Characterizing utilization patterns and reoperation risk factors of interspinous process devices: analysis of a national claims database.

INTRODUCTION: Interspinous process devices (IPDs) were developed as minimally invasive alternatives to open decompression surgery for spinal stenosis. However, given high treatment failure and reoperation rates, there has been minimal adoption by spine surgeons. This study leveraged a national claims database to characterize national IPD usage patterns and postoperative outcomes after IPD implantation. METHOD: Using the PearlDiver database, we identified all patients who underwent 1- or 2-level IPD implantation between 2010 and 2018. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify predictors of the number of IPD levels implanted and reoperation up to 3 years after the index surgery. Right-censored Kaplan-Meier curves were plotted for duration of reoperation-free survival and compared with log-rank tests. RESULTS: Patients (n = 4865) received 1-level (n = 3246) or 2-level (n = 1619) IPDs. Patients who were older (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.03, P < .001), male (aOR 1.31, 95% CI 116-1.50, P < .001), and obese (aOR 1.19, 95% CI 1.05-1.36, P < .01) were significantly more likely to receive a 2-level IPD than to receive a 1-level IPD. The 3-year reoperation rate was 9.3% of patients when mortality was accounted for during the follow-up period. Older age decreased (aOR 0.97, 95% CI 0.97-0.99, P = .0039) likelihood of reoperation, whereas 1-level IPD (aOR 1.37, 95% CI 1.01-1.89, P = .048), Charlson Comorbidity Index (aOR 1.07, 95% CI 1.01-1.14, P = .018), and performing concomitant open decompression increased the likelihood of reoperation (aOR 1.68, 95% CI 1.35-2.09, P = .0014). CONCLUSION: Compared with 1-level IPDs, 2-level IPDs were implanted more frequently in older, male, and obese patients. The 3-year reoperation rate was 9.3%. Concomitant open decompression with IPD placement was identified as a significant risk factor for subsequent reoperation and warrants future investigation.

A novel endoscope-port unit for lumbar microendoscopic surgery: a single-center case series review.

Minimally invasive spinal surgery has shown benefits not only from a clinical standpoint but also in some cost-effectiveness metrics. Microendoscopic procedures combine optical advantages of endoscopy with the preservation of bimanual surgical maneuvers that are not feasible with full percutaneous endoscopic procedures. TELIGEN is a new endoscopic platform designed to optimize these operations. Our aim was to present a retrospective review of surgical data from the first consecutive cases applying this device in our institution and describe some of its technical details. 25 patients have underwent procedures using this device at our institution to the date, with a mean follow-up of 341.7 ± 45.1 days. 17 decompression-only procedures, including microendoscopic discectomies (MED) and decompression of stenosis (MEDS), with or without foraminotomies (± MEF) and 8 microendoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions (ME-TLIF) were performed. Mean age and body mass index (BMI) were respectively 58.8 ± 17.4 years and 27.6 ± 5.3 kg/m2. Estimated blood loss (13 ± 4.8, 12.8 ± 6.98 and 76.3 ± 35.02 mL), postoperative length of hospital stay (11.2 ± 21.74, 22.1 ± 26.85 and 80.7 ± 44.60 h), operative time (130.3 ± 58.53, 121 ± 33.90 and 241.5 ± 45.27 min) and cumulative intraprocedural radiation dose (14.2 ± 6.36, 15.4 ± 12.17 and 72.8 ± 12.26 mGy) are reported in this paper for MED ± MEF, MEDS ± MEF and ME-TLIF, respectively. TELIGEN affords an expanded surgical field of view with unique engineered benefits that provide a promissing platform to enhance minimally invasive spine surgery.

Impact of causative organism identification on clinical outcomes after minimally invasive posterior fixation for thoracolumbar pyogenic spondylitis: multicenter retrospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the difference in treatment duration and unplanned additional surgeries between patients with unidentified causative organisms on empiric antibiotics and those with identified organisms on selective antibiotics in treating thoracolumbar pyogenic spondylitis with minimally invasive posterior fixation. METHODS: This multicenter retrospective cohort study included patients with thoracolumbar pyogenic spondylitis refractory to conservative treatment who underwent minimally invasive posterior fixation. Patients were divided into the identified (known causative organism) and unidentified groups (unknown causative organism). We analyzed data on demographics, antibiotic use, surgical outcomes, and infection control indicators. RESULTS: We included 74 patients, with 52 (70%) and 22 (30%) in the identified and unidentified groups, respectively. On admission, the identified group had higher C-reactive protein (CRP) levels and more iliopsoas abscesses. The duration to postoperative CRP negative was similar in the identified and unidentified groups (7.13 vs. 6.48 weeks, p = 0.74). Only the identified group had unplanned additional surgeries due to poor infection control, affecting 6 of 52 patients (12%). Advanced age and causative organism identification increased the additional surgery odds (odds ratio [OR], 8.25; p = 0.033 and OR, 6.83; p = 0.034, respectively). CONCLUSION: The use of empiric antibiotics in minimally invasive posterior fixation was effective without identifying the causative organism and did not prolong treatment duration. In patients with identified organisms, 12% required unplanned additional surgery, indicating a more challenging infection control. Causative organism identification was associated with the need for additional surgery, suggesting a more cautious treatment strategy for these patients.

Minimally invasive surgery versus standard posterior approach in the treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a 2-year follow-up retrospective study.

PURPOSE: This is a monocentric retrospective controlled study that compares the safety and efficacy of posterior minimally invasive surgery (MISS) to standard posterior spinal fusion (PSF) surgery in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). METHODS: We retrospectively collected 111 patients with Lenke type 1-6 AIS who were treated with MIS (n = 47) or PSF (n = 64) between February 2019 and January 2021 with a 2-year clinical and radiological follow-up. MIS technique was applied via two midline noncontiguous skin incisions ranging from 3 to 7 cm in length, so we obtained the arthrodesis only in the exposed tract, passing the rods below the fascia, avoiding the complete muscular sparing. Values of Cobb angles degrees were collected to study the correction rate of the structural major curve. Postoperative AP direct radiography and preoperative AP direct radiography were compared with the last follow-up examination. Operative time, preoperative hemoglobin (Hb) and second postoperative day Hb, full length of hospitalization, time to achieve verticalization and time to remove the drainage were recorded. NRS medium score was assessed immediately after surgery and during the whole postoperative rehabilitation treatment to estimate pain reduction. Complications were collected postoperatively and throughout the whole follow-up period. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of radiographic and clinical features. The correction rates of the structural curve resulted to be not significantly different between MISS and PSF (64.6 ± 11.7 vs 60.9 ± 13.2, p = 0.1292) as well as for the correction rate of the secondary curve between the two compared techniques (59.1 ± 13.2 vs 59.2 ± 12.4, p = 0.9865). The two groups had comparable operative time (210 min vs 215 min). The MIS group had a significantly lower reduction of postoperative Hb in comparison with PSF group (2.8 ± 1.3 mg/dl vs 4.3 ± 1.5 mg/dl, p < 0.0001). The postoperative NRS score was lower in MIS group (1.9 ± 0.8 vs 3.3 ± 1.3). PSF group was observed to have a significantly longer period of hospitalization than MIS (5.2 ± 1.4 days vs 6.3 ± 2.9 days, p = 0.206). Complications were more frequent in PSF group rather than in MFS group. CONCLUSIONS: MISS is a safe and capable alternative to PSF for AIS patients with curves < 70°, with analogue capacity of scoliosis correction and same operative time and with advantages in blood loss, length of stay and postoperative pain.

Pedicle screw insertion into infected vertebrae reduces operative time and range of fixation in minimally invasive posterior fixation for thoracolumbar pyogenic spondylitis: a multicenter retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive posterior fixation surgery for pyogenic spondylitis is known to reduce invasiveness and complication rates; however, the outcomes of concomitant insertion of pedicle screws (PS) into the infected vertebrae via the posterior approach are undetermined. This study aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of PS insertion into infected vertebrae in minimally invasive posterior fixation for thoracolumbar pyogenic spondylitis. METHODS: This multicenter retrospective cohort study included 70 patients undergoing minimally invasive posterior fixation for thoracolumbar pyogenic spondylitis across nine institutions. Patients were categorized into insertion and skip groups based on PS insertion into infected vertebrae, and surgical data and postoperative outcomes, particularly unplanned reoperations due to complications, were compared. RESULTS: The mean age of the 70 patients was 72.8 years. The insertion group (n = 36) had shorter operative times (146 versus 195 min, p = 0.032) and a reduced range of fixation (5.4 versus 6.9 vertebrae, p = 0.0009) compared to the skip group (n = 34). Unplanned reoperations occurred in 24% (n = 17) due to surgical site infections (SSI) or implant failure; the incidence was comparable between the groups. Poor infection control necessitating additional anterior surgery was reported in four patients in the skip group. CONCLUSIONS: PS insertion into infected vertebrae during minimally invasive posterior fixation reduces the operative time and range of fixation without increasing the occurrence of unplanned reoperations due to SSI or implant failure. Judicious PS insertion in patients with minimal bone destruction in thoracolumbar pyogenic spondylitis can minimize surgical invasiveness.

Transforaminal lumbar endoscopic discectomy: should we abandon it for L5-S1 foraminal and extraforaminal lumbar disc herniations? A prospective non-randomised study and literature review.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to investigate the clinical outcomes of transforaminal lumbar endoscopic discectomy (TLED) in patients with L5-S1 lumbar disc herniation (LDH). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-five consecutive individuals with diagnosed foraminal/extraforaminal L5-S1 LDH were included in this study. All patients underwent TLED, being subsequently evaluated in a 2-year follow-up period. Assessment was performed preoperatively and at 6 weeks and 3, 6, 12 and 24 months postoperatively. Visual Analogue Scale (distinctly applied for lower limb - VAS-LP and low back - VAS-BP pain) and Short-Form 36 (SF-36) Medical Health Survey Questionnaire were implemented to assess pain and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of enrolled individuals, respectively. RESULTS: No major perioperative complications were observed. Recorded values of all studied indices were demonstrated to feature a clinically and statistically significant amelioration at 6 weeks, presenting lesser improvement at 3 months with subsequent stabilisation. VAS-LP and VAS-BP values were displayed to reach a plateau in 6 months postoperatively, whereas all parameters of SF-36 continued to present a statistically significant improvement until the end of follow-up at 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: TLED represent a safe and efficient technique in terms of diminishing perceived pain and improving HRQoL in patients with L5-S1 LDHs. However, specific patient- and technique-related circumstances on the ground of low surgical experience may limit its effectiveness in these patients.

Percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy for high-grade migrated lumbar disc herniation: clinical efficacy and safety assessment.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to assess the clinical effectiveness and safety of percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) in the management of high-grade migrated Lumbar disc herniation (LDH). METHODS: A total of 328 patients who underwent PEID for high-grade migrated LDH between May 2020 and January 2023 in our hospital were selected. Patients were categorized into high-grade migrated group and low-grade migrated group according to preoperative MRI findings. The preoperative and postoperative evaluations of clinical outcomes, such as Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for lower backs and legs, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and modified MacNab criteria for surgical success, were compared between groups. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were found in hospitalization time, surgery time, intraoperative hemorrhage, number of intraoperative fluoroscopies, or incision length between the two groups. The lower back and leg VAS scores and ODI exhibited a statistically significant decrease in both groups across all postoperative time intervals. However, the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant. Postoperative nerve root stimulation symptoms were reported in two and three cases in the high-grade migrated group and low-grade migrated group, respectively. One patient in the high-grade migrated group underwent reoperation due to re-herniation at the same segment. There was no significant difference in the rate of excellent-good cases between the two groups, with an overall rate of 94.7%. CONCLUSION: In treating high-grade migrated disc herniation, PEID offers advantages such as reduced trauma, small incision, quicker recovery and satisfactory clinical safety and efficacy.

Can We Rely on Prophylactic Two-Level Vertebral Cement Augmentation in Long-Segment Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery to Reduce the Incidence of Proximal Junctional Complications?

Background and Objectives: Proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK) and failure (PJF), the most prevalent complications following long-segment thoracolumbar fusions for adult spinal deformity (ASD), remain lacking in defined preventive measures. We studied whether one of the previously reported strategies with successful results-a prophylactic augmentation of the uppermost instrumented vertebra (UIV) and supra-adjacent vertebra to the UIV (UIV + 1) with polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA)-could also serve as a preventive measure of PJK/PJF in minimally invasive surgery (MIS). Materials and Methods: The study included 29 ASD patients who underwent a combination of minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-LLIF) at L1-2 through L4-5, all-pedicle-screw instrumentation from the lower thoracic spine to the sacrum, S2-alar-iliac fixation, and two-level balloon-assisted PMMA vertebroplasty at the UIV and UIV + 1. Results: With a minimum 3-year follow-up, non-PJK/PJF group accounted for fifteen patients (52%), PJK for eight patients (28%), and PJF requiring surgical revision for six patients (21%). We had a total of seven patients with proximal junctional fracture, even though no patients showed implant/bone interface failure with screw pullout, probably through the effect of PMMA. In contrast to the PJK cohort, six PJF patients all had varying degrees of neurologic deficits from modified Frankel grade C to D3, which recovered to grades D3 and to grade D2 in three patients each, after a revision operation of proximal extension of instrumented fusion with or without neural decompression. None of the possible demographic and radiologic risk factors showed statistical differences between the non-PJK/PJF, PJK, and PJF groups. Conclusions: Compared with the traditional open surgical approach used in the previous studies with a positive result for the prophylactic two-level cement augmentation, the MIS procedures with substantial benefits to patients in terms of less access-related morbidity and less blood loss also provide a greater segmental stability, which, however, may have a negative effect on the development of PJK/PJF.

Mini-open compared with the trans-tubular approach in patients with spinal metastases underwent decompression surgery---a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the perioperative safety and efficacy of the Mini-open and trans-tubular approach in patients with spinal metastases who underwent decompression surgery. METHODS: 37 consecutive patients with spinal metastases who underwent decompression surgery through a Mini-open or trans-tubular approach were retrospectively reviewed between June 2017 and June 2022. Thirty-four patients were included in this study. 19 underwent decompression surgery through the Mini-open approach, and 15 underwent the Trans-tubular approach. T-test and chi-square test were used to evaluate the difference between baseline data and primary and secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics did not differ significantly between Trans-tubular and Mini-open groups except for the Ambulatory status (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in blood loss between the two groups (P = 0.061). Operative time, intraoperative blood transfusion, intraoperative complication (dural tear), and postoperative hospitalization were comparable in the two groups (P > 0.05). The trans-tubular group had significantly less amount of postoperative drainage (133.5 ± 30.9 ml vs. 364.5 ± 64.2 ml, p = 0.003), and the time of drainage (3.1 ± 0.2 days vs. 4.6 ± 0.5 days, p = 0.019) compared with Mini-open group (P < 0.05). Sub-group analysis showed that for patients with hypo-vascular tumors, the Trans-tubular group had significantly less blood loss than the Mini-open group (951.1 ± 171.7 ml vs. 1599.1 ± 105.7 ml, P = 0.026). CONCLUSIONS: Decompression through Mini-open or Trans-tubular was safe and effective for patients with spinal metastases. The trans-tubular approach might be more suitable for patients with hypo-vascular tumors.

Safety and feasibility of ultra-long construct navigated minimally invasive spine surgery with adjuvant radiotherapy in extensive spinal metastasis : a comparative analysis.

BACKGROUND: Our study compares the outcomes of extensive spinal metastasis patients treated with Ultra-Long Construct Navigated Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery (UNMISS) with Adjuvant Radiotherapy to those receiving only radiotherapy. Spinal metastasis often necessitates interventions like radiotherapy, chemotherapy, or surgery, with an increasing trend towards surgical management. minimally invasive spine surgery has demonstrated advantages over traditional open surgery, with fewer complications and better postoperative outcomes. Radiotherapy continues as a standard for those unsuitable for surgery. METHODS: This retrospective study included extensive spinal metastasis patients treated between January 2017 and December 2020. We compared patients undergoing UNMISS in conjunction with radiotherapy to patients receiving radiotherapy alone, evaluating demographic data, disease characteristics, and treatment outcomes (VAS, survival) to establish statistical significance. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients were included in our study. Fourteen patients underwent UNMISS, and nine patients received radiotherapy alone. There was no difference in baseline characteristics of patients. The longest construct in our case series involved T1 to iliac. Both cohorts showed significant improvement in pain scores post-treatment (p = 0.01). However, the UNMISS group demonstrated significantly lower post-treatment VAS scores (p = 0.003), indicating enhanced pain relief. Survival outcomes did not differ significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSION: The UNMISS should be considered as an alternative treatment in a patient with symptomatic extensive spinal metastasis. The primary goal of this technique is to stabilize the multiple levels of spinal metastasis and decompression of the neural element if needed. This technique is safe and has a better outcome in pain improvement than the patient who received radiotherapy alone.

Recurrent or junctional lumbar foraminal herniated disc in patients operated with trans pars microscopic approach.

This is a retrospective monocentric study. The aim of this study is to analyze the incidence of recurrent or junctional lumbar foraminal herniated disc, in patients treated with trans pars microsurgical approach. Foraminal lumbar disc herniation represents a challenging pathology for the spinal surgeon. The appropriate surgical approach still represents a matter of debate. Several open and minimally-invasive techniques have been developed, in order to allow a proper tissue exposure and preserving the vertebral stability. The trans pars approach has already been described as a possible alternative, allowing excellent exposure of the herniated fragment with minimum bone removal. While few studies have analyzed the very low rate of post-operative instability, no articles deal with the incidence of post-operative herniated disc recurrence or junctional disc herniation in patients treated with this technique. We enrolled 160 patients operated at our institution. A univariate and multivariate analysis of possible factors influencing outcome (age, sex, level and BMI) was performed. Outcome variables were recurrent or junctional herniated disc. At the end, 135 patients were analyzed. Of the 135 patients, six presented recurrent herniated disc (4.4%) and other three developed a junctional herniation (2.2%). The occurrence of junctional herniated disc or recurrent herniated disc was not influenced by the analyzed variables, both at univariate and at multivariate analyses. The trans pars approach presents a low rate of recurrence and junctional herniation. Age, sex, level, and BMI do not influence the recurrence rate, both at same level and at junctional level.

Minimally invasive endoscopy in spine surgery: where are we now?

INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic spine surgery (ESS) is a minimally invasive surgical technique that offers comparable efficacy and safety with less collateral damage compared to conventional surgery. To achieve clinical success, it is imperative to stay abreast of technological advancements, modern surgical instruments and technique, and updated evidence. PURPOSES: To provide a comprehensive review and updates of ESS including the nomenclature, technical evolution, bibliometric analysis of evidence, recent changes in the spine communities, the prevailing of biportal endoscopy, and the future of endoscopic spine surgery. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive review of the literature on ESS for the mentioned topics from January 1989 to November 2022. Three major electronic databases were searched, including MEDLINE, Scopus, and Embase. Covidence Systematic Review was used to organize the eligible records. Two independent reviewers screened the articles for relevance. RESULTS: In total, 312 articles were finally included for review. We found various use of nomenclatures in the field of ESS publication. To address this issue, we proposed the use of distinct terms to describe the biportal and uniportal techniques, as well as their specific approaches. In the realm of technical advancement, ESS has rapidly evolved from addressing disc herniation and spinal stenosis to encompassing endoscopic fusion, along with technological innovations such as navigation, robotics, and augmented reality. According to bibliometric analysis, China, South Korea, and the USA have accounted for almost three-quarters of total publications. The studies of the biportal endoscopy are becoming increasingly popular in South Korea where the top ten most-cited articles have been published. The biportal endoscopy technique is relatively simple to adopt, as it relies on a more familiar approach, requires less expensive instruments, has a shorter learning curve, and is also well-suited for interbody fusion. The uniportal approach provided the smallest area of soft tissue dissection. While robotics and augmented reality in ESS are not widely embraced, the use of navigation in ESS is expected to become more streamlined, particularly with the emergence of recent electromagnetic-based navigation technologies. CONCLUSIONS: In this paper, we provide a comprehensive overview of the evolution of ESS, as well as an updated summary of current trends in the field, including the biportal and uniportal approaches. Additionally, we summarize the nomenclature used in ESS, present a bibliometric analysis of the field, and discuss future directions for the advancement of the field.

Endoscopic anterior to psoas lumbar interbody fusion: indications, techniques, and clinical outcomes.

PURPOSE: The retrospective study aimed to report the surgical technique and clinic-radiological outcomes of endoscopic anterior to psoas interbody lumbar fusion through the retroperitoneal approach with direct and indirect decompression. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the results of clinical parameters of patients who underwent endoscopic anterior to psoas interbody lumbar fusion between June 2013 and June 2022. Clinical outcomes were evaluated by the visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores. The radiological outcomes were measured and statistically compared in disc height index (DHI), whole lumbar lordosis (WLL), pelvic Incidence (PI), pelvic tilt (PT), Segmental lordosis (SL), the sagittal vertical axis (SVA). RESULTS: A total of 35 patients were selected for the procedure ranging in age from 51 to 84 years with 17.83 ± 8.85 months follow-up. The mean operation time in lateral position for one level was 162.96 ± 35.76 min (n = 24), and 207.73 ± 66.60 min for two-level fusion. The mean endoscopic time was 32.83 ± 17.71 min per level, with a total estimated blood loss of 230.57 ± 187.22 cc. The mean postoperative VAS back, leg pain score and ODI improved significantly compared to the preoperative values; Radiological data showed significant change in WLL, SL, DHI, PI, PT, and SS; however, there is no significant difference in SVA postoperatively. Subgroup analysis for the radiographic data showed 50 mm length cage has significantly improved for the DHI, SS and SVA compare to 40 mm length cage. The subgroup analysis results showed that hypertensive patients had significantly higher proportion in the incomplete fusion group compare to complete fusion group at one-year follow-up. OUTCOMES: The endoscopic anterior to psoas interbody lumbar fusion achieves satisfactory indirect and direct decompression. This convergent technique presents an effective choice for treating lumbar instability associated with disc herniations and foraminal stenosis, thus complementing the indications for oblique lumbar interbody fusion.

Clinical outcomes and complications after biportal endoscopic spine surgery: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of 3673 cases.

PURPOSE: Current literature suggests that biportal spinal endoscopy is safe and effective in treating lumbar spine pathology such as lumbar disc herniation, lumbar stenosis, and degenerative spondylolisthesis. No prior study has investigated the postoperative outcomes or complication profile of the technique as a whole. This study serves as the first comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of biportal spinal endoscopy in the lumbar spine. METHODS: A PubMed literature search provided over 100 studies. 42 papers were reviewed and 3673 cases were identified with average follow-up time of 12.5 months. Preoperative diagnoses consisted of acute disc herniation (1098), lumbar stenosis (2432), and degenerative spondylolisthesis (229). Demographics, operative details, complications, and perioperative outcome and satisfaction scores were analyzed. RESULTS: Average age was 61.32 years, 48% male. 2402 decompressions, 1056 discectomies, and 261 transforaminal lumbar Interbody fusions (TLIFs) were performed. Surgery was performed on 4376 lumbar levels, with L4-5 being most common(61.3%). 290 total complications occurred, 2.23% durotomies, 1.29% inadequate decompressions, 3.79% epidural hematomas, and < 1% transient nerve root injuries, infections, and iatrogenic instability. Significant improvement in VAS-Back, VAS-Leg, ODI, and Macnab Scores were seen across the cohort. CONCLUSION: Biportal spinal endoscopy is a novel method to address pathology in the lumbar spine with direct visualization through an endoscopic approach. Complications are comparable to previously published rates. Clinical outcomes demonstrate effectiveness. Prospective studies are required to assess the efficacy of the technique as compared to traditional techniques. This study demonstrates that the technique can be successful in the lumbar spine.

Factors associated with incomplete clinical improvement in patients undergoing transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy for lumbar disc herniation.

PURPOSES: To analyze the clinical and radiographic risk factors that might predict incomplete clinical improvement after transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy (TELD). METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted from 194 consecutive patients who underwent TELD due to lumbar disc herniation (LDH). Patients with incomplete clinical improvement were defined from patient-reported outcomes of poor improvement in pain or disability after surgery and patient dissatisfaction. Clinical and radiographic characteristics were evaluated to identify predicting factors of poor outcomes. RESULTS: Of 194 patients who underwent TELD procedures, 32 patients (16.5%) had incomplete clinical improvement and 12 patients (6.1%) required revision surgery. The mean ages were 46.4 years and most of the patients suffered from predominant leg pain (48.9%). The most common surgical level was L4-5 (63.9%). Overall, the Oswestry Disability Index (44.3-15), visual analog scores of back pain (4.9-1.8) and leg pain (7.3-1.6) were significantly improved after surgery. Multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that high body mass index, history of previous surgery, preoperative disability, weakness, and disc degeneration were related to incomplete clinical improvement. There were 15 recurrent LDH (7.7%) with a total of 12 revision surgeries (6.2%). CONCLUSIONS: We identified independent risk factors associated with incomplete clinical improvement following TELD, including overweight, significant preoperative disability or weakness and history of previous surgery. Advanced age, disc degeneration, vacuum phenomenon, and spondylolisthesis were also possible risk factors. Recognizing these risk factors would help decide whether patients are good candidates for TELD, and optimize the surgical planning preoperatively to achieve good surgical results.

Comparison of full-endoscopic and tubular-based microscopic decompression in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: We aimed to demonstrate non-inferiority in terms of functional outcomes in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis who underwent full-endoscopic decompression compared with tubular-based microscopic decompression. METHODS: This prospective, randomized controlled, non-inferiority trial included 60 patients with single-level lumbar spinal stenosis who required decompression surgery. The patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to the full-endoscopic group (FE group) or the tubular-based microscopic group (TM group). Based on intention-to-treat analysis, the primary outcome was the Oswestry Disability Index score at 24 months postoperative. The secondary outcomes included the visual analog scale (VAS) score for back and leg pain, European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) score, walking time, and patient satisfaction rate according to the modified MacNab criteria. Surgery-related outcomes were also analyzed. RESULTS: Of the total patients, 92% (n = 55) completed a 24-month follow-up. The primary outcomes were comparable between the two groups (p = 0.748). However, the FE group showed a statistically significant improvement in the mean VAS score for back pain at day 1 and at 6, 12, and 24 months after surgery (p < 0.05). No significant difference was observed in the VAS score for leg pain, EQ-5D score, or walking time (p > 0.05). Regarding the modified MacNab criteria, 86.7% of patients in the FE group and 83.3% in the TM group had excellent or good results at 24 months after surgery (p = 0.261). Despite the similar results in surgery-related outcomes, including operative time, radiation exposure, revision rate, and complication rate, between the two groups (p > 0.05), less blood loss and shorter length of hospital stay were observed in the FE group (p ≤ 0.001 and 0.011, respectively). CONCLUSION: This study suggests that full-endoscopic decompression is an alternative treatment for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis because it provides non-inferior clinical efficacy and safety compared with tubular-based microscopic surgery. In addition, it offers advantages in terms of less invasive surgery. Trial registration number (TRN): TCTR20191217001.

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.

Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion (XLIF) with Lateral Modular Plate Fixation: Preliminary Report on Clinical and Radiological Outcomes.

The lateral transpsoas approach (extreme lateral interbody fusion, or XLIF) allows surgeons to use various lordotic cage sizes to help restore intervertebral disk height, correct sagittal alignment, and improve fusion rates. The use of standalone devices has consistently raised doubts due to the high risk of complications and inadequate functional recovery that a circumferential arthrodesis can support. The recent introduction of a novel XLIF cage with adapted lateral plate fixation (XLPF) may further enhance the structural rigidity, consolidating the cage and plate into a singular modular entity. Nine patients from our surgical centers underwent a procedure of 1-level XLIF with XLPF in selected cases. We observed that XLPF does not extend the intraoperative footprint and provides immediate rigidity to the anterior column without any additional risk of complications and with minimal increased time compared to the traditional cage implant procedure. Although it has been shown that the use of interbody fusion cages with supplemental posterior fixation improves stabilization in all directions, the technique of standalone lateral cages may also have a place in spine surgery in that the stability may be sufficient in selected cases, such as junctional syndrome and in some forms of degenerative scoliosis.

Percutaneous versus open posterior stabilization and decompression in AOSpine-type A3 thoracolumbar fractures with neurological deficit.

BACKGROUND: This retrospective cohort study aimed to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes between two treatment strategies focusing on non-osteoporotic AOSpine-type A3 fractures of the thoracolumbar spine with neurological deficits at levels T11 to L2. METHODS: In total, 67 patients between 18 and 60 years of age who were treated operatively with either of the two treatment strategies were included. One treatment strategy included open posterior stabilization and decompression, whereas the other was based on percutaneous posterior stabilization and decompression via a tubular retraction system. Demographic data, surgical variables, and further parameters were assessed. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), including the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) impairment score, were measured to assess functional outcomes. The regional Cobb angle (CA), the anterior height ratio of the fractured vertebrae (AHRV), and the degree of canal encroachment (DCE) were assessed. The ASIA score was used to assess neurological function recovery. The follow-up period was at least 12 months. RESULTS: Surgical time and postoperative hospital stay were significantly shorter in the minimally invasive surgery (MIS) group. Intraoperative blood loss was significantly less in the MIS group. Regarding radiological outcome, CA and AHRV at the time of follow-up did not show a significant difference. DCE at the time of follow-up was significantly improved in the MIS group. Lower VAS scores and better ODIs were observed in the MIS group at the 6-month follow-up, but similar outcomes were observed at the 12-month follow-up. The ASIA score was similar between both groups at the 12-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Both treatment strategies are safe and effective; however, MIS could provide earlier pain relief and better functional outcomes compared with OS.

Minimally Invasive Posterior Cervical Fusion: A Handsome Option.

Cervical spondylosis is the leading cause of cervical myelopathy. When surgery is indicated, it is commonly addressed through an anterior or posterior cervical approach, such as cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) or laminectomy and fusion (LMF). Besides their own merits, each one has specific approach- or device-related complications, such as dysphagia, significant postoperative pain, wound infection, adjacent segment degeneration (ASD), and pseudoarthrosis. Through a tissue-sparing minimally invasive technique, posterior cervical fusion (PCF) has shown unfolding compelling evidence of biomechanical stability, good clinical outcomes, and high fusion rates, with fewer complications and better econometrics. On the basis of our own experience, we discuss here the indications, advantages, and drawbacks of minimally invasive PCF.