ups. There was 1 patient in each group whose CES symptoms worsened after endoscopy. However, immediate reoperation resulted in satisfactory outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: CES clinical symptom resolution was equal with endoscopy and laminectomy both in short-term and midterm follow-up. However, endoscopic treatment was advantageous by reducing the amount of bleeding, duration of surgery, and hospitalization days when compared to laminectomy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Feasibility study Endoscopic Decompression for Cauda Equina.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Incidental dural tears during lumbar endoscopy can be challenging to manage. There is limited literature on their appropriate management, risk factors, and the clinical consequences of this typically uncommon complication. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To improve the statistical power of studying durotomy with lumbar endoscopy, we performed a retrospective survey study among endoscopic spine surgeons by email and chat groups on social media networks, including WhatsApp and WeChat. Descriptive and correlative statistics were done on the surgeons' recorded responses to multiple-choice questions. Surgeons were asked about their clinical experience with spinal endoscopy, training background, the types of lumbar endoscopic decompression they perform by approach, the decompression instruments they use, and incidental durotomy incidence with routine lumbar endoscopy. RESULTS: There were 689 dural tears in 64 470 lumbar endoscopies, resulting in an incidental durotomy incidence of 1.07%. Seventy percent of the durotomies were reported by 20.4% of the surgeons. Eliminating these 19 outlier surgeons yielded an adjusted durotomy rate of 0.32. Endoscopic stenosis decompression (54.8%; P < .0001), rather than endoscopic discectomy (44.1%; 41/93), was significantly more associated with durotomy. Medium-sized dural tears (1-10 mm) were the most common (52.2%; 48/93). Small pinhole durotomies (less than 1 mm) were the second most common type (46.7%; 43/93). Rootlet herniations were seen by 46.2% (43/93) of responding surgeons. The posterior dural sac injury during the interlaminar approach (57%; 53/93) occurred more frequently than traversing nerve-root injuries (31.2%) or anterior dural sac (23.7%; 22/93). Exiting nerve-root injuries (10.8%;10/93) were less common. Over half of surgeons did not attempt any repair or closure (52.2%; 47/90). Forty percent (36/90) used sealants. Only 7.8% (7/90) of surgeons attempted an endoscopic repair or sutures (11.1%; 10/90). DuralSeal was the most commonly used brand of commercially available sealant used (42.7%; 35/82). However, other sealants such as Tisseal (15.9%; 13/82), Evicel (2.4%2/82), and additional no-brand sealants (38; 32/82) were also used. Nearly half of the patients (48.3%; 43/89) were treated with 24-48 hours of bed rest. The majority of participating surgeons (64%; 57/89) reported that the long-term outcome was unaffected. Only 18% of surgeons reported having seen the development of a postoperative cerebrospinal fluid (CSF)-fistula (18%;16/89). However, the absolute incidence of CSF fistula was only 0.025% (16/64 470). Severe radiculopathy with dysesthesia; sensory loss; and motor weakness in association with an incidental durotomy were reported by 12.4% (11/89), 3.4% (3/89), and 2.2% (2/89) of surgeons, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of dural tears with lumbar endoscopy is about 1%. The incidence of durotomy is higher with the use of power drills and the interlaminar approach. Stenosis decompression that typically requires the more aggressive use of these power instruments has a slightly higher incidence of dural tears than does endoscopic decompression for a herniated disc. Most dural tears are small and can be successfully managed with mechanical compression with Gelfoam and sealants. Two-thirds of patients with incidental dural tears had an entirely uneventful postoperative course. The remaining one-third of patients may develop a persistent CSF leak, radiculopathy with dysesthesia, sensory loss, or motor function loss. Patients should be educated preoperatively and reassured. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Successful implementation of endoscopic spinal surgery programs hinges on reliable performance and case cost similar to traditional decompression surgeries of the lumbar spine. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To improve the statistical power of studying the durability of endoscopes with routine lumbar endoscopy, the authors performed a retrospective survey study among endoscopic spine surgeons by email and chat groups on social media networks WhatsApp and WeChat. Descriptive and correlative statistics were done on the surgeon's responses recorded in multiple-choice questions. Surgeons were asked about their clinical experience with spinal endoscopy, training background, the types of lumbar endoscopic decompression they perform by approach, their preferred decompression instruments, and their experience with endoscopic equipment failure. RESULTS: A total of 485 surgeons responded, of whom 85 submitted a valid survey recording, rendering a completion rate of 27.1%. These 85 respondents reported a case volume of 12,650 lumbar endoscopies within the past year and, to date, had performed a total of 120,150 spinal endoscopies over their collective career years. The majority of respondents performed endoscopic surgery for herniated disc (65.9%) vs spinal stenosis (34.1%) in a hospital setting, preferentially employing the transforaminal (76.5%), interlaminar (51.8%), and unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE; 15.3%) approach technique. The most commonly used endoscopic spine systems were Wolf/Riwo Spine (38.8%), Joimax (36.5%), Storz (24.7%), unspecified Chinese brand (22.4%), Maxmore (15.3%), Spinendos (12.9%), Elliquence (10.6%), unspecified Korean brand (7.1%), and asap Endosystems GmbH (2.4%). The most frequent failure mode of the endoscope reported by survey respondents was a blurry image (71.8%), followed by the loss of focus (21.2%), the loss of illumination of the surgical site (18.8%), and the failure of the irrigation/suction system integrated into the endoscope (4.7%). Most respondents thought they had problems with the lens (67.1%), the fiberglass light conductor (23.5%), the prism (16.5%), or the rod system (4.7%). Motorized high-speed power burrs and hand reamers and trephines were the reported favorite decompression tools that were presumably associated with the endoscope's failure. The majority of respondents (49.5%) performed up to 50 endoscopies before the endoscope had to be either exchanged or repaired. Another 15.3% of respondents reported their endoscope lasted between 101 and 200 cases and only 12.9% reported more than 300 cases. Besides abuse during surgery (25.9%), bad handling by staff was the most common suspected reason (45.9%), followed by the wrong sterilization technique (21.2%). Some 23.5% of respondents noted that the endoscope failed during their surgery. In that case, 66.3% asked for a replacement endoscope, and 36.1% completed the surgery with the broken endoscope. However, 10.8% stopped and another 6% of respondents woke the patient up and rescheduled the surgery to complete the decompression at another time. CONCLUSIONS: Spinal endoscopes used during routine lumbar decompression surgeries for herniated disc and spinal stenosis have an estimated life cycle between 50 and 100 surgeries. Abusive use by surgeons, mishandling by staff, and deviation for prescribed cleaning and sterilization protocols may substantially shorten the life cycle. Contingency protocols should be in place to readily replace a broken spinal endoscope during surgery. More comprehensive implementation of endoscopic spine surgery techniques will hinge on technology advancements to make these hightech surgical instruments more resistant to the stress of daily use and abuse of expanded clinical indications' for surgery. The regulatory burden on endoscope makers is likely to increase, calling for increased reimbursement for facilities to cover the added expense for capital equipment purchase, disposables, and the endoscopic spine surgery program's maintenance. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: End user surgeon survey study.
RESUMEN
Surgical treatment of complex severe spinal deformity, involving a scoliosis Cobb angle of more than 90 degrees and kyphosis or vertebral and rib deformity, is challenging. Preoperative two-dimensional images resulting from plain film radiography, computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging provide limited morphometric information. Although the three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction CT with special software can view the stereo and rotate the spinal image on the screen, it cannot show the full-scale spine and cannot directly be used on the operation table. This study was conducted to investigate the application of computer-designed polystyrene models in the treatment of complex severe spinal deformity. The study involved 16 cases of complex severe spinal deformity treated in our hospital between 1 May 2004 and 31 December 2007; the mean +/- SD preoperative scoliosis Cobb angle was 118 degrees +/- 27 degrees. The CT scanning digital imaging and communication in medicine (DICOM) data sets of the affected spinal segments were collected for 3D digital reconstruction and rapid prototyping to prepare computer-designed polystyrene models, which were applied in the treatment of these cases. The computer-designed polystyrene models allowed 3D observation and measurement of the deformities directly, which helped the surgeon to perform morphological assessment and communicate with the patient and colleagues. Furthermore, the models also guided the choice and placement of pedicle screws. Moreover, the models were used to aid in virtual surgery and guide the actual surgical procedure. The mean +/- SD postoperative scoliosis Cobb angle was 42 degrees +/- 32 degrees, and no serious complications such as spinal cord or major vascular injury occurred. The use of computer-designed polystyrene models could provide more accurate morphometric information and facilitate surgical correction of complex severe spinal deformity.
