Patient selection criteria for percutaneous anterior cervical laser versus endoscopic discectomy.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous anterior laser and anterior endoscopic cervical spine surgery are associated with less approach trauma than conventional open cervical spine surgery. The literature illustrating their appropriate use corroborated with objective outcome evidence is scarce. The authors were interested in comparing the clinical outcomes following percutaneous laser disc decompression (PLDD) versus percutaneous endoscopic disc decompression (PEDD). © 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty patients with soft contained symptomatic cervical disc herniations and an average age of 50.5 years (range 26 - 68 years; 16 males and 14 females) were prospectively enrolled in 2 groups of 15 patients to be either treated with PLDD or PEDD. All patients underwent PLDD or PEDD under local anesthesia and sedation. Clinical outcomes were assessed with the Macnab criteria VAS score for arm pain. Complications and reoperations were recorded. RESULTS: There were significant reductions in the VAS score for arm pain from preoperative 8.4 ± 2.5 to 3.1 ± 1.2 in the PLDD group (P < 0.03), and from preoperative 8.6 ± 2.7 to 2.4 ± 1.1 (P < 0.01) in the PEDD group. In the PLDD group, Macnab outcomes were excellent in 21% of patients, good in 44%, fair in 21%, and poor in 14%. In the PEDD group, Macnab outcomes were excellent in 14% of patients, good in 32%, fair in 12%, and poor in the remaining 12%. There were no statistically significant differences in clinical outcomes between the PLDD and the PEDD group. There were no approach-related or surgical complications. CONCLUSIONS: Tissue trauma is significantly reduced with laser and endoscopic surgery techniques. PLDD and PEDD are both suitable for the specific indication of soft, symptomatic contained cervical disc herniations. The authors' small prospective cohort study indicates that PLDD and PEDD are options for cervical decompression surgery when medical comorbidities or preferences by patients and surgeons dictate more minimally invasive strategies.

Polytomous Rasch Analyses of Surgeons' Decision-Making on Choice of Procedure in Endoscopic Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Decompression Surgeries.

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).

Comparative Analysis of Learning Curve, Complexity, Psychological Stress, and Work Relative Value Units for CPT 62380 Endoscopic Lumbar Spinal Decompression vs Traditional Lumbar Spine Surgeries: A Paired Rasch Survey Study.

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.

Durotomy- and Irrigation-Related Serious Adverse Events During Spinal Endoscopy: Illustrative Case Series and International Surgeon Survey.

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.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging Documentation of Approach Trauma With Lumbar Endoscopic Interlaminar, Translaminar, Compared to Open Microsurgical Discectomy.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic spine surgery is associated with less approach trauma than conventional open translaminar surgery. However, objective evidence to corroborate this empiric observation is scarce. Preservation of the anatomic attachment and sensory function of multifidus muscles have been stipulated to be critical to maintaining the normal function of the lumbar spinal motion segment. The authors were interested in comparing the postoperative approach trauma between traditional open translaminar microsurgical and interlaminar endoscopic discectomy. METHODS: The approach trauma to the paraspinal muscles due to interlaminar or open microsurgical discectomy was evaluated on T2-weighted axial magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) images of 39 consecutive patients who underwent lumbar disc surgery. Postoperative MRI images taken at 4 days and within 1 year after surgery were analyzed. Eleven patients underwent conventional open translaminar microdiscectomy surgery. Endoscopic discectomy was performed on 17 patients via the interlaminar and on another 11 patients via the transforaminal approach. The immediate surgical approach trauma was estimated as the defect zone by measuring the normalized relative cross-sectional area (rCSA) of muscle disruption in the surgical corridor 4 days postoperatively. The long-term effect of surgical approach trauma was assessed by measuring the area of the paraspinal muscles that had been replaced by fatty tissue 1 year postoperatively. RESULTS: The rCSA data showed diminished approach trauma with a smaller surgical defect zone in the interlaminar endoscopy group (17.6%) was smaller than in the microsurgical group 4 days postoperatively (41.2%). At 1 year postoperatively, the mean fatty replacement of the paraspinal muscles was 23.6% after microsurgery and 2.1% after the interlaminar endoscopy. Muscle recovery was substantially reduced in the interlaminar endoscopic group, with the muscle zone reducing from 20.3% to 2.1% when analyzed 1 year postoperatively. In the microsurgery group, the muscle damage by atrophy increased from 41.2% to 62.9% at 1 year postoperatively (P < 0.001). Fatty replacement of the multifidus muscle was seen on the ipsilateral and contralateral approach side. There was a negligible change in the muscle zone with the transforaminal approach. CONCLUSIONS: Tissue trauma was significantly reduced with endoscopic surgery techniques compared with the traditional translaminar microdiscectomy approach. There was a minor postoperative tissue trauma and hardly any long-term replacement of the multifidus and paraspinal muscles by fatty tissue 1 year postoperatively with the endoscopic technique. The transforaminal approach has the least effect on the paraspinal muscles of the surgical motion segment. Further study is needed to investigate whether these findings translate into decreased postoperative instability or low back pain following endoscopic discectomy surgery. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: MRI analysis of multifidus atrophy following various lumbar translaminar and transforaminal decompression techniques.

Differential Agnostic Effect Size Analysis of Lumbar Stenosis Surgeries.

STUDY DESIGN: A meta-analysis of 89 randomized prospective, prospective, and retrospective studies on spinal endoscopic surgery outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to provide familiar Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analog scale (VAS) back, and VAS leg effect size (ES) data following endoscopic decompression for sciatica-type back and leg pain due to lumbar herniated disc, foraminal, or lateral recess spinal stenosis. BACKGROUND: Higher-grade objective clinical outcome ES data are more suitable than lower-grade clinical evidence, including cross-sectional retrospective study outcomes or expert opinion to underpin the ongoing debate on whether or not to replace some of the traditional open and with other forms of minimally invasive spinal decompression surgeries such as the endoscopic technique. METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2019 identified 89 eligible studies on lumbar endoscopic decompression surgery enrolling 23,290 patient samples using the ODI and VAS for back and leg pain used for the ES calculation. RESULTS: There was an overall mean overall reduction of ODI of 46.25 (SD 6.10), VAS back decrease of 3.29 (SD 0.65), and VAS leg reduction of 5.77 (SD 0.66), respectively. Reference tables of familiar ODI, VAS back, and VAS leg show no significant impact of study design, follow-up, or patients' age on ES observed with these outcome instruments. There was no correlation of ES with long-term follow-up (P = 0.091). Spinal endoscopy produced an overall ODI ES of 0.92 extrapolated from 81 studies totaling 12,710 patient samples. Provided study comparisons to tubular retractor microdiscectomy and open laminectomy showed an ODI ES of 0.9 (2895 patients pooled from 16 studies) and 0.93 (1188 patients pooled from 5 studies). The corresponding VAS leg ES were 0.92 (12,631 endoscopy patients pooled from 81 studies), 0.92 (2348 microdiscectomy patients pooled from 15 studies), and 0.89 (1188 open laminectomy patients pooled from 5 studies). CONCLUSION: Successful clinical outcomes can be achieved with various lumbar surgeries. ESs with endoscopic spinal surgery are on par with those found with open laminectomy and microsurgical decompression. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This article is a meta-analysis on the benefit overlap between lumbar endoscopy, microsurgical decompression, laminectomy, and lumbar decompression fusion.

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.

Background: Endoscopically visualized spine surgery has become an essential tool that aids in identifying and treating anatomical spine pathologies that are not well demonstrated by traditional advanced imaging, including MRI. These pathologies may be visualized during endoscopic lumbar decompression (ELD) and categorized into primary pain generators (PPG). Identifying these PPGs provides crucial information for a successful outcome with ELD and forms the basis for our proposed personalized spine care protocol (SpineScreen). Methods: a prospective study of 412 patients from 7 endoscopic practices consisting of 207 (50.2%) males and 205 (49.8%) females with an average age of 63.67 years and an average follow-up of 69.27 months was performed to compare the durability of targeted ELD based on validated primary pain generators versus image-based open lumbar laminectomy, and minimally invasive lumbar transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF) using Kaplan-Meier median survival calculations. The serial time was determined as the interval between index surgery and when patients were censored for additional interventional and surgical treatments for low back-related symptoms. A control group was recruited from patients referred for a surgical consultation but declined interventional and surgical treatment and continued on medical care. Control group patients were censored when they crossed over into any surgical or interventional treatment group. Results: of the 412 study patients, 206 underwent ELD (50.0%), 61 laminectomy (14.8%), and 78 (18.9%) TLIF. There were 67 patients in the control group (16.3% of 412 patients). The most common surgical levels were L4/5 (41.3%), L5/S1 (25.0%), and L4-S1 (16.3%). At two-year f/u, excellent and good Macnab outcomes were reported by 346 of the 412 study patients (84.0%). The VAS leg pain score reduction was 4.250 ± 1.691 (p < 0.001). No other treatment during the available follow-up was required in 60.7% (125/206) of the ELD, 39.9% (31/78) of the TLIF, and 19.7% (12/61 of the laminectomy patients. In control patients, only 15 of the 67 (22.4%) control patients continued with conservative care until final follow-up, all of which had fair and poor functional Macnab outcomes. In patients with Excellent Macnab outcomes, the median durability was 62 months in ELD, 43 in TLIF, and 31 months in laminectomy patients (p < 0.001). The overall survival time in control patients was eight months with a standard error of 0.942, a lower boundary of 6.154, and an upper boundary of 9.846 months. In patients with excellent Macnab outcomes, the median durability was 62 months in ELD, 43 in TLIF, and 31 months in laminectomy patients versus control patients at seven months (p < 0.001). The most common new-onset symptom for censoring was dysesthesia ELD (9.4%; 20/206), axial back pain in TLIF (25.6%;20/78), and recurrent pain in laminectomy (65.6%; 40/61) patients (p < 0.001). Transforaminal epidural steroid injections were tried in 11.7% (24/206) of ELD, 23.1% (18/78) of TLIF, and 36.1% (22/61) of the laminectomy patients. The secondary fusion rate among ELD patients was 8.8% (18/206). Among TLIF patients, the most common additional treatments were revision fusion (19.2%; 15/78) and multilevel rhizotomy (10.3%; 8/78). Common follow-up procedures in laminectomy patients included revision laminectomy (16.4%; 10/61), revision ELD (11.5%; 7/61), and multilevel rhizotomy (11.5%; 7/61). Control patients crossed over into ELD (13.4%), TLIF (13.4%), laminectomy (10.4%) and interventional treatment (40.3%) arms at high rates. Most control patients treated with spinal injections (55.5%) had excellent and good functional outcomes versus 40.7% with fair and poor (3.7%), respectively. The control patients (93.3%) who remained in medical management without surgery or interventional care (14/67) had the worst functional outcomes and were rated as fair and poor. Conclusions: clinical outcomes were more favorable with lumbar surgeries than with non-surgical control groups. Of the control patients, the crossover rate into interventional and surgical care was 40.3% and 37.2%, respectively. There are longer symptom-free intervals after targeted ELD than with TLIF or laminectomy. Additional intervention and surgical treatments are more often needed to manage new-onset postoperative symptoms in TLIF- and laminectomy compared to ELD patients. Few ELD patients will require fusion in the future. Considering the rising cost of surgical spine care, we offer SpineScreen as a simplified and less costly alternative to traditional image-based care models by focusing on primary pain generators rather than image-based criteria derived from the preoperative lumbar MRI scan.

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

Spinal endoscopy has the stigma of being reserved for only a few surgeons who can figure out how to master the steep learning curve and develop clinical practice settings where endoscopic spine surgery can thrive. In essence, endoscopic treatment of herniated discs specifically and nerve root compression in the lumbar spine in general amounts to replacing traditional open spine surgery protocols with spinal endoscopic surgery techniques. In doing so, the endoscopic spine surgeon must be confident that the degenerative spine's common painful problems can be handled with endoscopic spinal surgery techniques with at least comparable clinical results and complication rates. In this review article, the authors illustrate the difficulties and challenges of the endoscopic lumbar decompression procedure. In addition, they shed light on how to master the learning curve by systematically looking at all sides of the problem, ranging from the ergonomic aspects of the endoscopic platform and its instruments, surgical access planning, challenging clinical scenarios, complications, and sequelae, as well as the training gaps after postgraduate residency and fellowship programs.

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

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.

Dural Tears During Lumbar Spinal Endoscopy: Surgeon Skill, Training, Incidence, Risk Factors, and Management.

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.

Clinical outcomes with endoscopic resection of lumbar extradural cysts.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar extradural cysts may be associated with sciatica-type back and leg pain. The symptoms of clinical pain syndrome from synovial cysts are sometimes difficult to differentiate from those of lumbar disc herniation or spinal canal stenosis and may be identified to be a pain source when visualized endoscopically. The authors analyzed the clinical outcomes with their endoscopic resection to better establish clinical indications and prognosticators of favorable results. METHODS: Two-year Macnab outcomes, VAS scores, and complications were analyzed in a series of 48 patients treated with the endoscopic removal of extradural cyst encountered during routine transforaminal and interlaminar decompression for foraminal and lateral recess stenosis causing lumbar radiculopathy. RESULTS: There were 26 female and 22 male patients. The extradural cysts were most commonly encountered at L4/5 level in 26 patients (72.2%) followed by the L5/S1 level in 8 patients (22.2%), and in 2 patients (5.6%) at the L3/4 level, respectively. One patient underwent T9/10 decompression. At minimum 2-year follow-up, all patients were improved. Excellent results according to the Macnab criteria were obtained in 19/48 (39.6%) patients, good in 18/48 (37.5%), and fair in 11/48 (22.9%), respectively. The average preoperative VAS score for leg pain was 8.06±1.57 and reduced at a statistically significant level (P<0.000) postoperatively to 1.92±1.49, and 1.77±1.32 at final follow-up, respectively. The percentage of patients with unlimited walking endurance had improved at a statistically significant level (P<0.0001) from 33.3% preoperatively (16/48) to 81.3% (39/48) postoperatively. One patient had a recurrent disc herniation, and another patient did not improve. Two patients underwent fusion during the follow-up period. Patients with Fair outcomes had a statistically significant association (P<0.001) with facet instability as suggested by axial T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings of thickened ligamentum flavum, facet joint hypertrophy, and bright white fluid-filled joint gap of >2 mm. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic resection of extradural spinal cysts during routine decompression for symptomatic foraminal and lateral recess stenosis is feasible with favorable clinical outcomes in the majority of patients. Fair outcomes were associated with advanced instability of the involved lumbar facet joint complex.

Lumbar vacuum disc, vertical instability, standalone endoscopic interbody fusion, and other treatments: an opinion based survey among minimally invasive spinal surgeons.

BACKGROUND: A diseased lumbar intervertebral vacuum disc void of any structurally intact tissue may be vertically unstable. A primary standalone endoscopic decompression and interbody fusion surgery in the treatment of vertical instability in patients with a vacuum disc may be a more reliable treatment than decompression alone. METHODS: The authors solicited responses to an online survey sent to spine surgeons by email, and chat groups on social media networks, including Facebook, WeChat, WhatsApp, and Linkedin. Descriptive and correlative statistics were employed to count the responses and compare the surgeon's responses recorded on a Likert scale from 1 (disagree) to 10 (agree) or in multiple-choice questions. Surgeons were asked about their familiarity with the concept of vacuum disc and vertical instability and how they would treat such patients. Kappa statistics and linear regression analysis of agreement of incoming responses were performed. RESULTS: A total of 1,165 surgeons accessed the survey. The completion rate was 22.78. The majority surgeons were very familiar with the concept of a "vacuum disc" as a sign of end-stage lumbar degenerative disc disease and a collapsing lumbar motion segment (182/273; 66.7%; Likert score 6.53). The majority of surgeons also thought that vertical instability precedes anterolateral lumbar instability (187/273; 68.5%; Likert score 6.64) and that a vacuum disc may cause vertical instability with symptomatic dynamic foraminal & lateral recess stenosis (222/273; 81%; Likert score 7.48), mechanical back pain (201/273; 73.1%; Likert score 7.48), and may cause sciatica-type low back and leg pain (179/273; 66.3%; Likert score 6.59). The majority of surgeons indicated that vacuum phenomenon on radiographic studies is associated with vertical instability and collapse resulting in dynamic foraminal and lateral recess stenosis and should be treated surgically (199/266; 73.7%; 7 missing responses; Likert score 6.86). Preferred treatments were decompression alone without fusion (P<0.014). There was consensus in support of fusion by TLIF or PLIF with a Likert score of 6.68 (184/266; 69.2%; 7 missing responses). There was no consensus on standalone fusion. CONCLUSIONS: Vacuum phenomenon on radiographic studies is associated with a vertical instability and collapse, resulting in dynamic foraminal and lateral recess stenosis that should be treated surgically. Preferred surgical treatments were decompression alone, decompression with interbody fusion using just bone graft, and fusion employing TLIF or PLIF. Further research into the clinical significance of lumbar vacuum disc, vertical instability and its most appropriate surgical treatments if any is necessary.

Surgeon training and clinical implementation of spinal endoscopy in routine practice: results of a global survey.

BACKGROUND: Training of spine surgeons may impact the availability of contemporary minimally invasive spinal surgery (MIS) to patients and drive spine surgeons' clinical decision-making when applying minimally invasive spinal surgery techniques (MISST) to the treatment of common degenerative conditions of the lumbar spine. Training requirements and implementation of privileges vary in different parts of the world. The purpose of this study was to analyze the training in relation to practice patterns of surgeons who perform lumbar endoscopic spinal surgery the world over. METHODS: The authors solicited responses to an online survey sent to spine surgeons by email, and chat groups in social media networks including Facebook, WeChat, WhatsApp, and Linkedin. Surgeons were asked the following questions: (I) please indicate your training? (II) What type of MISST spinal surgery do you perform? (III) How would you rate your experience in MIS lumbar spinal surgery and what percentage of your practice is MISST? And (IV) which avenue did you use to train for the MISST you currently employ in your clinical practice today? Descriptive statistics were applied to count responses and cross-tabulated them to the surgeon's training. Pearson Chi-square measures, kappa statistics, and linear regression analysis of agreement or disagreement were performed by analyzing the distribution of variances using statistical package SPSS version 25.0. RESULTS: A total of 430 surgeons accessed the survey. The completion rate was 67.4%. Analyzing the responses of 292 surveys submitted by 97 neurosurgeons (33.2%), 161 orthopaedic surgeons (55.1%), and 34 surgeons of other postgraduate training (11.6%) showed that only 14% (41/292) of surgeons had completed a fellowship. Surgeons rated their skill level 33.5% of the time as master and experienced surgeon, and 35.6% of the time as novice or surgeon with some experience. There were more master (64.6% versus 29.2%) and experienced (52% versus 40%) surgeons amongst orthopaedic surgeons than amongst neurosurgeons at a statistically significant level (P=0.11). There were near twice as many orthopaedic surgeons (54.3%) using endoscopic procedures in the lumbar spine as their favorite MISST than neurosurgeons (35.4%; P=0.096). Endoscopic spine surgeons' main sources of knowledge acquisition were (I) learning in small meetings (57.3%), (II) attending workshops (63.1%), and (III) national and international conferences (59.8%). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of spine surgeons reported more than half of their cases employing MISST at a high skill level. Very few MISST surgeons are fellowship trained but attend workshops and various meetings suggesting that many of them are self-thought. Orthopaedic surgeons were more likely to implement endoscopic spinal surgery into the routine clinical practice. As endoscopic spine surgery gains more traction and patient demand, minimal adequate training will be part of the ongoing debate.

Surgeon motivation, and obstacles to the implementation of minimally invasive spinal surgery techniques.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to analyze the motivators and obstacles to the implementation of minimally invasive spinal surgery techniques (MISST) by spinal surgeons. Motivators and detractors may impact the availability of MISST to patients and drive spine surgeons' clinical decision-making in the treatment of common degenerative conditions of the lumbar spine. METHODS: The authors solicited responses to an online survey sent to spine surgeons by email, and chat groups in social media networks including Facebook, WeChat, WhatsApp, and Linkedin. Descriptive statistics were employed to count the responses and compared to the surgeon's training. Kappa statistics and linear regression analysis of agreement were performed. RESULTS: A total of 430 surgeons accessed the survey. The completion rate was 67.4%. A total of 292 surveys were submitted by 99 neurosurgeons (33.9%), 170 orthopaedic surgeons (58.2%), and 23 surgeons of other postgraduate training (7.9%). Personal interest (82.5%) and patient demand (48.6%) were the primary motivators for MISST implementation. High equipment (48.3%) and disposables (29.1%) cost were relevant obstacles to MISST implementation. Local workshops (47.6%) and meetings in small groups (31.8%) were listed as the primary knowledge sources. Only 12% of surgeons were fellowship trained, but 46.3% of surgeons employed MISST in over 25% of their cases. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of implementation of MISST reported by spine surgeons was found to be high but impeded by the high cost of equipment and disposables. The primary motivators for spine surgeons' desire to implement were personal interest and patient demand.

Regional variations in acceptance, and utilization of minimally invasive spinal surgery techniques among spine surgeons: results of a global survey.

BACKGROUND: Regional differences in acceptance and utilization of MISST by spine surgeons may have an impact on clinical decision-making and the surgical treatment of common degenerative conditions of the lumbar spine. The purpose of this study was to analyze the acceptance and utilization of various minimally invasive spinal surgery techniques (MISST) by spinal surgeons the world over. METHODS: The authors solicited responses to an online survey sent to spine surgeons by email, and chat groups in social media networks including Facebook, WeChat, WhatsApp, and Linkedin. Surgeons were asked the following questions: (I) Do you think minimally invasive spinal surgery is considered mainstream in your area and practice setting? (II) Do you perform minimally invasive spinal surgery? (III) What type of MIS spinal surgery do you perform? (IV) If you are performing endoscopic spinal decompression surgeries, which approach do you prefer? The responses were cross-tabulated by surgeons' demographic data, and their practice area using the following five global regions: Africa & Middle East, Asia, Europe, North America, and South America. Pearson Chi-Square measures, Kappa statistics, and linear regression analysis of agreement or disagreement were performed by analyzing the distribution of variances using statistical package SPSS Version 25.0. RESULTS: A total of 586 surgeons accessed the survey. Analyzing the responses of 292 submitted surveys regional differences in opinion amongst spine surgeons showed that the highest percentage of surgeons in Asia (72.8%) and South America (70.2%) thought that MISST was accepted into mainstream spinal surgery in their practice area (P=0.04) versus North America (62.8%), Europe (52.8%), and Africa & Middle East region (50%). The percentage of spine surgeons employing MISST was much higher per region than the rate of surgeons who thought it was mainstream: Asia (96.7%), Europe (88.9%), South America (88.9%), and Africa & Middle East (87.5%). Surgeons in North America reported the lowest rate of MISST implementation globally (P<0.000). Spinal endoscopy (59.9%) is currently the most commonly employed MISST globally followed by mini-open approaches (55.1%), and tubular retractor systems (41.8%). The most preferred endoscopic approach to the spine is the transforaminal technique (56.2%) followed by interlaminar (41.8%), full endoscopic (35.3%), and over the top MISST (13.7%). CONCLUSIONS: The rate of implementation of MISST into day-to-day clinical practice reported by spine surgeons was universally higher than the perceived acceptance rates of MISST into the mainstream by their peers in their practice area. The survey suggests that endoscopic spinal surgery is now the most commonly performed MISST.

The academic impact of the symposium on endoscopy and minimally invasive spine surgery of the mexican association of spine surgeons - amcico / O impacto acadêmico do simpósio de endoscopia e cirurgia minimamente invasiva da coluna vertebral da associação mexicana de cirurgiões da coluna vertebral - amcico / El impacto académico del simposio de endoscopia y cirugía minimamente invasiva de columna de la asociación mexicana de cirujanos de columna - amcico

ABSTRACT Introduction: The interest in spinal endoscopy is rising, particularly among younger spine surgeons. Formalized postgraduate training programs for endoscopic spinal surgery techniques are lacking behind. Methods: The authors performed a retrospective survey study amongst participants of the 2022 AMCICO endoscopic surgery symposium. Descriptive and correlative statistics were done on the surgeon's responses recorded in multiple-choice questions. In addition, surgeons were asked about their clinical experience and preferences with spinal endoscopy, training background, the types of lumbar endoscopic decompression they perform by approach, and future training requirements. SPSS (version 27) statistical software package was used for data analysis. Descriptive statistic measures were used to count responses and calculate the mean, range, standard deviation, and percentages. In addition, chi-square statistics were used to determine the strength of the association between factors. Results: The online survey was accessed by 321 surgeons, of which 92 completed it (53.4%). Demographic data showed the majority of responding surgeons being orthopedic surgeons (73.6%) and under the age of 50 (69.2%), with over half (51.1%) having less than three months of formalized training in endoscopic spinal surgery techniques. Most surgeons practiced uni-portal (58.9%) versus bi-portal (3.4%) spinal endoscopy. The transforaminal approach (65.5%) was preferred over the interlaminar method (34.4%). The bi-portal technique was indicated almost exclusively for the lumbar spine (94.8%). For endoscopically assisted spinal fusions, a uni-portal approach was preferred by 72% of surgeons over a bi-portal procedure (24.5%). 84.1% of respondents were interested in navigation, of which 30.7% preferred optical over electromagnetic technology (18.2%). Robotics was of interest to 51.1% of survey participants. Respondents' bias was estimated with course attendance assessments, with 37% of surgeons having attended all three days, 27.2% two days, and 16.3% one day. One-fifth of responding spine surgeons did not participate in any curriculum activities but completed the survey. The academic impact of the AMCICO endoscopy symposium was high, with 68.1% of respondents indicating interest in continued training and 61.1% of trainees ready to apply their newly acquired knowledge base to clinical practice. Conclusion: The interest in spinal endoscopy surgery techniques and protocols is high among AMCICO members. Many surgeons are interested in learning advanced endoscopic surgical techniques to integrate the technology into their surgical procedure portfolio to address common painful conditions of the degenerative spine beyond herniated discs and foraminal stenosis. The authors concluded that its academic impact was high based on the responses given by the participating surgeons. Level of evidence III; Retrospective study.

Resumo: Introdução: O interesse em cirurgia endoscópica da coluna tem aumentado especialmente entre os jovens cirurgiões, contudo, são poucos os centros que atualmente oferecem programas de treinamento nesta disciplina. Métodos: Foi realizada uma pesquisa retrospectiva entre os participantes do simpósio de "Cirurgia Minimamente Invasiva e Endoscópica da Coluna Vertebral" realizado durante o Congresso AMCICO 2022. Estatísticas descritivas e testes de correlação foram aplicados às respostas das perguntas de múltipla escolha. Os cirurgiões foram questionados sobre experiência clínica e preferências pela endoscopia espinhal, histórico de treinamento, tipos de descompressão lombar endoscópica que realizaram e requisitos futuros para um treinamento adicional. O software estatístico SPSS (versão 27) foi utilizado para a análise de dados. As medidas estatísticas descritivas foram utilizadas para quantificar as respostas e calcular a mediana, a média, o desvio padrão e as porcentagens. O qui-quadrado foi empregado para determinar a associação entre os fatores estudados. Resultados: A pesquisa on-line foi visualizada por 321 cirurgiões, dos quais 92 a completaram (53,4%). As informações demográficas mostraram que a maioria dos participantes são cirurgiões ortopédicos (73,6%) e menores de 50 anos (69,2%), com mais da metade deles (51,1%) possuindo menos de 3 meses de treinamento formal em técnicas endoscópicas. A maioria dos cirurgiões pratica abordagens uniportais (58,9%, contra 3,4% bi-portais). A abordagem transforaminal (65,5%) foi preferida em relação à abordagem interlaminar (34,4%). A abordagem biportal foi selecionada como a abordagem indicada para a região lombar (94,8%). Para a fusão endoscopia-assistida, a abordagem unilateral foi preferida por 72% dos participantes contra a abordagem biportal (24,5%). Os sistemas de navegação foram de interesse para 84,1% dos participantes, dos quais 30,7% responderam que preferiam a óptica em vez da eletromagnética (18,2%). O uso da robótica foi de interesse para 51,1% dos participantes. O viés dos participantes foi calculado com base no percentual de participação, onde 37% participaram de todos os 3 dias de conferências, 27,2% participaram de 2 dias e 16,3% participaram de apenas um dia. Um quinto dos cirurgiões não participaram das atividades do simpósio e ainda assim responderam à pesquisa. O impacto acadêmico do simpósio de "Cirurgia Minimamente Invasiva e Endoscópica da Coluna Vertebral" foi alto, com 68,1% dos participantes respondendo que têm interesse em treinamento adicional nestas técnicas e 61,1% respondendo que estão prontos para aplicar novos conhecimentos em sua prática médica. Conclusão: O interesse em técnicas cirúrgicas endoscópicas da coluna vertebral é alto entre os membros da AMCICO. Um grande número de cirurgiões está interessado em aprender técnicas cirúrgicas endoscópicas avançadas da coluna vertebral e integrar esta tecnologia como parte de suas ferramentas cirúrgicas para resolver problemas comuns que afetam a coluna com doença degenerativa, além de hérnias de disco e estenoses foraminais. Baseados nas respostas fornecidas pelos cirurgiões participantes, os autores concluem que o impacto acadêmico foi elevado. Nível de evidência III; Estudo retrospectivo.

resumen está disponible en el texto completo

Treatment of contained lumbar disc herniations using radiofrequency assisted micro-tubular decompression and nucleotomy: four year prospective study results.

BACKGROUND: Patients with radiculopathy caused by contained disc herniations are less likely to have good outcomes following discectomy surgery than patients with disc herniations that are not contained. The author presents his 4-year results from a prospective trial regarding the efficacy and safety of a tubular transforaminal radiofrequency-assisted manual decompression and annulus modulation of contained disc herniations in 58 patients. METHODS: Fifty-eight patients with lumbar radiculopathy due to a contained disc herniation were enrolled in a prospective clinical study. Visual analog scores (VAS) for back pain and leg pain, quality of life assessment, Macnab criteria, and SF-12 were collected from patients before treatment, at 2-years and 4-years post-treatment. RESULTS: At 4 years, results were obtained from 47 (81%) of patients. Compared to mean pre- treatment assessments, mean 4-year VAS for back pain improved from 8.6 to 2.3 points, and mean VAS for leg pain improved from 7.8 to 2.3. Eighty-three percent of respondents reported that they were "satisfied" or "very satisifed" with their quality of life at 4-years as per SF-12. At 4 years, recurrence was noted in 3 (6.4%) of respondents and no complications were reported. CONCLUSIONS: The 2-year and 4-year study results are nearly identical, suggesting durable benefit out to 4 years. These results also suggest that in carefully selected patients with sustained contained disc herniations who have failed conservative treatments, manual decompression combined with radiofrequency-assisted decompression and annulus modulation are very likely to have good outcomes 4 years post-treatment.

23rd Anniversary of Percutaneous Laser Disc Decompression (PLDD).

OBJECTIVE: In mid-February 1986, Peter Ascher and Daniel Choy performed the first percutaneous laser disc decompression (PLDD) procedure at the Neurosurgical Department, University of Graz, Graz, Austria. It was planned to deliver 1000 J of energy with an Nd:YAG laser to a herniated L4-L5 disc causing sciatica. At 600 J the procedure was terminated because the pain was gone. BACKGROUND DATA: Since then PLDD has spread all over the world, with procedures being performed on the entire spine except for T1-T4 because these discs do not permit percutaneous access with a needle. The success rate has ranged from 70-89%, and the complication rate, chiefly discitis, ranges from 0.3-1.0%. When successful, average time to return to normal activities is 1 wk. Long-term follow-up at 23 y yields a recurrence rate of 4-5%. METHODS: Laser surgeons active in PLDD were canvassed to obtain their best clinical data. RESULTS: PLDD patients treated with the Nd:YAG laser, the diode laser, and the combination Ho:YAG laser and endoscope were included. CONCLUSIONS: The McNab results for the three groups indicate that PLDD is safe, effective, and minimally invasive.

Nonendoscopic Nd-YAG 1064 nm PLDN in the treatment of thoracic discogenic pain syndromes.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the present study was to discover new minimal invasive treatments of discogenic thoracic pain caused by protrusions or extrusions using the promising method of nonendoscopic Nd-YAG 1064 nm PLDN in the lumbar and cervical regions. Because early symptoms of chronic thoracic discogenic pain syndromes have not been characterized, interventional therapy is usually started late and involves a high complication rate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective controlled clinical study was undertaken by neurologists using Nd-YAG 1064 nm PLDN to treat 42 patients with thoracic disc protrusions and extrusions. Patients with discogenic pain syndromes and MRI-confirmed disc pathology with spinal canal impairment were enrolled; 68 discs were treated. Maximal Nd-YAG laser 1064 nm dose was 1,000 watts per segment. Disc puncture was performed by dorsolateral approach. Monitored parameters were VAS, McNab score, subjective condition, neurological findings and peripheral EMG. A different, independent neurologist examined each case before and after surgery. RESULTS: At 6 weeks after treatment, 41 patients had a successful outcome; only one with a clinical suspicion of spondylodiscitis was dissatisfied. In all others, clinical parameters improved. EMG leaks had disappeared. Combined spastic paresis improved in 2/4 cases. Complications were one pneumothorax, one pleuritis and one suspected spondylodiscitis. CONCLUSION: Pain relief and decompression of spinal structures is effective and immediate by disc vaporization, shrinkage, nociceptor destruction and discogenic kinius denaturation. Nonendoscopic percutaneous Nd-YAG 1064 nm PLDN is a highly effective method for the treatment of thoracic disc disorders with minimally invasive access and is recommended prior to any open surgery.