Uniportal Thoracic Endoscopic Unilateral Laminotomy with Bilateral Decompression of Thoracic Ossification of Ligamentum Flavum: A Systematic Review of Current Literature.

BACKGROUND: Thoracic ossification of ligamentum flavum (TOLF) is a rare disease that often results in worsening neurologic sequelae if left untreated. Although the gold standard treatment for TOLF is open posterior laminectomy, it is often accompanied by high rates of complications and perioperative morbidity. There have been studies looking into feasibility of endoscopic posterior decompression for TOLF, citing potential for lower perioperative morbidity and achieving similar functional outcomes to its open laminectomy counterparts. We provide an up-to-date systematic review of clinical outcomes after endoscopic posterior decompression for TOLF from the latest assemblage of evidence. METHODS: A systematic review of the technique was conducted from May 2000 to May 2023. Articles were selected based on PRISMA guidelines. Eligibility of studies was independently by 2 reviewers, with disagreements resolved by a third author. RESULTS: Nineteen primary references comprising 337 patients with TOLF who underwent endoscopic posterior decompression were included in the systematic review. Mean follow-up time across all studies ranged from 8.9 to 65.3 months. Mean age ranged from 51.2 to 63 years, with mean intraoperative blood loss ranging from 15 to 62 mL. There is significant improvement in visual analog scale (VAS) score, VAS back, VAS leg, modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association score, and Oswestry Disability Index compared with preoperative recorded values across all studies, with low rates of complications reported. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic posterior spinal decompression is a safe and effective technique for treatment of TOLF, with a low rate of complications and improvement in pain and function.

Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of a Comparative Study of Anterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion with Partial Pediculotomy, Partial Vertebrotomy (PPPV) Posterior Endoscopic Cervical Decompression (PECD) for Cervical Foraminal Pathology.

Background and Objectives: The purpose was to compaSre medium-term clinical and radiological outcomes of Partial Pediculotomy, Partial Vertebrotomy (PPPV) Posterior Endoscopic Cervical Decompression (PECD) surgery versus Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion (ACDF) for patients with cervical disc herniations and foraminal pathologies. Materials and Methods: A prospective registry of patients who had undergone either PPPV PECD surgery or ACDF surgery for cervical disc herniation or foraminal pathologies under a single fellowship-trained spine surgeon was performed. The baseline characteristics and operative details including complications were recorded for all included patients. The clinical outcomes evaluated include VAS, MJOA, motor score, and NDI and MacNab's score. The radiological parameters in neutral-measured facet length, facet area, disc height, C2-C7 angle, neck tilt angle, T1 slope and thoracic inlet angle were also evaluated. Results: A total of 55 patients (29 PPPV PECD, 26 ACDF) were included, with mean follow-up periods of 21.9 and 32.3 months, respectively. Each cohort was noted to have a single case of surgical complication. Statistically significant changes of facet area (49.05 ± 14.50%) and facet length (52.71 ± 15.11%) were noted in the PPPV PECD group. At neutral alignment of the neck on a lateral X-ray, compared to ACDF, PPPV PECD had a statistically significant change in neck tilt angle (-11.68 ± 17.35°) and T1 slope angle (-11.69 ± 19.58°). Whilst both PPPV PECD and ACDF had significant improvements in VAS, MJOA and NDI postoperatively, PPPV PECD was found to be superior across all above scores at various follow-up timepoints compared to its ACDF counterparts. Conclusions: PPPV PECD surgery achieved a satisfactory radiological correction of neck alignment and significantly improved clinical outcomes at medium-term follow-up for our cohort of patients, highlighting its feasibility in treating patients with cervical disc herniations and foraminal pathologies.

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.