Clinical observation of 10-mm endoscopic minimally invasive interlaminar decompression in the treatment of ossified lumbar spinal stenosis.

PURPOSE: This study aims to observe the safety and effectiveness of 10-mm endoscopic minimally invasive interlaminar decompression in the treatment of ossified lumbar spinal stenosis. METHODS: The clinical data of 50 consecutive patients with ossified lumbar spinal stenosis were retrospectively analyzed. All patients underwent minimally invasive interlaminar decompression with 10-mm endoscope. Patient demographics, perioperative data, and clinical outcomes were recorded. Visual analog scale (VAS) scores, Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores, and modified Macnab criteria were used to assess clinical outcomes. The lateral recess angle, real spinal canal area and effective intervertebral foramen area were used to assess the effect of decompression. RESULTS: The mean age of all patients was 59.0±12.3 years. The mean operative time and intraoperative blood loss were 43.7±8.7 minutes and <20ml, respectively. Two years after surgery, the leg pain VAS score decreased from 7.4 ± 1.0 to 1.6 ± 0.6 (P < 0.05) and the ODI score decreased from 63.8 ± 7.6 to 21.7 ± 3.4 (P < 0.05). The lateral recess angle, real spinal canal area and effective intervertebral foramen area were significantly larger than before surgery (P < 0.05). The overall excellent and good rate at the last follow-up was 92.0% according to the modified Macnab criteria. CONCLUSION: The 10-mm endoscopic minimally invasive interlaminar decompression can safely and effectively remove the ossification in the spinal canal and achieve adequate decompression in patients with ossified lumbar spinal stenosis.

Clinical Efficacy of Interlaminar and Transforaminal Spinal Endoscopy in the Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.

Purpose: To compare the application effect of interlaminar technique (ILT) and transforaminal technique (TFT) spinal endoscopies in lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) treatment. Material and Methods: The data of 46 patients aged 65 years or older diagnosed with LSS between January 2019 and March 2021 were retrospectively reviewed in this study. They underwent ILT (21 patients) or TFT (25 patients) spinal endoscopy surgery, and outcomes were analyzed utilizing the visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), and Japanese orthopedic association (JOA) scale. Lumbar stability was also evaluated using the change in dynamic position X-ray of the spine. We also built three-dimensional (3D) finite element of ILT and TFT spine models and compared them with the stability of the intact spine. Results: The ILT group had a longer operation time than the TFT group, and patients in ILT and TFT groups had comparable VAS scores for back pain. However, the TFT group had higher VAS scores for leg pain than the ILT group 3, 6 and 12 months postoperatively. The JOA and ODI scores of the 2 groups improved after surgery, and there were statistical differences between the 2 groups at 6 and 12 months follow-up, which proved that functional recovery was better in ILT group. The pre- and postoperative change in dynamic position X-ray of the spine proved that ILT and TFT would not destroy the spine's stability. 3D finite element lumbar spine model analysis also demonstrated this point. Conclusion: Both ILT and TFT can provide good clinical outcomes; compared with TFT, the ILT approach provided more thorough decompression and was more suitable for treating LSS.

Clinical Results of 10-mm Endoscopic Minimally Invasive Interlaminar Decompression in the Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis with Degenerative Lumbar Scoliosis and Simple Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.

Purpose: The number of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) with degenerative lumbar scoliosis (DLS) is gradually increasing as the population ages. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of 10-mm endoscopic minimally invasive interlaminar decompression for LSS with DLS and simple LSS. Material and Methods: The clinical data of 175 consecutive elderly patients with LSS were retrospectively analyzed. They were divided into LSS group and LSS with DLS group based on whether they were accompanied by DLS. Patient demographics, perioperative indicators, and clinical outcomes were recorded. Lumbar spine stability was assessed by imaging data. Meanwhile, visual analog scale (VAS) scores, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, and the modified Macnab criteria were used to assess clinical outcomes. Results: There were 129 patients in the LSS group and 46 patients in the LSS with DLS group. Both groups had similar VAS and ODI scores preoperatively, and both were significantly lower postoperatively (P < 0.05). However, patients combined with DLS showed higher VAS scores for low back pain at 3 months and 1 year postoperatively (P < 0.05). In addition, postoperative LL and PI-LL were significantly improved in both groups (P < 0.05). However, patients in LSS with DLS group showed higher PT, PI and PI-LL before and after surgery. According to the modified Macnab criteria, the excellent and good rates were 92.25% and 89.13% in the LSS group and LSS with DLS group at the last follow-up, respectively. Conclusion: 10-mm endoscopic minimally invasive interlaminar decompression for LSS with or without DLS has shown satisfactory clinical outcomes. However, patients with DLS may have higher residual low back pain after surgery.

Analysis of the Efficacy of Percutaneous Endoscopic Interlaminar Discectomy for Lumbar Disc Herniation with Different Types/Grades of Modic Changes.

Background: Percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID), one of the main techniques of spinal endoscopy, has achieved excellent results in treating lumbar disc herniation (LDH). However, its efficacy has not been systematically described in patients with LDH accompanied by Modic changes (MC). Purpose: The purpose of this study was to observe the clinical efficacy of PEID treatment of LDH accompanied by MC. Patients and Methods: A total of 207 patients who underwent PEID surgery for LDH were selected. According to the existence and type of MC on preoperative lumbar magnetic resonance images (MRI), they were divided into normal group (no MC, n=117), M1 group (MC I, n=23), and M2 group (MC II, n=67). According to the severity of MC, they were divided into MA group (grade A, n=45) and MBC group (grade B and C, n=45). The visual analog scale (VAS) score, Oswestry disability index (ODI) score, Disc height index (DHI), Lumbar lordosis angle (LL) and modified Macnab criteria were used to assess clinical outcomes. Results: Postoperative back pain and leg pain VAS scores and ODI scores were significantly improved in all groups compared with preoperative scores. Patients with MC showed a deterioration in postoperative back pain VAS scores and ODI scores as time went by, and postoperative DHI decreased significantly compared with preoperative. Postoperative LL did not change significantly in each group. There was no significant difference in complications, recurrence rate and excellent rate between the groups. Conclusion: Whether accompanied by MC or not, the efficacy of PEID for LDH was significant. However, postoperative back pain and functional status of patients with MC tend to deteriorate as time went by, especially those with type I or severe MC.

Combination therapy of anabolic and nonbisphosphonates antiresorptive agents for the treatment of osteoporosis: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: According to the mechanisms of action, combination therapy of anabolic and antiresorptive agents may produce more effect for the treatment of osteoporosis. However, the combination therapy of anabolic agents and bisphosphonates reports no benefit and even reduced the anabolic effects of anabolic agents. This study aims to assess the effect of combination therapy of anabolic and nonbisphosphonates antiresorptive agents in adults with osteoporosis. METHODS: Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched from January 1, 1980 to November 1, 2017 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with osteoporosis treated in combination therapy of anabolic and nonbisphosphonates antiresorptive agents compared with monotherapy of either agent alone. The primary outcome was the incidence of fractures. The secondary outcomes were the bone mineral density (BMD) changes at lumbar spine and total hip. Continuous outcomes were expressed as standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI), while dichotomous outcomes were expressed as risk ratio (RR) and 95% CI. The meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. I statistic (I > 50% as a threshold indicates significant heterogeneity) was used to assess the heterogeneity. RESULTS: A total of 10 trials with a total of 1042 patients were included. The pooled results showed that the combination therapy demonstrated a significant advantage over a monotherapy in the BMD improvement at the lumbar spine (SMD 1.18; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.72; I = 93%) and the total hip (SMD 0.89; 95% CI, 0.48 to 1.29; I = 88%) and further reduce the fracture risk (RR, 0.45; 95%CI, 0.21 to 0.94; I = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: Low-to-moderate-quality evidence shows that the combination therapy of anabolic and nonbisphosphonates antiresorptive agents is superior to monotherapy in improving the BMD and reducing the fracture risk. However, further high methodological quality studies are needed to determine the antifracture efficacy, cost-effectiveness and safety of this strategy of combination therapy.