Clinical outcome after surgical management of spontaneous spinal epidural hematoma.

PURPOSE: Spontaneous spinal epidural hematoma (SSEH) is a rare pathology characterized by a hemorrhage in the spinal epidural space without prior surgical or interventional procedure. Recent literature reported contradictory findings regarding the clinical, radiological and surgical factors determining the outcome, hence the objective of this retrospective analysis was to re-assess these outcome-determining factors. METHODS: Patients surgically treated for SSEH at our institution from 2010 - 2022 were screened and retrospectively assessed regarding management including the time-to-treatment, the pre-and post-treatment clinical status, the radiological findings as well as other patient-specific parameters. The outcome was assessed using the modified McCormick Scale. Statistical analyses included binary logistic regression and Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: In total, 26 patients (17 men [65%], 9 women [35%], median age 70 years [interquartile range 26.5]) were included for analysis. The SSEHs were located cervically in 31%, cervicothoracically in 42% and thoracically in 27%. Twenty-four patients (92%) improved after surgery. Fifteen patients (58%) had a postoperative modified McCormick Scale grade of I (no residual symptoms) and 8 patients (31%) had a grade of II (mild symptoms). Only 3 (12%) patients remained with a modified McCormick Scale grade of IV or V (severe motor deficits / paraplegic). Neither time-to-treatment, craniocaudal hematoma expansion, axial hematoma occupation of the spinal canal, anticoagulation or antiplatelet drugs, nor the preoperative clinical status were significantly associated with the patients' outcomes. CONCLUSION: Early surgical evacuation of SSEH generally leads to favorable clinical outcomes. Surgical hematoma evacuation should be indicated in all patients with symptomatic SSEH.

Predictors of Skip Laminotomy for Placement of Paddle Leads for Spinal Cord Stimulation.

OBJECTIVES: Placement of a standard paddle lead for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) requires a laminotomy for positioning of the lead within the epidural space. During initial placement, an additional laminotomy or laminectomy, termed a "skip" laminotomy, may be necessary at a higher level to pass the lead to the appropriate midline position. Patient and radiographic factors that predict the need for a skip laminotomy have yet to be identified. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants who underwent SCS paddle placement at Albany Medical Center between 2016 and 2017 were identified. Operative reports were reviewed to identify the paddle type, level of initial laminotomy, target level, and skip laminotomy level. Preoperative thoracic magnetic resonance images (MRIs) were reviewed, and spinal canal diameter, interpedicular distance, and dorsal cerebral spinal fluid thickness were measured for each participant when available. RESULTS: A total of 106 participants underwent thoracic SCS placement. Of these, 97 had thoracic MRIs available for review. Thirty-eight participants required a skip laminotomy for placement of the paddle compared with 68 participants who did not. There was no significant difference in demographic features including age, sex, body mass index, and surgical history. Univariate analyses that suggested trends were selected for further analysis using binary logistic regression. Level of initial laminotomy (odds ratio [OR] = 1.51, p = 0.028), spinal canal diameter (OR = 0.71, p = 0.015), and dorsal cerebrospinal fluid thickness (OR = 0.61, p = 0.011) were correlated with skip laminotomy. Target level (OR = 1.27, p = 0.138) and time from trial (1.01, p = 0.117) suggested potential association. The multivariate regression was statistically significant, X2(10) = 28.02, p = 0.002. The model explained 38.3% of the variance (Nagelkerke R2) and predicted skip laminectomy correctly in 73.3% of cases. However, for the multivariate regression, only a decrease in spinal canal diameter (OR = 0.59, p = 0.041) was associated with a greater odds of skip laminotomy. CONCLUSIONS: This study aims to characterize the patient and radiographic factors that may predict the need to perform a skip laminotomy during the initial placement of SCS paddles. Here, we show that radiographic and anatomic variables, primarily spinal canal diameter, play an important role in predicting the need for a skip laminotomy. Furthermore, we suggest that target level for placement and level of initial laminotomy also may contribute. Further investigation of the predictive factors for performing a skip laminotomy would help optimize surgical planning and preoperative patient selection and counseling.

Technical note-in situ laminotomy: preserving posterior tension band in surgery of pediatric multilevel spinal tumor.

BACKGROUND: Laminotomy has been introduced in surgical practice to reduce complications of laminectomy after surgery of tumors in the spinal canal. However, the posterior ligament complex, which is routinely interrupted to remove the laminoplasty segment and gain access to the spinal canal, has a tendency not to heal and can lead to progressive kyphosis and collapse. CASE PRESENTATION: A 5-month-old boy affected by a thoracolumbar extradural tumor extending along seven spinal levels was operated on. The tumor was exposed and completely resected by a one-piece laminotomy with preservation of the integrity of the posterior tension band at both extremities. After 1-year radiological examination ruled out spinal deformity. CONCLUSION: The technique herein presented, which we named in situ laminotomy, allows to fully preserve the posterior tension band without reducing the exposure of the spinal canal in multilevel tumors. Additionally, the technique makes also the reconstruction of the spine elements very easy and rapid. However, longer follow-up is necessary to prove the effectiveness of this procedure in preventing long-term deformity and instability.

Unilateral microscopic approach for lumbar spinal stenosis decompression: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Microscopic unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) is a minimally invasive technique used in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis and could limit spinal instability and be associated with better clinical outcomes. However, there is ongoing debate regarding its utility compared to conventional laminectomy (CL). The primary objective was to collate and describe the current evidence base for ULBD, including perioperative parameters, functional outcomes, and complications. The secondary objective was to identify operative techniques. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted between January 1990 and August 2022 according to the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. Major databases were searched for full text English articles reporting on outcomes following microscopic unilateral laminotomy in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. RESULTS: Seventeen articles met the inclusion criteria. Two studies were randomised controlled trials. Two studies were prospective data collection and the rest were retrospective analysis. Three studies compared ULBD with CL. ULBD preserves the osteoligamentous complex and may be associated with shorter operative time, less blood loss, and similar clinical outcomes when compared to CL. CONCLUSION: This review highlights that ULBD aims to minimise disruption to the normal posterior spinal anatomy and may have acceptable clinical outcomes. It also highlights that it is difficult to draw valid conclusions given there are limited data available as most studies identified were retrospective or did not have a comparator group.

Incidence and management of dural tears in full-endoscopic unilateral laminotomies for bilateral lumbar decompression.

PURPOSE: To report incidence of dural lacerations in lumbar endoscopic unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (LE-ULBD) and to describe patient outcomes following a novel full-endoscopic bimanual durotomy repair. METHODS: Retrospective review of prospectively collected database including 5.5 years of single surgeon experience with LE-ULBD. Patients with no durotomy were compared with patients who experienced intraoperative durotomy, including demographics, ASA score, prior surgery, number of levels treated, procedure time, hospital length of stay (LOS), visual analogue scale, perioperative complications, revision surgeries, use of analgesics, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). RESULTS: In total, 13/174 patients (7.5%) undergoing LE-ULBD experienced intraoperative durotomy. No significant differences in demographic, clinical or operative variables were identified between the 2 groups. Sustaining a durotomy increased LOS (p = 0.0019); no differences in perioperative complications or rate of revision surgery were identified. There was no difference in minimally clinically important difference for ODI between groups (65.6% for no durotomy versus 55.6% for durotomy, p = 0.54). CONCLUSION: In this cohort, sustaining a durotomy increased LOS but, with accompanying intraoperative repair, did not significantly affect rate of complications, revision surgery or functional outcomes. Our method of bimanual endoscopic dural repair provides an effective approach for repair of dural lacerations in interlaminar ULBD cases.

Ambulatory uniportal versus biportal endoscopic unilateral laminotomy with bilateral decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis-cohort study using a prospective registry.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic spine surgery has been established as a practical, minimally invasive technique for decompression in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. However, there remains a paucity of studies prospective cohort study comparing uniportal lumbar endoscopic unilateral laminotomy with bilateral decompression and unilateral biportal endoscopic unilateral laminotomy with bilateral decompression with open spinal decompression-both viable techniques with satisfactory clinical outcomes in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. OBJECTIVE/AIM: To compare the efficacy of UPE and BPE lumbar decompression surgery for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. METHODS: A prospective registry of patients who had undergone spinal decompression for lumbar stenosis via UPE or BPE under a single fellowship trained spine surgeon was studied. Baseline characteristics, initial clinical presentation, and operative details including complications were recorded for all included patients. Clinical outcomes, such as visual analogue scale and Oswestry Disability Index, were recorded at preoperative, immediate postoperative, 2-week, 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up periods. RESULTS: A total of 62 patients underwent endoscopic decompression surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis (29 UPE, 33 BPE). No significant baseline differences were found between uniportal and biportal decompression, when comparing operative duration (130 vs. 140 min; p = 0.30), intraoperative blood loss (5.4 vs. 6mLs; p = 0.05), and length of hospital stay (23.6 vs. 20.3 h; p = 0.35). Two patients (7%) who underwent uniportal endoscopic decompression required conversion to open surgery due to inadequate decompression. Intraoperative complication rates were significantly higher in the UPE group (13.4% vs. 0%, p < 0.05). VAS score (leg & back) and ODI improved significantly (p < 0.001) in both endoscopic decompression groups across all follow-up time points, with no appreciable statistical differences between both groups. CONCLUSION: UPE has the same efficacy as BPE in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. While UPE surgery enjoys added aesthetic benefits of only one wound, BPE had potentially lower risks of intraoperative complication, inadequate decompression, and conversion to open surgery during early period of learning curve.

Unilateral laminotomy with bilateral spinal canal decompression: systematic review of outcomes and complications.

BACKGROUND: Unilateral laminotomy with bilateral spinal canal decompression has gained popularity recently. AIM: To systematically review the literature of unilateral laminotomy with bilateral spinal canal decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) aiming to assess outcomes and complications of the different techniques described in literature. METHODS: On August 7, 2022, Pubmed and EMBASE were searched by 2 reviewers independently, and all the relevant studies published up to date were considered based on predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The subject headings "unilateral laminotomy", "bilateral decompression" and their related key terms were used. The Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement was used to screen the articles. RESULTS: A total of seven studies including 371 patients were included. The mean age of the patients was 69.0 years (range: 55-83 years). The follow up duration ranged from 1 to 3 years. Rate of postoperative pain and functional improvement was favorable based on VAS, JOA, JOABPEQ, RMDW, ODI and SF-36, for example improved from a range of 4.2-7.5 preoperatively on the VAS score to a range of 1.4-3.0 postoperatively at the final follow up. Insufficient decompression was noted in 3% of the reported cases. The overall complication rate was reported at 18-20%, with dural tear at 3.6-9% and hematoma at 0-4%. CONCLUSION: Unilateral laminotomy with bilateral decompression has favorable short- and mid-term pain and functional outcomes with low recurrence and complication rates. This, however, needs to be further confirmed in larger, long-term follow-up, prospective, comparative studies between open, and minimally invasive techniques.

Ten-step minimally invasive slalom unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (sULBD) with navigation.

BACKGROUND: Unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) is a MIS surgical technique that offers safe and effective decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) with a long-term resolution of symptoms. Advantages over conventional open laminectomy include reduced expected blood loss, muscle damage, mechanical instability, and less postoperative pain. The slalom technique combined with navigation is used in multi-segmental LSS to improve the workflow and effectiveness of the procedure. METHODS: We outline ten technical steps to achieve a slalom unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (sULBD) with navigation. In a retrospective case series, we included patients with multi-segmental LSS operated in our institution using the sULBD between 2020 and 2022. The primary outcome was a reduction in pain measured by Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for back pain and leg pain and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). RESULTS: In our case series (N = 7), all patients reported resolution of initial symptoms on an average follow-up of 20.71 ± 9 months. The average operative time and length of hospital stay were 196.14 min and 1.67 days, respectively. On average, VAS (back pain) was 4.71 pre-operatively and 1.50 on long-term follow-up of an average of 19.05 months. VAS (leg pain) decreased from 4.33 to 1.21. ODI was reported as 33% pre-operatively and 12% on long-term follow-up. CONCLUSION: The sULBD with navigation is a safe and effective MIS surgical procedure and achieves the resolution of symptoms in patients presenting with multi-segmental LSS. Herein, we demonstrate the ten key steps required to perform the sULBD technique. Compared to the standard sULBD technique, the incorporation of navigation provides anatomic localization without exposure to radiation to staff for a higher safety profile along with a fast and efficient workflow.

Resection of ruptured spinal pial arteriovenous fistula under ultrasound control: how I do it.

BACKGROUND: Spinal pial arteriovenous fistulae are rare intradural superficial vascular lesion consisting in a direct shunt between spinal pial arteries and veins. The presentation of pial arteriovenous fistula is caused by venous congestion with spinal cord ischemia, mass effect, or hemorrhage. The treatment is surgery or endovascular procedure. METHODS: We illustrate the case of thoracic pial arteriovenous fistula in a 66-year-old female operated with posterior midline approach and B-mode US. CONCLUSION: Posterior midline approach with targeted laminotomy using high-speed drill affords an ideal surgical exposure. B-mode US is helpful to detect the fistula and study their relationship with the surrounding structures.

Full-endoscopic versus microscopic unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis at L4-L5: comparative study.

PURPOSE: Full-endoscopic spine surgery for degenerative lumbar diseases is growing in popularity and has shown favourable outcomes. Lumbar endoscopic unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (LE-ULBD) has been used to treat lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). However, studies comparing LE-ULBD to microscopic ULBD are lacking. This study compared the clinical efficacy and radiological outcomes between the LE-ULBD and microscopic ULBD. METHODS: The study retrospectively enrolled patients undergoing either LE-ULBD or microscopic ULBD for spinal stenosis at the L4-L5 level. The demographic data, operative details, radiological images, clinical outcomes, and complications of patients from the two groups were compared through matched-pairs analysis. The minimum follow-up duration was 24 months. RESULTS: There were 93 patients undergoing either LE-ULBD (n = 42) or microscopic ULBD (n = 51). The patient demographics were similar between the two groups. The LE-ULBD group had significantly less estimated blood loss, less analgesic use, and shorter hospitalization duration (P < .05). The endoscopic group had a significantly lower visual analog scale for back pain at all follow-up intervals compared with the microscopic group (P < .05). There were no significant differences in leg pain or Oswestry Disability Index. The cross-section area of the spinal canal was significantly wider after microscopic ULBD. There were no significant differences in post-operative degenerative changes in disc height, translational motion, or facet preservation rate. CONCLUSIONS: LE-ULBD is comparable in clinical and radiological outcomes with enhanced recovery for single-level LSS. The endoscopic approach might further minimize tissue injury and enhance post-operative recovery.

Bilateral laminotomy through a unilateral approach (minimally invasive) versus open laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis.

PURPOSE: To compare the outcomes of minimally invasive (MI) bilateral laminotomy via unilateral approach versus open laminectomy in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this prospective study, 62 patients were treated for LSS and were assigned to one of two groups over a 6-month period. Group A comprised 37 patients that underwent MI bilateral laminotomy. Group B comprised 25 patients that underwent open laminectomy. Follow-up duration was 3 years. The primary outcomes were the visual analogue scale (VAS) pain outcome score for back and leg, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and complications. RESULTS: MI methods were superior in most primary outcomes compared to open laminectomy. VAS back pain outcome was reduced from close to 7 to 4 in both groups. VAS leg pain was reduced from 6.8 to 3.2 in MI group and from 8.7 to 3.5 in the open group (p > 0.05 between groups, p < 0.05 comparing pre- to post-operative back and leg pain). ODI improved from 56.5 to 13 and 58 to 24 in MI and open groups, respectively (p > 0.05 between groups, p < 0.05 comparing pre- to post-operative disability). Complication and revision rates were lower in the MI technique than open laminectomy (8 versus 56%, p < 0.05; 3 versus 12%, p > 0.05). Length of stay ranges were less in MI than open group (1-3 versus 7-30 days, p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Bilateral laminotomy through a unilateral approach (minimally invasive) and open laminectomy are both effective in improving pain and disability in LSS. MI procedures have an advantage in shorter hospital stays, sparing of more bony structures and lower complication rates. MI unilateral decompression is at least as good as laminectomy in the treatment of LSS.

Comparison of lumbar endoscopic unilateral laminotomy bilateral decompression and minimally invasive surgery transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for one-level lumbar spinal stenosis.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study is to compare the clinical outcomes and postoperative complications of lumbar endoscopic unilateral laminotomy bilateral decompression (LE-ULBD) and minimally invasive surgery transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) to treat one-level lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) without degenerative spondylolisthesis or deformity. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 112 consecutive patients of one-level LSS undergoing either LE-ULBD or MIS-TLIF was performed. Patient demographics, operation time, estimated blood loss, time to ambulation, length of hospitalization, intraoperative and postoperative complications were recorded. The visual analog scale (VAS) score for leg and back pain, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score, and the Macnab criteria were used to evaluate the clinical outcomes. The healthcare cost was also recorded. RESULTS: The operation time, estimated blood loss, time to ambulation and length of hospitalization of LE-ULBD group were shorter than MIS-TLIF group. The postoperative mean VAS and ODI scores decreased significantly in both groups. According to the modified Macnab criteria, the outcomes rated as excellent/good rate were 90.6 and 93.8% in the two groups. The mean VAS scores, ODI scores and outcomes of the modified Macnab criteria of both groups were of no significant difference. The healthcare cost of LE-ULBD group was lower than MIS-TLIF group. Two cases of intraoperative epineurium injury were observed in the LE-ULBD group. One case of cauda equina injury was observed in the LE-ULBD group. No nerve injury, dural injury or cauda equina syndrome was observed in MIS-TLIF group. However, one case with transient urinary retention, one case with pleural effusion, one case with incision infection and one case with implant dislodgement were observed in MIS-TLIF group. CONCLUSIONS: Both LE-ULBD and MIS-TLIF are safe and effective to treat one-level LSS without degenerative spondylolisthesis or deformity. LE-ULBD is a more minimally invasive option and of less economic burden compared with MIS-TLIF. Decompression plus instrumented fusion may be not necessary for one-level LSS without degenerative spondylolisthesis or deformity.

Volumetric analysis of bilateral spinal canal decompression via hemilaminectomy versus laminoplasty in cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

BACKGROUND: Cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) is a degenerative process of the cervical spine requiring surgical decompression to prevent neurological deterioration. While both anterior and posterior approaches yield satisfactory results, posterior decompression is preferred in cases of the multilevel disease. In 2015, we described a muscle-sparing, novel technique of bilateral osteoligamentous decompression via hemilaminectomy (OLD) for CSM. In this study, we investigate whether this technique offers comparable volumetric results to laminoplasty in terms of spinal canal enlargement and whether this technique can yield significant clinical improvement. METHODS: Patients undergoing OLD due to CSM were prospectively enrolled in this study and then matched to and compared with a historic cohort of patients with CSM treated by laminoplasty. An independent sample t test was performed to analyze whether the volumetric gain in the two separate groups was statistically significant. Patients in the OLD cohort were clinically evaluated with the mJOA score preoperatively and 3 months postoperatively. To assess clinical improvement, a paired sample t test was performed. RESULTS: A total of 38 patients were included in the analysis: 19 underwent OLD and 19 underwent laminoplasty. Both groups were well matched in terms of sex, age, preoperative spinal canal volume, and involved levels. Both surgical methods yielded statistically significant volumetric gain in the cervical spinal canal, but a trend towards a greater volume gain was seen in the OLD group. In the OLD group, a statistically significant clinical improvement was also demonstrated. CONCLUSIONS: Our study reveals that OLD can yield a comparable extent of decompression to laminoplasty in CSM while also delivering statistically significant clinical improvement.

[Perimedullary arteriovenous fistula. Case report and literature review]. / Perimedullyarnaya arteriovenoznaya fistula. Klinicheskoe nablyudenie i obzor literatury.

Arteriovenous fistula is a common vascular abnormality of spinal cord and meninges. This disease is more common in young men. Clinical manifestation includes progressive sensitive and motor disorders. However, acute symptoms including impaired consciousness, head or back pain are also possible. The authors describe a rare case. A 15-year-old boy experienced acute depression of consciousness accompanied by headache, vomiting, weakness in the upper limbs and sensitive disorders. The patient was hospitalized to the intensive care unit and examined for subarachnoid hemorrhage. MRI of the head and cervical spine and direct invasive angiography were performed. Perimedullary AVF of cervical spinal cord was diagnosed. Complete clinical regression was observed within a month. Microsurgical removal of AVF was performed in scheduled fashion. Postoperative follow-up period was over 6 months.

Comparative analysis of three types of minimally invasive decompressive surgery for lumbar central stenosis: biportal endoscopy, uniportal endoscopy, and microsurgery.

OBJECTIVERecently, minimally invasive unilateral laminotomy with bilateral decompression (ULBD) has been performed for lumbar stenosis using endoscopic approaches. The object of this retrospective study was to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of three types of minimally invasive decompressive surgery: microsurgery, percutaneous uniportal endoscopic surgery, and percutaneous biportal endoscopic surgery.METHODSIn the period from March 2016 to December 2017, minimally invasive ULBD was performed using microscopy, a uniportal endoscopic approach, or a biportal endoscopic approach to treat lumbar canal stenosis. Patients were classified into three groups based on the surgery they had undergone. The angle of medial facetectomy area and postoperative dural expansion were measured using MR images. The visual analog scale (VAS) score for leg and back pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), operation time, and complications were assessed. Clinical and radiological parameters were compared among the three groups.RESULTSThere were 33 patients in the microscopy group, 37 in the biportal endoscopy group, and 27 in the uniportal endoscopy group. Preoperatively stenotic dural areas were significantly expanded in each of the three groups after surgery (p < 0.05). Mean dural expansion in the uniportal endoscopy group was significantly lower than that in the microscopy or biportal endoscopy group (p < 0.05). The mean angle of the facetectomy in the biportal endoscopic group was significantly lower than that in the microscopic group or uniportal endoscopic group (p < 0.05). On the 1st day after surgery, the VAS score for back pain was significantly higher in the microscopic group than in the uniportal or biportal endoscopic group (p < 0.05). However, there were no significant differences in the VAS score for back pain, VAS score for leg pain, or ODI at the final follow-up among the three groups (p > 0.05).CONCLUSIONSAlthough radiological results were different among the three groups of patients, postoperative clinical outcomes were significantly improved after each type of surgery. The percutaneous biportal or uniportal endoscopic approach offers the advantage of reduced immediate postoperative pain. A percutaneous uniportal or biportal endoscopic lumbar approach may be effective for the treatment of lumbar central stenosis and an alternative to conventional microsurgical decompression.

Comparison of full-endoscopic and minimally invasive decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis in the setting of degenerative scoliosis and spondylolisthesis.

OBJECTIVEThe management of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) with concurrent scoliosis and/or spondylolisthesis remains controversial. Full-endoscopic unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) facilitates neural decompression while preserving stabilizing osseoligamentous structures and may be uniquely suited for the treatment of LSS with concurrent mild to moderate degenerative deformity. The safety and efficacy of full-endoscopic versus minimally invasive surgery (MIS) ULBD in this patient population is studied here for the first time.METHODSA retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data was conducted on 45 consecutive LSS patients with concurrent scoliosis (≥ 10° coronal Cobb angle) and/or spondylolisthesis (≥ 3 mm). Patient demographics, operative details, complications, and imaging characteristics were reviewed. Outcomes were quantified using back and leg visual analog scale (VAS) scores and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at 2 weeks, 3 months, and 1 year.RESULTSA total of 26 patients underwent full-endoscopic and 19 underwent MIS-ULBD with an average follow-up period of 12 months. The endoscopic cohort experienced a significantly shorter hospital length of stay (p = 0.014) and fewer adverse events (p = 0.010). Both cohorts experienced significant improvements in VAS and ODI scores at all time points (p < 0.001), but the endoscopic cohort demonstrated significantly better early ODI scores (p = 0.024).CONCLUSIONSEndoscopic and MIS-ULBD result in similar functional outcomes for LSS with mild to moderate deformity, while the endoscopic approach demonstrates a favorable rate of complications. Further studies are required to better delineate the characteristics of spinal deformities amenable to this approach and the durability of functional results.

Long-term clinical outcomes after bilateral laminotomy or total laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis: a single-institution experience.

OBJECTIVELumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is the most common spinal disease in the geriatric population, and is characterized by a compression of the lumbosacral neural roots from a narrowing of the lumbar spinal canal. LSS can result in symptomatic compression of the neural elements, requiring surgical treatment if conservative management fails. Different surgical techniques with or without fusion are currently treatment options. The purpose of this study was to provide a description of the long-term clinical outcomes of patients who underwent bilateral laminotomy compared with total laminectomy for LSS.METHODSThe authors retrospectively reviewed all the patients treated surgically by the senior author for LSS with total laminectomy and bilateral laminotomy with a minimum of 10 years of follow-up. Patients were divided into 2 treatment groups (total laminectomy, group 1; and bilateral laminotomy, group 2) according to the type of surgical decompression. Clinical outcomes measures included the visual analog scale (VAS), the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) scores, and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). In addition, surgical parameters, reoperation rate, and complications were evaluated in both groups.RESULTSTwo hundred fourteen patients met the inclusion and exclusion criteria (105 and 109 patients in groups 1 and 2, respectively). The mean age at surgery was 69.5 years (range 58-77 years). Comparing pre- and postoperative values, both groups showed improvement in ODI and SF-36 scores; at final follow-up, a slightly better improvement was noted in the laminotomy group (mean ODI value 22.8, mean SF-36 value 70.2), considering the worse preoperative scores in this group (mean ODI value 70, mean SF-36 value 38.4) with respect to the laminectomy group (mean ODI 68.7 vs mean SF-36 value 36.3), but there were no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups. Significantly, in group 2 there was a lower incidence of reoperations (15.2% vs 3.7%, p = 0.0075).CONCLUSIONSBilateral laminotomy allows adequate and safe decompression of the spinal canal in patients with LSS; this technique ensures a significant improvement in patients' symptoms, disability, and quality of life. Clinical outcomes are similar in both groups, but a lower incidence of complications and iatrogenic instability has been shown in the long term in the bilateral laminotomy group.

[Minimally invasive decompression techniques for spinal cord stenosis]. / Minimal-invasive Dekompressionsverfahren der Spinalkanalstenose.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar spinal canal stenosis is frequently found among elderly patients and significantly limits their quality of life. Non-surgical therapy is an initial treatment option; however, it does not eliminate the underlying pathology. Surgical decompression of the spinal canal has now become the treatment of choice. OBJECTIVE: Minimalization of surgical approach strategies with maintaining sufficient decompression of the spinal canal and avoiding disadvantages of macrosurgical techniques, monolateral paravertebral approach with bilateral intraspinal decompression, specific surgical techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Minimally invasive decompression techniques using a microscope or an endoscope are presented and different surgical strategies depending on both the extent (mono-, bi-, and multisegmental) and the location of the stenosis (intraspinal central, lateral recess, foraminal) are described. RESULTS: Minimally invasive microscopic or endoscopic decompression procedures enable sufficient widening of the spinal canal. Disadvantages of macrosurgical procedures (e. g., postoperative instability) can be avoided. The complication spectrum overlaps partially with that of macrosurgical interventions, albeit with significantly less marked severity. Subjective patient outcome is clearly improved. CONCLUSIONS: Referring to modern minimally invasive decompression procedures, surgery of lumbar spinal canal stenosis represents a rational and logical treatment alternative, since causal treatment of the pathology is only possible with surgery.

Surgical outcomes of decompressive laminectomy by transspinous approach for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess clinical and radiographical outcomes of transspinous decompression technique for the treatment of degenerative central lumbar spinal stenosis. METHODS: The single-centre, non-randomised interventional, prospective, observational study was conducted Neurosurgery Clinic of Mazhar Osman Research and Training Hospital for Psychiatry and Neurology, Istanbul, Turkey from May 2013 and May 2016 and comprised adult patients with refractory symptoms from degenerative central lumbar spinal stenosis who underwent lumbar spinous processsplitting laminectomy. Pre- and post-operative Oswestry Disability Index score, visual analogue scale for overall pain, maximum walking distance and anteroposterior diameter of the spinal canal on magnetic resonance imaging were assessed on follow up examination. SPSS 22 was used for data analysis. RESULTS: Of the 89 patients, 7(7.86%) were lost to follow-up, while 82(92.14%) completed the study. Of them, 42(51%) were women and 40(49%) were men. Overall mean age was 63.86±10.02 years (range: 40-85 years). A total of 95 transspinous decompressive laminectomies were performed. Mean number of decompressed spinal segments was 1.16. Median duration of surgical procedure was 45 min, while mean length of hospital stay was 1.22±0.47 days. Mean decrease in pre operative Oswestry Disability Index scoreat 1-year was 56.4% and overall visual analogue scale was 55.9%.Mean increase of 155.2% was documented over pre-operative maximum walking distance. Radiological assessment revealed a 40.7% increase in the mean and anteroposteriordiameter of the spinal canal at the level of the target lesion. The improvement in various parameters was statistically significant (p<0.001).. CONCLUSIONS: Lumbar spinous process-splitting laminectomy led to significant improvement with respect to patient-reported perceived recovery, functional disability and radiological evidence of effective surgical decompression in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis..

Does surgical technique influence clinical outcome after lumbar spinal stenosis decompression? A comparative effectiveness study from the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcome of spinal process osteotomy with two other midline-retaining methods, bilateral laminotomy and unilateral laminotomy with crossover, among patients undergoing surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. METHODS: This cohort study was based on data from the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery (NORspine). Patients were operated on between 2009 and 2013 at 31 Norwegian hospitals. The patients completed questionnaires at admission for surgery, and after 3 and 12 months. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were duration of surgery and hospital stay, Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) for back pain and leg pain, and EQ-5D and EQ-VAS. The patients were classified into one of three treatment groups according to the surgery they had received, and a propensity score was utilized to minimize bias. The three treatment groups were divided into subgroups based on Propensity Scores, and the statistical analyses were performed with and within the Propensity Score stratified subgroups. RESULTS: 103 patients had spinal process osteotomy, 966 patients had bilateral laminotomy, and 462 patients had unilateral laminotomy with crossover. Baseline clinical scores were similar in the three groups. There were no differences in improvement after 3 and 12 months between treatment groups. At 12 months, mean ODI improvement was 15.2 (SD 16.7) after spinous process osteotomy, 16.9 (SD 17.0) after bilateral laminotomy, and 16.7 (SD 16.9) after unilateral laminotomy with crossover. There were no differences in the secondary clinical outcomes or complication rates. Mean duration of surgery was greatest for spinal process osteotomy (p < 0.05). Length of stay was 2.1 days (SD 2.1) in the bilateral laminotomy group, 3.5 (SD 2.4) days for unilateral laminotomy, and 6.9 days (SD 4.1) for spinous process osteotomy group (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: In a propensity scored matched cohort, there were no differences in the clinical outcome 12 months after surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis performed using the three different posterior decompression techniques. Bilateral laminotomy had shortest duration of surgery and shortest length of hospital stay. Surgical technique does not seem to affect clinical outcome after three different midline-retaining posterior decompression techniques.