Full endoscopic spine surgery.

Background: With a dramatic increase in elderly population worldwide, the prevalence of degenerative spine disease is steadily rising. Even though the entire spinal column is affected the problem is more commonly seen in the lumbar, cervical spine and to some extent the thoracic spine. The treatment of symptomatic lumbar disc or stenosis is primarily conservative with analgesics, epidural steroids and physiotherapy. Surgery is advised only if conservative treatment is ineffective. Conventional open microscopic procedures even though are still a gold standard, have the disadvantages of excessive muscle damage and bone resection, epidural scarring along with prolonged hospital stay and increased need of postoperative analgesics. Minimal access spine surgeries minimize surgical access related injury by minimizing soft tissue and muscle damage and also bony resection thus preventing iatrogenic instability and unnecessary fusions. This leads to good functional preservation of the spine and enhances early postoperative recovery and early return to work. Full endoscopic spine surgeries are one of the more sophisticated and advanced form of MIS surgeries. Purpose: Full endoscopy has definitive benefits over conventional microsurgical techniques. These include better and clear vision of the pathology due to presence of irrigation fluid channel, minimal soft tissue and bone trauma, better and relatively easy approach to deep seated pathologies like thoracic disc herniations and a possibility to avoid fusion surgeries. The purpose of this article is to describe these benefits, give an overview of the two main approaches - transforaminal and interlaminar, their indications, contraindications and their limitations. The article also describes about the challenges in overcoming the learning curve and its future prospectives. Conclusion: Full endoscopic spine surgery is one of the fastest growing technique in the field of modern spine surgery. Better intraoperative visualization of the pathology, lesser incidence of complications, faster recovery time, less postoperative pain, better relief of symptoms and early return to activity are the main reasons behind this rapid growth. With better patient outcomes and reduced medical costs, the procedure is going to be more accepted, relevant and popular procedure in future.

Full-Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy Approach Selection: A Systematic Review and Proposed Algorithm.

STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of the literature to develop an algorithm formulated by key opinion leaders. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to analyze currently available data and propose a decision-making algorithm for full-endoscopic lumbar discectomy for treating lumbar disc herniation (LDH) to help surgeons choose the most appropriate approach [transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy (TELD) or interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy (IELD)] for patients. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Full-endoscopic discectomy has gained popularity in recent decades. To our knowledge, an algorithm for choosing the proper surgical approach has never been proposed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review of the literature using PubMed and MeSH terms was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Patient samples included patients with LDH treated with full-endoscopic discectomy. The inclusion criteria were interventional research (randomized and nonrandomized trials) and observation research (cohort, case-control, case series). Exclusion criteria were case series and technical reports. The criteria used for selecting patients were grouped and analyzed. Then, an algorithm was generated based on these findings with support and reconfirmation from key expert opinions. Data on overall complications were collected. Outcome measures included zone of herniation, level of herniation, and approach (TELD or IELD). RESULTS: In total, 474 articles met the initial screening criteria. The detailed analysis identified the 80 best-matching articles; after applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 53 articles remained for this review. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed algorithm suggests a TELD for LDH located in the foraminal or extraforaminal zones at upper and lower levels and for central and subarticular discs at the upper levels considering the anatomic foraminal features and the craniocaudal pathology location. An IELD is preferred for LDH in the central or subarticular zones at L4/L5 and L5/S1, especially if a high iliac crest or high-grade migration is found.

A 2-Year Outcomes and Complications of Various Techniques of Lumbar Discectomy: A Multicentric Retrospective Study.

OBJECTIVES: Various techniques of performing lumbar discectomy are prevalent, each having its rationale and claimed benefits. The authors ventured to assess the perioperative factors, outcomes, and complications of each procedure and compare among them with 946 patients contributed by 10 centers and operated by experienced surgeons. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of patients operated using open discectomy, microdiscectomy, microendoscopic discectomy, interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy, transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy, and Destandau techniques with a follow-up of minimum 2 years. The inclusion criteria were age >18 years, failed conservative treatment for 4-6 weeks, and the involvement of a single lumbar level. RESULTS: There was a significant improvement in the visual analog scale score of back, leg, and Oswestry Disability Index scores postoperatively across the board, with no significant difference between them. Minimally invasive procedures (microendoscopic discectomy, interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy, transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy, and Destandau techniques) had shorter operation time, hospital stay, better cosmesis, and decreased blood loss compared with open procedures (open discectomy and microdiscectomy). The overall complication rate was 10.1%. The most common complication was recurrence (6.86%), followed by reoperation (4.3%), cerebrospinal fluid leak (2.24%), wrong level surgery (0.74%), superficial infection (0.62%), and deep infection (0.37%). There were minor differences in incidence of complications between techniques. CONCLUSION: Although minimally invasive techniques have some advantages over the open techniques in the perioperative factors, all the techniques are effective and provide similar pain relief and functional outcomes at the end of 2 years. The various rates of individual complications provide a reference value for future studies.

AOSpine Consensus Paper on Nomenclature for Working-Channel Endoscopic Spinal Procedures.

STUDY DESIGN: International consensus paper on a unified nomenclature for full-endoscopic spine surgery. OBJECTIVES: Minimally invasive endoscopic spinal procedures have undergone rapid development during the past decade. Evolution of working-channel endoscopes and surgical instruments as well as innovation in surgical techniques have expanded the types of spinal pathology that can be addressed. However, there is in the literature a heterogeneous nomenclature defining approach corridors and procedures, and this lack of common language has hampered communication between endoscopic spine surgeons, patients, hospitals, and insurance providers. METHODS: The current report summarizes the nomenclature reported for working-channel endoscopic procedures that address cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spinal pathology. RESULTS: We propose a uniform system that defines the working-channel endoscope (full-endoscopic), approach corridor (anterior, posterior, interlaminar, transforaminal), spinal segment (cervical, thoracic, lumbar), and procedure performed (eg, discectomy, foraminotomy). We suggest the following nomenclature for the most common full-endoscopic procedures: posterior endoscopic cervical foraminotomy (PECF), transforaminal endoscopic thoracic discectomy (TETD), transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy (TELD), transforaminal lumbar foraminotomy (TELF), interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy (IELD), interlaminar endoscopic lateral recess decompression (IE-LRD), and lumbar endoscopic unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (LE-ULBD). CONCLUSIONS: We believe that it is critical to delineate a consensus nomenclature to facilitate uniformity of working-channel endoscopic procedures within academic scholarship. This will hopefully facilitate development, standardization of procedures, teaching, and widespread acceptance of full-endoscopic spinal procedures.