ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) with bilateral decompression via unilateral approach and bilateral decompression via bilateral approaches in the treatment of single-segment lumbar spinal stenosis.MethodsBetween February 2015 and January 2017, 70 cases of single-segment lumbar spinal stenosis were treated with MIS-TLIF. The bilateral decompression via unilateral approach (group U) was performed in 36 cases and bilateral decompression via bilateral approaches (group B) in 34 cases. There was no significant difference in age, gender, body mass index, disease duration, distribution of responsibility segments, preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score of low back pain and leg pain and Oswestry disability index (ODI) score (P>0.05). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, hospitalization stay after operation, complications related to operation, incidence of asymptomatic lateral root symptoms, VAS scores of low back pain and leg pain, and ODI score before and after operation were compared between the two groups. X-ray film and CT scan at 12 months after operation were used to assessted the intervertebral bony fusion.ResultsThe operation time and intraoperative blood loss in group U were significantly less than those in group B (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in hospitalization stay after operation between the two groups (t=–0.311, P=0.757). During the operation, 1 case in group U and 2 cases in group B had dural tear. No screw placement related nerve injury or asymptomatic lateral root symptoms occurred after operation. The patients were followed up 24 to 38 months, with an average of 32.8 months in group U and 35.5 months in group B. The VAS scores of low back pain and leg pain at 2 days, 3, 6, and 12 months after operation were significantly lower than that before operation in the two groups (P<0.05), and there was no significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05). The ODI scores at 3, 6 and 12 months after operation were significantly lower than that before operation in the two groups (P<0.05), and there was no significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05). Radiographic examination showed interbody fusion at 12 months after operation in the two groups.ConclusionMIS-TLIF is safe and effective in the treatment of single-segment lumbar spinal stenosis with bilateral decompression via unilateral approach and bilateral decompression via bilateral approaches. Bilateral decompression via unilateral approach takes less operation time and has less intraoperative blood loss.
ObjectiveTo evaluate early effectiveness of posterior 180-degree decompression via unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) combined with Michigan State University (MSU)-1 lumbar disc herniation (LDH). MethodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on clinical data from 33 patients with LSS combined with MSU-1 LDH, who met selection criteria and were treated between March 2022 and January 2024. All patients underwent UBE-assisted 180-degree spinal canal decompression. The cohort comprised 17 males and 16 females, aged 37-82 years (mean, 67.1 years). Preoperative presentations included bilateral lower limbs intermittent claudication and radiating pain, with disease duration ranging from 5 to 13 months (mean, 8.5 months). Affected segments included L3, 4 in 4 cases, L4, 5 in 28 cases, and L5, S1 in 1 case. LSS was rated as Schizas grade A in 4 cases, grade B in 5 cases, grade C in 13 cases, and grade D in 11 cases. LDH was categorized as MSU-1A in 24 cases, MSU-1B in 2 cases, and MSU-1AB in 7 cases. Intraoperative parameters (operation time, blood loss) and postoperative hospitalization length were recorded. The visual analogue scale (VAS) score and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were used to assess the lower limb pain and functional outcomes after operation. Clinical efficacy was evaluated at last follow-up via modified MacNab criteria. Quantitative radiological assessments included dural sac cross-sectional area (DSCA) measurements and spinal stenosis grading on lumbar MRI. Morphological classification of lumbar canal stenosis was determined according to the Schizas grading, categorized into four grades. Results The operation time was 60.4-90.8 minutes (mean, 80.3 minutes) and intraoperative blood loss was 13-47 mL (mean, 29.9 mL). The postoperative hospitalization length was 3-5 days (mean, 3.8 days). All patients were followed up 12-16 months (mean, 13.8 months). The VAS score and ODI improved at immediate and 3, 6, and 12 months after operation compared to before operation, and the differences between different time points were significant (P<0.05). At last follow-up, the clinical efficacy assessed by the modified MacNab criteria were graded as excellent in 23 cases, good in 9 cases, and poor in 1 case, with an excellent and good rate of 96.97%. Postoperative lumbar MRI revealed the significant decompression of the dural sac in 32 cases, with 1 case showing inadequate dural expansion. DSCA measurements confirmed progressive enlargement and stenosis reduction over time. The differences were significant (P<0.05) before operation, immediately after operation, and at 6 months after operation. At 6 months after operation, Schizas grading of spinal stenosis improved to grade A in 27 cases and grade B in 6 cases. ConclusionPosterior 180-degree decompression via UBE is a safe and feasible strategy for treating LSS combined with MSU-1 LDH, achieving effective neural decompression while preserving intervertebral disc integrity.
Objective To compare the effectiveness of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (UBE-TLIF) and endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) in the treatment of single-segment degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with lumbar spondylolisthesis. Methods Between November 2019 and May 2023, a total of 81 patients with single-segment degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with lumbar spondylolisthesis who met the selection criteria were enrolled. They were randomly divided into UBE-TLIF group (39 cases) and Endo-TLIF group (42 cases). There was no significant difference in baseline data between the two groups (P>0.05), including gender, age, body mass index, surgical segment, and preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for low back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and serum markers including creatine kinase (CK) and C reactive protein (CRP). Total blood loss (TBL), intraoperative blood loss, hidden blood loss (HBL), postoperative drainage volume, and operation time were recorded and compared between the two groups. Serum markers (CK, CRP) levels were compared between the two groups at 1 day before operation and 1, 3, and 5 days after operation. Furthermore, the VAS scores for low back and leg pain, and ODI at 1 day before operation and 1 day, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after operation, and intervertebral fusion rate at 12 months after operation were compared between the two groups. Results All surgeries were completed successfully without occurrence of incision infection, vascular or nerve injury, epidural hematoma, dural tear, or postoperative paraplegia. The operation time in UBE-TLIF group was significantly shorter than that in Endo-TLIF group, but the intraoperative blood loss, TBL, and HBL in UBE-TLIF group were significantly more than those in Endo-TLIF group (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in postoperative drainage volume between the two groups (P>0.05). The levels of CK at 1 day and 3 days after operation and CRP at 1, 3, and 5 days after operation in UBE-TLIF group were slightly higher than those in the Endo-TLIF group (P<0.05), while there was no significant difference in the levels of CK and CPR between the two groups at other time points (P>0.05). All patients were followed up 12 months. VAS score of low back and leg pain and ODI at each time point after operation significantly improved when compared with those before operation in the two groups (P<0.05); there was no significant difference in VAS score of low back and leg pain and ODI between the two groups at each time point after operation (P>0.05). There was no significant difference in the intervertebral fusion rate between the two groups at 12 months after operation (P>0.05). ConclusionUBE-TLIF and Endo-TLIF are both effective methods for treating degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with lumbar spondylolisthesis. However, compared to Endo-TLIF, UBE-TLIF requires further improvement in minimally invasive techniques to reduce tissue trauma and blood loss.
ObjectiveTo investigate the effect of body mass index (BMI) on the outcome of posterior 360° fusion for single-level lumbar degenerative diseases. MethodsA retrospective study was carried on 302 cases of singlelevel lumbar degenerative diseases treated with posterior 360° fusion between September 2009 and September 2013. All patients were divided into 3 groups according to BMI: normal weight (BMI<24 kg/m2) in 105 cases (group A), overweight (24 kg/m2≤BMI< 28 kg/m2) in 108 cases (group B), and obese (BMI≥28 kg/m2) in 89 cases (group C). There was no significant difference in gender, age, disease duration, disease patterns, affected segments, preoperative Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score and Oswestry disability index (ODI) among 3 groups (P>0.05). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, and complications were recorded. The lumbar function was assessed by JOA score and ODI at pre- and post-operation (at 3, 6, and 24 months). ResultsThe operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative hospital stay of group C were significantly more than those of groups A and B (P<0.05), but no significant difference was found between group A and group B (P>0.05). The patients were followed up 24-45 months. Postoperative JOA score and ODI showed significant improvements in each group when compared with preoperative ones (P<0.05), but there was no significant difference among groups at each time point after operation (P>0.05). There was no significant difference in the incidence of total complications among 3 groups (χ2=3.288, P=0.193). The incidence of incision-related complications (infection and poor healing) in group C was significantly higher than that of groups A and B (P<0.05), but no significant difference was shown between group A and group B (P>0.05). However, there was no significant difference in cerebrospinal fluid leak, pseudarthrosis formation, and revision among 3 groups (P>0.05). ConclusionPosterior 360° fusion for single-level lumbar degenerative diseases can obtain good effectiveness in patients with different BMI, but patients whose BMI was ≥28 kg/m2 have longer operation time, more intraoperative blood loss, longer hospital stay, and higher incidence of postoperative incision-related complications.
Objective To compare the effectiveness between unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) and endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) in treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis combined with intervertebral disc herniation. Methods A clinical data of 64 patients with lumbar spinal stenosis and intervertebral disc herniation, who were admitted between April 2020 and November 2021 and met the selection criteria, was retrospectively analyzed. Among them, 30 patients were treated with ULIF (ULIF group) and 34 patients with Endo-TLIF (Endo-TLIF group). There was no significant difference in baseline data such as gender, age, disease duration, lesion segment, preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score of low back pain and leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), spinal canal area, and intervertebral space height between the two groups (P>0.05). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, hospital stays, and postoperative complications were compared between the two groups, as well as the VAS scores of low back pain and leg pain, ODI, and imaging measurement indicators (spinal canal area, intervertebral bone graft area, intervertebral space height, and degree of intervertebral fusion according to modified Brantigan score). Results Compared with the Endo-TLIF group, the ULIF group had shorter operation time, but had more intraoperative blood loss and longer hospital stays, with significant differences (P<0.05). The cerebrospinal fluid leakage occurred in 2 cases of Endo-TLIF group and 1 case of ULIF group, and no other complication occurred. There was no significant difference in the incidence of complications between the two groups (P>0.05). All patients in the two groups were followed up 12 months. The VAS scores of lower back pain and leg pain and ODI in the two groups significantly improved when compared with those before operation (P<0.05), and there was no significant difference between different time points after operation (P>0.05). And there was no significant difference between the two groups at each time point after operation (P>0.05). Imaging examination showed that there was no significant difference between the two groups in the change of spinal canal area, the change of intervertebral space height, and intervertebral fusion rate at 6 and 12 months (P>0.05). The intervertebral bone graft area in the ULIF group was significantly larger than that in the Endo-TLIF group (P<0.05). ConclusionFor the patients with lumbar spinal stenosis combined with intervertebral disc herniation, ULIF not only achieves similar effectiveness as Endo-TLIF, but also has advantages such as higher decompression efficiency, flexible surgical instrument operation, more thorough intraoperative intervertebral space management, and shorter operation time.
Objective To evaluate the clinical outcomes ofa surgical approach for decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis, which was featured with reconstruction of posterior spinal structures and epidural space by spinous process-splitting, less osteotomy, laminar flap and keeping spinal process, lamina, outer ligmentum flavum intact. Methods From October 2001 to April 2003, 39 patients (19 males and 20 females, aging 36 to 77 years with a mean age of 49.6 years with lumbar stenosis underwent the surgical decompression procedure with reconstruction of posterior canal structures and epidural space. The involved locations were L3,4 to L5S1(5 cases),L4,5 to L5S1(18 cases), L4,5(11 cases) and L5S1(5 cases). The course of disease was 3 months to 16 years (40.4 months on average). The clinical outcomes after 1 year of operation Results All patients were followed up from 18 to 36 months. No intraoperative and postoperative complications were observed and all patients were satisfactory with the surgery. Computerized tomography showed that spinal and nerve root canal were satisfactorily enlarged 1 week postoperatively in all cases. Fusion of lamina and spinous process were detected on CT in 87.2% patients (34/39) 3 months after operation. No patients presented re-stenosis of lumbar spine and all patients presented bony fusion 1 year after surgery. Conclusion The approach of the current study was a reliable and effective method in the management of lumbar stenosis, it preserved thecontinuity of spinal process, interspinous ligaments, lamina and ligmentumn flavum and integrality of posterior spinal structures and epidural space. The integrity of the psoterior spinal structures can prevent the scar formation and improve the stability of lmbar spine postoperatively.
Objective To discuss the main points of technique and the range of fusion in posterior operation of spinal stenosis associated with lumbar degenerative kyphosis (LDK). Methods The cl inical data were retrospectively analysedfrom 20 cases of spinal stenosis associated with LDK which were performed posterior operation from February 2001 to February 2008. There were 1 male and 19 females, aged 52-81 years old with an average of 64 years old. The course of disease was 6-10 years. All patients had severe low back pain. According to Frankel’s neurologic function classification, there were 18 cases of grade E and 2 cases of grade D before operation. The apex of LDK included L1 in 3 cases, L2 in 10 and L3 in 7. The operational method was decided according to different characteristics of LDK. All patients were divided into three groups. Group 1 included 6 cases of sciatica and intermittent claudication with worse physical status, the segmental decompression of spinal canal, posterior intervertebral fusion and short transpedical instrument fixation were performed. Group 2 included 8 cases whose Cobb angle of LDK was less than 20°, the segmental decompression of spinal canal, posterior intervertebral fusion and one-level or multilevel lamina osteotomy were performed, instrumentation-assisted correction was used. Group 3 included 6 cases whose Cobb angle of LDK was more than 20°, the canal decompression and one-level transvertebral wedge osteotomy were performed, instrumentation-assisted correction, intervertebral fusion and posterior-lateral fusion were used. Results Incision healedby first intention in all patients. One patient suffered from superior mesenteric artery syndrome at 6 hours after operationand healed after symptomatic management. The neurologic function was improved to grade E at 2 weeks after opeartion. All patients were followed-up 24-54 months (average 26 months). At last follow-up，the Oswestry Disabil ity Index of all patients was 30.5% ± 9.6%; showing significant difference when compared with preoperation (55.9% ± 11.8%, P lt; 0.05). The back pain scoring and leg pain scoring were 2.8 ± 1.6 and 2.4 ± 1.6, respectively according to the Numeric Rating Scale score; showing significant differences when compared with preoperation (7.5 ± 0.5 and 7.3 ± 0.7, P lt; 0.05). The Numeric Rating Scale score and Oswestry Disabil ity Index in all patients were improved obviously when compared with before operation (P lt; 0.05). During the follow-up period, there was no instrumentation failure or correction loss and the fusion rate was up to 100%. Conclusion For spinal stenosis associated with LDK patients, the most important therapic purpose is to improve cl inical symptom through reconstruction lumbar stabil ization and spinal biomechanics l ine in sagittal plane. Overall estimate of the cl inical appearance and imageology character is necessary when making decision of which segments needed to be fixation and fusion. Individual ized treatment strategy may be the best choice.
Objective To investigate the technique and effectiveness of modified laminoplasty for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) and to explore the application value of modified laminoplasty in maintaining the stability of the spine by comparing with the conventional laminectomy. Methods Fifty-six patients with LSS were included between June 2012 and July 2013, and they were divided into 2 groups: 27 patients underwent modified laminoplasty in group A, and 29 patients received conventional laminectomy in group B. There was no significant difference in sex, age, disease duration, narrow segment, visual analogue scale (VAS) score of low back pain and leg pain, Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, and walking tolerance between 2 groups (P > 0.05). The postoperative VAS score of low back pain and leg pain, JOA score, walking tolerance, X-ray film, and CT were used to evaluate the clinical results. Results Dural tear occurred in 2?cases of group A and 1 case of group B and were repaired during operation. All incisions primarily healed without infection. The patients were followed up 24-31 months (mean, 24.7 months) in group A, and 24-37 months (mean, 26.2 months) in group B. The bone healing time was 6-12 months (mean, 9 months) in group A. CT showed healing at the junction of spinous process and vertebral plate in group A at 12 months after operation; new scar in varying degre es was observed in group B. At last follow-up, lumbar spondylolisthesis and instability occurred in 4?and 2 cases of group B respectively, and received re-operation. The change value of slip distance was (0.27±0.23) mm in group A and was (0.83±1.22) mm in group B, showing significant difference (t=-2.405, P=0.023). The postoperative JOA score, VAS score, and walking tolerance were significantly improved when compared with preoperative ones in 2 groups (P < 0.05).?At?last follow-up, group A was better than group B in VAS score of low back pain (P < 0.05), but no significant?difference?was?found in the other indexes between 2 groups (P > 0.05). Conclusion The modified laminoplasty?is better than the conventional laminectomy in relieving low back pain and maintaining the stability of the lumbar spine.
Objective To compare microendoscopic discectomy (MED) with open discectomy (OD) for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis in terms of cl inical outcomes, and provide experience and therapeutic evidence for cl inical appl ication.Methods From May 2002 to October 2007, 215 patients with lumbar spinal stenosis were randomized into two groups, and underwent either MED or OD. In group A, 105 patients underwent MED, including 56 males and 49 females aged 34 to 83 years old (average 45 years old); the duration of the disease ranged from 9 months to 26 years (average 50 months); the spinal stenosis involved one segment in 76 cases, two segments in 27 cases, and three segments in 2 cases. In group B, 110 patients received OD, including 57 males and 53 females aged 35 to 85 years old (average 47 years old); the duration of the disease ranged from 8 months to 25 years (average 48 months); the spinal stenosis involved one segment in 78 cases, two segments in 29 cases, and three segments in 3 cases. No significant difference was evident between two groups in terms of the general information(P gt; 0.05). Results Operation was successfully performed in all cases. Volume of intraoperative blood loss was (82.14 ± 6.18) mL in group A and (149.24 ± 11.17) mL in group B. Length of hospital stay was (7.0 ± 2.1) days in group A and (12.0 ± 2.6) days in group B. Significant difference was noted between two groups in terms of the above parameters (P lt; 0.01). All the wounds healed by first intention. The patients were followed up for 13-54 months (average 27 months) in group A and 12-55 months (average29 months) in group B. Four patients in each group suffered from spinal dural rupture during operation and recovered after corresponding treatment. Three patients in group B had lumbar instabil ity 3 years after operation and recovered using lumbar interbody fusion combined with general spine system internal fixation. No such compl ications as wrong orientation, nerve root injury, cauda equina injury and infection occurred in each group, and radiology exam showed no relapse. Therapeutic effect was evaluated by Nakai standard, 52 cases in group A were graded as excellent, 45 as good, 7 as fair, 1 as poor, and the excellent and good rate was 92.4%; 53 cases in group B were graded as excellent, 48 as good, 8 as fair, 1 as poor, and the excellent and good rate was 91.8%; there was no significant difference between two groups (P gt; 0.05). Conclusion Two methods have the similar therapeutic effect, but MED el iminates the shortcomings of traditional OD, so it is one of ideal minimally invasive operative approaches for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.
ObjectiveTo investigate the clinical results and complication prevention of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) in the treatment of single-segment severe lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).MethodsThe clinical data of 112 patients with severe LSS treated with MIS-TLIF between January 2010 and January 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. There were 43 males and 69 females, aged 52-81 years, with an average age of 65.3 years. The disease duration ranged from 4 to 126 months, with an average of 10.5 months. Clinical manifestations: 104 cases of low back pain, 91 cases of nervous intermittent claudication of both lower limbs, 21 cases of unilateral nerve root pain and/or numbness, and 5 cases of cauda equina nerve injury. The 112 cases were all severe central spinal stenosis, including 32 cases with lateral recess stenosis, 20 cases with foramen stenosis, 9 cases with ossification of ligamentum flavum, 38 cases with disc herniation; 14 cases with two complications and 5 cases with three. Stenosis segment: L3, 4 in 6 cases, L4, 5 in 89 cases, and L5, S1 in 17 cases. Surgical methods included bilateral decompression through bilateral approach (60 cases), bilateral decompression through unilateral approach (15 cases), and unilateral decompression (37 cases). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, visual analogue scale (VAS) score of low back pain and leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI) score, fusion rate, and surgical complications were recorded. At last follow-up, the lumbar fusion was evaluated by Bridwell method, grades Ⅰ and Ⅱ were expressed as fusion.ResultsThe operation time was 83-186 minutes (mean, 126.8 minutes), and the intraoperative blood loss was 65-630 mL (mean, 163.1 mL). All the 112 patients were followed up 25-49 months, with an average of 35.1 months. The VAS score of low back pain and leg pain and ODI score at each time point after operation were significantly improved when compared with preoperative scores (P<0.05). There was no significant difference between the VAS score of low back pain and leg pain and ODI score at the other time points except 1 month after operation (P<0.05). At last follow-up, 2 cases of cauda equina nerve injury recovered and 3 cases partially recovered. According to Bridwell classification criteria, 58 cases were grade Ⅰ, 47 cases were grade Ⅱ, and 7 cases were grade Ⅲ. The fusion rate was 93.8%. Perioperative complications included 5 cases of incision complications (superficial infection in 3 cases, hematoma formation in 2 cases), 19 cases of internal fixator complications (intraoperative end plate fracture in 8 cases, fusion cage sinking in 11 cases at last follow-up), and 15 cases of neurological complications (dural sac tear in 10 cases, transient neurological symptoms of lower extremities aggravated in 5 cases). Conclusion MIS-TLIF treatment of single-level severe LSS can achieve good clinical results, while there is a risk of serious complications. Full understanding of the clinical and imaging features of the disease and reasonable and careful operation are helpful to control the occurrence of cauda equina nerve damage.