BACKGROUND Minimally invasive techniques utilizing tubular retractors have become an increasingly popular approach to the spinal column. The concept of a unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD), first applied in the lumbar spine, has recently been applied to the cervical spine for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). A better understanding of the indications and surgical techniques is required to effectively educate surgeons on how to appropriately and safely perform tubular cervical laminotomy via ULBD. OBJECTIVE To describe a 10-step technique for minimally invasive cervical laminotomy and report our early clinical experience. METHODS A retrospective review identified 15 patients with CSM who were treated with this procedure. Visual analogue scale (VAS), neck disability index (NDI), and modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA) scores were obtained pre- and postoperatively. RESULTS The mean age of the 15 patients was 73.1 ± 6.8 yr. The median number of levels treated was 1 (range 1-3). Mean operative time was 125.3 ± 30.8 or 81.7 ± 19.2 min per level. Mean estimated blood loss was 57.3 ± 24.6 cc. Median postoperative hospital length of stay was 36 h. No complications were encountered. Median follow-up was 18 mo. Mean pre- and postoperative VAS were 6.4 ± 2.4 and 1.0 ± 0.8, respectively (P < .001). Mean pre- and postoperative NDI were 46.4 ± 19.2 and 7.0 ± 6.9, respectively (P < .001). Mean pre- and postoperative Mjoa were 11.3 ± 2.5 and 14.5 ± 0.5, respectively (P < .001). CONCLUSION In our early clinical experience, minimally invasive cervical ULBD is safe and effective. Adherence to the presented 10-step technique will allow surgeons to safely address bilateral cervical pathology while avoiding complications.
Background: Incidental dural tears during lumbar endoscopy can be challenging to manage. There is limited literature on their appropriate management, risk factors, and the clinical consequences of this typically uncommon complication.Materials and Methods: To improve the statistical power of studying durotomy with lumbar endoscopy, we performed a retrospective survey study among endoscopic spine surgeons by email and chat groups on social media networks, including WhatsApp and WeChat. Descriptive and correlative statistics were done on the surgeons' recorded responses to multiple-choice questions. Surgeons were asked about their clinical experience with spinal endoscopy, training background, the types of lumbar endoscopic decompression they perform by approach, the decompression instruments they use, and incidental durotomy incidence with routine lumbar endoscopy.Results: There were 689 dural tears in 64 470 lumbar endoscopies, resulting in an incidental durotomy incidence of 1.07%. Seventy percent of the durotomies were reported by 20.4% of the surgeons. Eliminating these 19 outlier surgeons yielded an adjusted durotomy rate of 0.32. Endoscopic stenosis decompression (54.8%; P , .0001), rather than endoscopic discectomy (44.1%; 41/93), was significantly more associated with durotomy. Medium-sized dural tears (1-10 mm) were the most common (52.2%; 48/93). Small pinhole durotomies (less than 1 mm) were the second most common type (46.7%; 43/93). Rootlet herniations were seen by 46.2% (43/93) of responding surgeons. The posterior dural sac injury during the interlaminar approach (57%; 53/93) occurred more frequently than traversing nerve-root injuries (31.2%) or anterior dural sac (23.7%; 22/93). Exiting nerve-root injuries (10.8%;10/93) were less common. Over half of surgeons did not attempt any repair or closure (52.2%; 47/90). Forty percent (36/90) used sealants. Only 7.8% (7/ 90) of surgeons attempted an endoscopic repair or sutures (11.1%; 10/90). DuralSeal was the most commonly used brand of commercially available sealant used (42.7%; 35/82). However, other sealants such as Tisseal (15.9%; 13/82), Evicel (2.4%2/82), and additional no-brand sealants (38; 32/82) were also used. Nearly half of the patients (48.3%; 43/ 89) were treated with 24-48 hours of bed rest. The majority of participating surgeons (64%; 57/89) reported that the long-term outcome was unaffected. Only 18% of surgeons reported having seen the development of a postoperative cerebrospinal fluid (CSF)-fistula (18%;16/89). However, the absolute incidence of CSF fistula was only 0.025% (16/ 64 470). Severe radiculopathy with dysesthesia; sensory loss; and motor weakness in association with an incidental durotomy were reported by 12.4% (11/89), 3.4% (3/89), and 2.2% (2/89) of surgeons, respectively.Conclusions: The incidence of dural tears with lumbar endoscopy is about 1%. The incidence of durotomy is higher with the use of power drills and the interlaminar approach. Stenosis decompression that typically requires the more aggressive use of these po...
Background: Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) has become one of the standard techniques for approaching ipsilateral decompression, anterior column fusion, and posterior stabilization. This procedure is usually accompanied by the placement of bilateral transpedicular screws in the corresponding segment. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy of unilateral screw fixation compared with bilateral fixation in patients diagnosed with low-grade symptomatic lumbar spondylolisthesis who underwent an MI-TLIF technique.Methods: A prospective and comparative study was performed in 67 patients with grade 1 symptomatic lumbar spondylolisthesis. The sample was allocated on both unilateral fixation group (n=33) and bilateral fixation group (n=34). Clinical outcomes were evaluated using Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analogue scale (VAS) for leg and back pain, and Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36), preoperatively, and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Changes over time and differences between the groups were analyzed. Statistical analyses included: Friedman test, Student's t-test and Mann-Whitney's U. A two-tailed P value of <0.05 was considered significant.Results: During 1-year of evaluation there were no significant clinical differences between both groups.Conclusions: Patients with grade 1 symptomatic lumbar spondylolisthesis treated with MI-TLIF with unilateral screw fixation had similar clinical results than those treated with bilateral fixation at 12 months postoperatively.
The main goal of improving pain and neurological deficit in the practice of spine surgery is changing for a more ambitious goal, namely to improve the overall quality of life and the future of patients through three major actions (1) preserving the vertebral anatomical structures; (2) preserving the paravertebral anatomical structures; and (3) preserving the functionality of the segment. Thus, three new concepts have emerged (a) minimal surgery; (b) minimal access surgery; and (c) motion preservation surgery. These concepts are covered in a new term, minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) The term "MISS" is not about one or several particular surgical techniques, but a new way of thinking, a new philosophy. Although the development of minimally invasive spine surgery is recent, its application includes all spine segments and almost all the existing conditions, including deformities.Evidence-based medicine (EBM), a term coined by Alvan Feinstein in the 1960s (Feinstein A (1964) Annals of Internal Medicine 61: 564-579; Feinstein A (1964) Annals of Internal Medicine 61: 757-781; Feinstein A (1964) Annals of Internal Medicine 61: 944-965; Feinstein A (1964) Annals of Internal Medicine 61: 1162-1193.), emphasizes the possibility of combining art and science following the strict application of scientific methods in the treatment of patients (Feinstein A (1964) Annals of Internal Medicine 61: 944-965; Feinstein A (1964) Annals of Internal Medicine 61: 1162-1193.), which may represent the advantages of objectivity and rationality in the use of different treatments (Fig. 11). However, EBM has many obvious defects, especially in spine surgery it is almost impossible to develop double-blind protocols (Andersson G, Bridwell K, Danielsson A, et al (2007) Spine 32: S64-S65.). In most cases, the only evidence one can find in the literature is the lack of evidence (Resnick D (2007) Spine 32:S15-S19.), however, the lack of evidence does not mean its absence. Only then, with a rigorous self-analysis, we may take a clear path towards a new philosophy in spine surgery. Of course, feedback from patients through satisfaction and clinical scales can guide our direction and provide the energy needed to maintain the enthusiasm (Fig. 12).
Various minimally invasive techniques have been reported as an alternative to conventional lumbar decompression. The major advantage of these minimally invasive procedures lies in their reduction of unnecessary exposure and tissue trauma. Our objective was to describe a minimally invasive procedure for lumbar spinal stenosis decompression by enlarging the lumbar interspinous space, approaching it with a tubular retractor, and assisting with microscopy. Thoracolumbar fascia and paravertebral muscles are preserved throughout the whole procedure. Iatrogenic instability of the spine can be avoided if during the procedure both joints are just undercut in order to decompress the subarticular space. The approach described in this manuscript could be used as an alternate minimally invasive surgical procedure for the treatment of central and lateral lumbar spinal stenosis.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
334 Leonard St
Brooklyn, NY 11211
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.