Research progress of different minimally invasive spinal decompression in lumbar spinal stenosis / 中国修复重建外科杂志

OBJECTIVE@#To review the application and progress of different minimally invasive spinal decompression in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).@*METHODS@#The domestic and foreign literature on the application of different minimally invasive spinal decompression in the treatment of LSS was extensively reviewed, and the advantages, disadvantages, and complications of different surgical methods were summarized.@*RESULTS@#At present, minimally invasive spinal decompression mainly includes microscopic bilateral decompression, microendoscopic decompression, percutaneous endoscopic lumbar decompression, unilateral biportal endoscopy, and so on. Compared with traditional open surgery, different minimally invasive spinal decompression techniques can reduce the operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative pain of patients, thereby reducing hospital stay and saving treatment costs.@*CONCLUSION@#The indications of different minimally invasive spinal decompression are different, but there are certain advantages and disadvantages. When patients have clear surgical indications, individualized treatment plans should be formulated according to the symptoms and signs of patients, combined with imaging manifestations.

Early-effectiveness of unilateral biportal endoscopic laminectomy in treatment of two-level lumbar spinal stenosis / 中国修复重建外科杂志

OBJECTIVE@#To analyze the early effectiveness of unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) laminectomy in the treatment of two-level lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).@*METHODS@#The clinical data of 98 patients with two-level LSS treated with UBE between September 2020 and December 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. There were 53 males and 45 females with an average age of 59.9 years (range, 32-79 years). Among them, there were 56 cases of mixed spinal stenosis, 23 cases of central spinal canal stenosis, and 19 cases of nerve root canal stenosis. The duration of symptoms was 1.5- 10 years, with an average of 5.4 years. The operative segments were L 2, 3 and L 3, 4 in 2 cases, L 3, 4 and L 4, 5 in 29 cases, L 4, 5 and L 5, S 1 in 67 cases. All patients had different degrees of low back pain, among of which 76 cases were with unilateral lower extremity symptoms and 22 cases were with bilateral lower extremity symptoms. There were 29 cases of bilateral decompression in both segments, 63 cases of unilateral decompression in both segments, and 6 cases of unilateral decompression and bilateral decompression of each segment. The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, total incision length, hospitalization stay, ambulation time, and related complications were recorded. Visual analogue scale (VAS) score was used to assess the low back and leg pain before operation and at 3 days, 3 months after operation, and at last follow-up. The Oswestry disability index (ODI) was used to evaluate the functional recovery of lumbar spine before operation and at 3 months and last follow-up after operation. Modified MacNab criteria was used to evaluate clinical outcomes at last follow-up. Imaging examinations were performed before and after operation to measure the preservation rate of articular process, modified Pfirrmann scale, disc height (DH), lumbar lordosis angle (LLA), and cross-sectional area of the canal (CAC), and the CAC improvement rate was calculated.@*RESULTS@#All patients underwent surgery successfully. The operation time was (106.7±25.1) minutes, the intraoperative blood loss was (67.7±14.2) mL, and the total incision length was (3.2±0.4) cm. The hospitalization stay was 8 (7, 9) days, and the ambulation time was 3 (3, 4) days. All the wounds healed by first intention. Dural tear occurred in 1 case during operation, and mild headache occurred in 1 case after operation. All patients were followed up 13-28 months with an average of 19.3 months, and there was no recurrence or reoperation during the follow-up. At last follow-up, the preservation rate of articular process was 84.7%±7.3%. The modified Pfirrmann scale and DH were significantly different from those before operation ( P<0.05), while the LLA was not significantly different from that before operation ( P=0.050). The CAC significantly improved ( P<0.05), and the CAC improvement rate was 108.1%±17.8%. The VAS scores of low back pain and leg pain and ODI at each time point after operation significantly improved when compared with those before operation, and the differences between each time points were significant ( P<0.05). According to the modified MacNab criteria, 63 cases were excellent, 25 cases were good, and 10 cases were fair, with an excellent and good rate of 89.8%.@*CONCLUSION@#UBE laminectomy is a safe and effective technique with little trauma and fast recovery for two-level LSS and the early effectiveness is satisfactory.

Comparison of effectiveness between unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion and endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis combined with intervertebral disc herniation / 中国修复重建外科杂志

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).@*CONCLUSION@#For 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.

Clinical efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopy versus microendoscopic discectomy in treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: a Meta-analysis / 中华创伤骨科杂志

Objective:To compare the efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) and microendoscopic discectomy (MED) in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis by Meta-analysis.Methods:PubMed, Web of Science, CNKI and Wanfang Data were searched from their establishment to January 2021 for all the studies on UBE and MED in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. The data extracted were authors, year of publication, study design, subject characteristics, sample size, surgical protocol, age, sex ratio, duration of surgery, length of hospital stay, complications, visual analogue scale (VAS), and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). The Meta-analysis was conducted with software Revman 5.3 to analyze the operation time, hospital stay, complication rate, waist and lower extremity VAS scores and ODI scores at preoperation, early postoperation and the last follow-up. The quality of the case-control studies included was evaluated using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS) while the methodological quality and risk of bias of the randomized controlled studies (RCT) included were evaluated using the Cochrane Bias Risk Assessment Tool.Results:Finally, 7 studies were included, 6 in English and one in Chinese. There were 2 RCTs and 5 case-control studies. There were 251 patients in the UBE group and 224 patients in the MED group. Compared with the MED group, the UBE group had a significantly shorter hospital stay ( MD=-2.28, 95% CI: -3.42 to -1.14, P<0.001), and a significantly lower VAS score for early postoperative low back pain ( MD=-0.80, 95% CI:-1.44 to -0.16, P=0.01). There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in operation time, complication rate, waist VAS scores at preoperation or the last follow-up, lower extremity VAS or ODI scores at preoperation, early postoperation or the last follow-up, or dural dilatation area ( P>0.05). Conclusions:In the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis, compared with MED, UBE is superior in early relief of low back pain and hospital stay after operation, but shows no significant difference in long-term efficacy or safety.

Comparison of the efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopic and microscopic discectomy in treatment of lumbar disc herniation / 西安交通大学学报(医学版)

【Objective】 To compare the clinical efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopic （UBE） and microscopic discectomy in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation （LDH） and to explore the safety and effectiveness of this operation. 【Methods】 A total of 87 LDH patients from July 2018 to July 2021 were analyzed retrospectively， including 42 cases of unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy and 45 cases of microscopic discectomy. Analysis was based on comparison of perioperative metrics， operation time， and estimated blood loss. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using visual analogue scale （VAS）， Oswestry disability index （ODI） and modified Macnab criterion. 【Results】 All patients were followed up for 13.3±1.18 months. In UBE group， operation time （57.12±6.35） min was shorter than that in the microscope group （62.21±7.09） min and estimated blood loss （29.31±3.62） mL was smaller than that in the microscope group （51.77±8.43） mL， with a significant difference （P0.05）. Dural sac tear occurred in 2 cases in UBE group and 3 cases in the microscope group； the incidence was not statistically significant （P>0.05）. Modified MacNab criterion evaluation at the last follow-up showed that 32 cases were excellent in UBE group， 7 cases were good， and 3 cases were fair， with the excellent and good rate of 92.9% （39/42）. The microscope group was excellent in 31 cases， good in 10 cases， and fair in 4 cases， with the excellent and good rate of 91.1% （41/45）. 【Conclusion】 UBE for LDH has a satisfactory short-term clinical efficacy， with the advantages of less trauma， greater efficiency， clear vision， and large operating space. Both UBE and microscopic discectomy can achieve good clinical results in treating LDH， but the former has the advantages of less trauma， high efficiency， and quick postoperative recovery.

Unstable Non-isthmic Spondylolisthesis Following Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy Assisted Unilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Decompression: A Case Report

@#Lumbar decompressive laminectomy is a standard treatment for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis, but in some cases, can lead to iatrogenic spondylolysis and delayed segmental instability. Iatrogenic spondylolysis occurs in most cases in pars interarticularis, but rare cases have also been reported, pediculolysis in pedicle and laminolysis in lamina. Minimally invasive spine surgery (MIS) is known to have a low risk of developing these iatrogenic spondylolyses, and unilateral biportal endoscopy is the MIS that has been drawing attention. We present a case of a 72-year-old female who was diagnosed with L4-5 unstable non-isthmic spondylolisthesis and severe right central disc extrusion 10 weeks after UBE assisted unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) at the consecutive segments of L3-4 and L4-5. Pre-operative imaging studies revealed severe central stenosis without spondylolisthesis at L3-L4 and L4- L5 along with L4-L5 facet tropism. She was managed by anterior lumbar interbody fusion and cement augmented pedicle screw fixation, which resulted in the complete resolution of her clinical and neurologic symptoms.

Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy as a Treatment for Acute Radiculopathy after Osteoporotic Lumbar Compression Fracture: A Case Report

STUDY DESIGN: Case report. OBJECTIVES: To document unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) as a treatment for acute radiculopathy after osteoporotic vertebral fracture. SUMMARY OF LITERATURE REVIEW: Acute radiculopathy after osteoporotic vertebral fracture leads to claudication. Treatment of osteoporotic vertebral fractures with accompanying radiating pain is challenging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 74-year-old woman was diagnosed with an osteoporotic vertebral fracture at L3 after slipping and falling. Vertebroplasty was performed for the osteoporotic vertebral fracture at L3. She still complained of right lower extremity radiating pain. UBE was performed to treat acute radiculopathy. RESULTS: Foraminal decompression using UBE was performed at the L3–4 right foraminal area. Her symptoms resolved after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: UBE is a useful treatment method for acute radiculopathy after osteoporotic vertebral fracture.