Endoscopic spine surgery is a promising and minimally invasive technique for the treatment of disc herniation and spinal stenosis. However, the literature on the outcome of interlaminar endoscopic decompression (IED) versus conventional microsurgical technique (CMT) in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis is scarce. We analyzed 88 patients (IED: 36/88, 40.9%; CMT: 52/88, 59.1%) presenting with lumbar central spinal stenosis between 2018–2020. Surgery-related (operation time, complications, time to hospital release (THR), ASA score, C-reactive protein (CRP), white blood cell count (WBC), side (unilateral/bilateral), patient-reported (ODI, NRS (leg-, back pain), eQ5D, COMI), and radiological (preoperative dural sack cross-sectional area (DSCA), Shizas score (SC), left (LRH) and right (RRH) lateral recess heights, left (LFA) and right (RFA) facet angle) parameters were extracted.

Complication (most often re-stenosis due to hematoma and/or residual sensorimotor deficits) rates were higher in the endoscopic (38.9%) than microsurgical (13.5%) treatment group (p<0.01). Age, THR, SC, CRP, and DSCA revealed significant correlations with 3 weeks and 1 year postoperatively evaluated ODI, COMI, eQ5D, NRS leg, or NRS back values in our cohort. We did not observe significant differences in the endoscopic versus microsurgical group for the patient-reported outcomes.

Age, THR, SC, CRP, and DSCA revealed significant correlations with patient-centered outcomes and should be considered in future studies. Endoscopic treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis was similarly successful as the conventional microsurgical approach, although it was associated with higher complication rates in our single-center study experience. This was probably because of the surgeons' lack of experience with this method and the resulting different learning curve compared with the conventional technique.

1. Nine patients with radiological evidence of narrowing of the lumbar spinal canal, proved at operation, are reviewed.

2. They presented with either a claudicant or a sciatic clinical picture.

3. A classification into primary or secondary spinal stenosis is described. The primary type may be due to a reduction in either the sagittal, coronal or both diameters of the spinal canal.

4. Secondary narrowing of the canal may be superimposed upon a primary anatomical abnormality or may cause narrowing in a previously normal canal.

5. The symptoms are thought to be caused by a further reduction in the size of an already narrow canal, producing traction on the nerve tissue, which is then unable to move freely.

With the increase in the elderly population, there is a dramatic increase in the number of spinal fusions. Spinal fusion is usually performed in cases of primary instability. However it is also performed to prevent iatrogenic instability created during surgical treatment of spinal stenosis in most cases. In literature, up to 75% of adjacent segment disease (ASD) can be seen according to the follow-up time.¹ Although ASD manifests itself with pathologies such as instability, foraminal stenosis, disc herniation or central stenosis.^1,2 There are several reports in the literature regarding lumbar percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic interventions for lumbar foraminal stenosis or disc herniations. However, to the best our knowledge, there is no report about the treatment of central stenosis in ASD. In this study, we aimed to investigate the short-term results of unilateral biportal endoscopic decompressive laminotomy (UBEDL) technique in ASD cases with symptomatic central or lateral recess stenosis.

The number of patients participating in the prospective study was 8. The mean follow-up was 6.9 (ranged 6 to 11) months. The mean age of the patients was 68 (5m, 3F). The development of ASD time after fusion was 30.6 months(ranged 19 to 42). Mean fused segments were 3 (ranged 2 to 8). Preoperative instability was present in 2 of the patients which was proven by dynamic lumbar x-rays. Preoperative mean VAS-back score was 7.8, VAS Leg score was 5.6. The preoperative mean JOA (Japanese Orthopaedic Association) score was 11.25. At 6th month follow-up, the mean VAS back score of the patients was 1, and the VAS leg score was 0.5. This improvement was statistically significant (p = 0.11 and 0.016, respectively). The mean JOA score at the 6th month was 22.6 and it was also statistically significant comparing preoperative JOA score(p = 0.011). The preoperative mean dural sac area measured in MR was 0.50 cm2, and it was measured as 2.1 cm² at po 6 months.(p = 0.012). There was no progress in any patient's instability during follow-up.

In orthopedic surgery, when implant related problems develop in any region of body (pseudoarthrosis, infection, adjacent fracture, etc.), it is generally treated by using more implants in its final operation. This approach is also widely used in spinal surgery.³ However, it carries more risk in terms of devoloping ASD, infection or another complications. In the literature, endoscopic procedures have almost always been used in the treatment of ventral pathologies which constitute only 10%. In ASD, disease devolops as characterized by wide facet joint arthrosis and hypertrophied ligamentum flavum in the cranial segment and it is mostly presented both lateral recess and santal stenosis symptoms (39%). In this study, we found that UBEDL provides successful results in the treatment of patients without no more muscle and ligament damage in ASD cases with spinal stenosis. One of the most important advantages of UBE is its ability to access both ventral and dorsal pathologies by minimally invasive endoscopic aproach. I think endoscopic decompression also plays an important role in the absence of additional instability at postoperatively in patients. UBE which has already been described in the literature given successful results in most of the spinal degenerative diseases besides it can also be used in the treatment of ASD. Studies with longer follow-up and higher patient numbers will provide more accurate results.

Study Design

A prospective cohort study was carried out looking at the functional outcome and post-procedure translational segmental instability after multi-level lumbar decompression using a Hinge osteotomy technique.

We carried out a prospective study looking at the functional outcome and post-procedure segmental instability after lumbar decompression using a flip osteotomy technique that involved unilateral subperiosteal muscle dissection with hinging of the spinous processes thereby preserving the integrity of the posterior elements for unilateral or bilateral lumbar spine decompression.

Between February 2007 and February 2008, 51 patients (29 male and 22 female) diagnosed with degenerative and congenital lumbar stenosis with an average age of 60, underwent central and lateral canal decompression using the flip osteotomy technique. An average of two segments (range 1-3 segments) was decompressed. Patients with a history of previous spinal surgery, spinal fusion, existing degenerative spondylolisthesis or cauda equina syndrome were excluded.

All patients were followed up for a mean of 1.5 years. Five outcome measures were used – visual analogue scale for pain, Likert scale for functional status, symptom specific well-being score, general well-being score, number of days incapacitated in last 4 weeks. The outcomes measures were recorded pre-operatively, 6 weeks and one year post-operatively. Successful surgical outcome was defined as an improvement in at least four out of five outcome measures.

90% (46 patients) of patients had a successful surgical outcome. There was a statistically significant improvement in all outcome criteria (p<0.005) at the 6-week post-operative mark as compared to pre-operatively, with marginal improvement at one year post-surgery. There was no evidence of progressive lumbar segmental instability at one year post-operatively using our flip osteotomy technique

Decompression of the lumbar spine for lumbar stenosis using the flip osteotomy technique is a safe approach for one or multi-level stenosis with good outcomes and no evidence of significant iatrogenic segmental spinal instability.

We declare no conflict of interest and ethical approval was obtained

Abstract

Hypothesis

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is diagnosed by a history of claudication, clinical investigation, cross-sectional area (CSA) of the dural sac on MRI or CT, and walking distance on the treadmill test. As radiological findings do not always correlate with clinical symptoms, additional diagnostic signs are needed. In patients without LSS, we observe the sedimentation of lumbar nerve roots to the dorsal part of the dural sac on supine MRI scans. In patients with LSS, this sedimentation is rarely seen. We named this phenomenon ‘sedimentation sign’ and defined the absence of sedimenting nerve roots as positive sedimentation sign for the diagnosis of LSS. We hypothesised that the new sedimentation sign discriminates between non-specific low back pain (LBP) and LSS.

Since neurological claudication is a major symptom in lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), walking distance is commonly used as a measure of the severity and surgical outcome in LSS. The aim of this study was to compare self-reported and treadmill-measured walking distances in a trial, in which 94 patients with moderate LSS had been randomized into conservative and surgical treatment. Among the 44 patients in conservative treatment, the treadmill-measured walking distance was more reproducible after 6 months than the self-reported distance; the intraclass correlation coefficients were 0.75 and 0.41, respectively. Among all the patients at baseline, the agreement between self-reported and measured walking distance was satisfactory (intraclass correlation 0.57), although male patients overwhelmed their performance by 200 meters. Such a shift was not found in women. For walking distance categorized as < 400, 400–1249 and ≥ 1250 meters, there was a fair agreement between self-report and treadmill (weighed kappa 0.42). However, when the analysis was restricted to those whose walking distance was restricted to < 1250 meters, the corresponding agreement was poor (intraclass correlation 0.26). The self-reported walking distance was closely correlated with Oswestry index at baseline (r = 0.26), and changes in these outcomes from randomization to the follow-up of 6 months showed a strong correlation with each other (r = 0.37). We conclude that walking distance is a fundamental element of disability in LSS. Self-reported walking distance seems to be an appropriate clinical tool, but its limited precision in relation to treadmill-measured distance must be considered, when walking ability is severely restricted.

Background: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) involves narrowing of the spinal, nerve root or intervertebral canals, producing compression of the intraspinal vascular and nervous structures. With an ageing population and advances in diagnostic accuracy, LSS is increasingly encountered and has become a major health care management issue.

Extended Scope Practitioners (ESPs) often assess and manage patients with LSS in orthopaedic and rheumatology clinics. Little is reported about how these patients are managed, variations in practice and the rationale for the clinical decision-making that occurs.

Methods: This quantitative, cross-sectional study used a questionnaire and vignettes to determine the factors affecting clinical decision-making in ESPs when managing patients with suspected LSS. The target population comprised all ESPs in the national Occupational Group of ‘Chartered Physiotherapists working as ESPs’ (n=288).

Results: The response rate to the questionnaire was 78.5% (n=226). The main factors affecting clinical decision-making (when deciding on referral to conservative or surgical management) were: accessibility of resources, including further investigations (MRI), consultants and surgery; severity of symptoms; and patient choice.

Discussion: The majority of participants reportedly considered patient choice an important factor in decision-making. When this principle was presented in the form of a real patient scenario (in the vignette) however, the trend in data showed that patient choice became less important in decision-making than the severity of signs and symptoms.

Conclusion: There are currently no national protocols or pathways to guide ESPs and facilitate standardisation of managing patients with LSS and wide variations in practice exist. Furthermore, whilst recognising the importance of respecting patients’ choice, in practice this remains a challenge to deliver.

We evaluate the patients with lumbar spinal stenosis in multiple levels that were treated with posterior decompression and posterolateral fusion, using transpedicular screw fixation system. Twenty-six patients, mean age 65.7 years (range 49 to 77years), with lumbar spinal stenosis, in more than three levels, were treated surgically between 1994 and 2002. Indications for surgical treatment included low back pain and neurogenic claudication for more than 6 months. The diagnostic approach consisted of x-rays, MRI, myelography and myelo-CT. Oswestry disability score and VAS (visual analog scale), were used for the clinical evaluation of the patients. Surgical procedure consisted of wide posterior decompression, regarding laminectomy, complete or incomplete facetectomy and foraminotomy, combined with posterolateral fusion, using transpedicular screw systems and bone graft. Fusion in three levels was performed at seven patients, in four levels at ten, in five levels at seven, in six and seven levels at one patient respectively.

Mean follow-up was 26.8 months (range 12 to 38 months). Oswestry score and VAS revealed improvement 40.75% and 5.4 levels respectively. The better results were concerned to pain (2.88 levels improvement) and the less good to lifting (1.58 levels improvement). Two cases with superficial infections were observed and treated with surgical debridement. Screw breakage was observed in 1 patient and treated conservatively. Loosening of two sacral screws, which were removed, was observed in one patient.

We conclude that myelography and myelo-CT revealed with satisfactory accuracy intra and outer foraminal lumbar spinal stenosis. Posterior decompression and instrumented fusion, offer satisfactory clinical results in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis in multiple levels when performed by experienced surgical team.

Introduction

We propose that Total Hip Replacement with correction of fixed flexion deformity of the hip and exaggerated lumbar lordosis will result in relief of symptoms from spinal stenosis, possibly avoiding a spinal surgery. A sequence of patients with this dual pathology has been assessed to examine this and suggest a possible management algorithm.

Introduction: Lumbar spinal stenosis is a frequent indication for spinal surgery. The predictive quality of treadmill testing and MRI for diagnostic verification is not yet clearly defined. The aim of our study was to assess correlations between treadmill testing and MRI findings in the lumbar spine.

Methods: Patients with lumbar spinal stenosis who had been admitted for surgical treatment by means of decompression with or without stabilisation were prospectively examined. We included patients with lumbar spinal stenosis as defined by clinical symptoms like low back and/or leg pain, which increased when walking, and by the area of the dural sac examined by MRI. We excluded patients with clinically manifest peripheral arterial disease, polyneuropathy or musculoskeletal impairments compromising the ability to walk. Treadmill tests were performed using the standardized testing protocoll by Deen at a speed of 0.5 m/sec without inclination. After the onset of symptoms (pain, weakness or dysaesthesia), each patient decided when to end the test.

The area of the dural sac and neuroforamina was examined with MRI for the narrowest spinal segment. ODI and VAS were used for clinical assessment.

Results: 25 patients were included with a median age of 67 years (Interquartile range IQR 60–72 yrs). In the narrowest spinal segment the median area of the dural sac was 91mm2 (IQR 67–135 mm2). The median ODI was 66 percent (IQR 64–72 percent). The median walking distance in the treadmill test was 70 m (IQR 30–130 m). The distance reached in the treadmill test correlated with the area of the dural sac (Spearman’s rho=0.53) and ODI (rho=0.51), but not with the area of the neuroforamina and VAS.

Discussion: The treadmill test helps objectifying pre- and postsurgical clinical complaints and verifying a lumbar spinal stenosis by creating a situation of dynamic strain. Moreover, the treadmill test lets the patient experience his own physical limits and enables the examiner to attain a replicable postoperative assessment. The distance reached in the treadmill test predicts the grade of stenosis in MRI but has a limited diagnostic importance for the level of clinical symptoms in lumbar spinal stenosis.

Introduction: No previous cases of avascular necrosis (AVN) of the femoral head have been described in the World Literature, to our knowledge. This paper reports the catastrophic failure of the bony integrity of the hip in three patients (five hips) following prolonged hypotension during spinal surgery for spinal stenosis on a Montreal mattress and offers advice to prevent this complication of spinal surgery. A theory to explain this phenomenon is explored, but we recognize its limitations with such a small sample.

Method: The case notes of all patients undergoing decompressive spinal surgery in our hospitals between March 1997 and December 2001 were examined (168 cases). Three patients had been identified as suffering from AVN following prolonged hypotensive anaesthesia prospectively. No other cases were identified after the notes review. Clinical notes and pre- and post-operative radiographs were studied in an attempt to identify the factors that caused this complication in these three patients.

Results: Between 1997 and 2001, 168 patients underwent surgery for multi-level symptomatic spinal stenosis in our hospitals. Forty percent of the patients had an instrumented fusion as well as a decompression. During this period, three patients had catastrophic AVN of the femoral head requiring total hip arthroplasty soon after their spinal operation. All had some clinical and radiological evidence of hip arthritis at their pre-surgery visit. All subsequently, presented within symptomatic hip AVN within six months of the index operation. In two, histology confirmed the diagnosis of AVN, and typical changes of AVN were well demonstrated on MRI in the third patient.

Conclusions: The development of avascular necrosis of the femoral heads following surgery for spinal stenosis may be due to a femoral head at risk being exposed to hypotensive anesthesia, prone positioning on a Montreal mattress or a combination of the two. Careful intra-operative positioning may reduce the risk of this occurring after spinal surgery. However, close post-operative surveillance and a high index of suspicion of worsening hip pathology in patients who appear to mobilize poorly after lumbar spinal surgery may be the only method of early detection of this condition.

INTRODUCTION: No previous cases of avascular necrosis (AVN) of the femoral head have been described in the World Literature, to our knowledge. This paper reports the catastrophic failure of the bony integrity of the hip in three patients (five hips) following prolonged hypotension during spinal surgery for spinal stenosis on a Montreal mattress and offers advice to prevent this complication of spinal surgery. A theory to explain this phenomenon is explored, but we recognise its limitations with such a small sample.

METHOD: The case notes of all patients undergoing decompressive spinal surgery in our hospitals between March 1997 and December 2001 were examined (168 cases). Three patients had been identified as suffering from AVN following prolonged hypotensive anaesthesia prospectively. No other cases were identified after the notes review. Clinical notes and pre- and post-operative radiographs were studied in an attempt to identify the factors that caused this complication in these three patients.

RESULTS: Between 1997 and 2001, 168 patients underwent surgery for multi-level symptomatic spinal stenosis in our hospitals. Forty percent of the patients had an instrumented fusion as well as a decompression. During this period, three patients had catastrophic AVN of the femoral head requiring total hip arthroplasty soon after their spinal operation. All had some clinical and radiological evidence of hip arthritis at their pre-surgery visit. All subsequently, presented with symptomatic hip AVN within six months of the index operation. In two, histology confirmed the diagnosis of AVN, and typical changes of AVN were well demonstrated on MRI in the third patient.

CONCLUSIONS: The development of avascular necrosis of the femoral heads following surgery for spinal stenosis may be due to a femoral head at risk being exposed to hypotensive anaesthesia, prone positioning on a Montreal mattress or a combination of the two. Careful intra-operative positioning may reduce the risk of this occurring after spinal surgery. However, close post-operative surveillance and a high index of suspicion of worsening hip pathology in patients who appear to mobilise poorly after lumbar spinal surgery may be the only method of early detection of this condition.

The objective of this study was to assess the clinical outcome and efficacy of the X-Stop™ interspinous implant.

67 patients (36 male, 31 female) with mean age of 62.4 years (range 50–94 years) and radiologically proven lumbar stenosis, underwent X-Stop™ implantation during the period of June 2004 to June 2007. Patients were assessed pre-operatively and post-operatively at 3, 6 and 12 months using the Back and Sciatica Questionnaire, the Oswestry Disability and the SF12 questionnaire. Patient’s satisfaction was assessed in each visit. Minimum follow up 2 years in 45 patients and 1 year in 22 patients.

70% had significant improvement in the walking distance following the operation.

With the Back and Sciatica Questionnaire the average preoperative VAS of back and leg pain was 7.1 and 6.7 and improved to 2.5 and 2.6 postoperatively.

86% patient had improvement in their ODI score by 14% and more with average pre and postoperative score 44% (range18%–84%) and 15.8% (range 0%–61%) respectively.

With the SF12 questionnaire 68% patients had significant improvement in physical score and 77% in the mental score. Complications included five superficial wound infections and one wound haematoma. One patient required revision surgery.

This new surgical technique for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis, is simple and effective with minimum complications.

Surgical decompression is the recommended treatment for patients with moderate to severe degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS). Although complication risk has been shown to be higher with concomitant fusion, the success rate is not necessarily superior. This study analyzed the success rates of 58 DLSS patients treated with decompressive surgery. Twenty patients received concomitant instrumented fusion. Outcomes were measured with the Swiss Spinal Stenosis Questionnaire (SSSQ) completed pre-operatively and at least 12 months post-operatively (range 12 to 54 months). Overall, 63.8% of the patients had significant clinical improvement in Symptom Severity, 55.2% had significant clinical improvement in Physical Function, and 58.6% of the patients were at least somewhat satisfied; 43.1% (25/58) of the patients met all three criteria and were considered to be clinically successful. There were no statistically significant differences between the clinical success rates of the non-fusion and fusion groups, but the change in mean change of the Symptom Severity score for the fusion group was significantly greater than that of the non-fusion group. Also, patients with more severe pre-operative symptoms and more physical function restrictions had better success results than those patients with more mild symptoms and less restrictive physical function. The results of this study demonstrate that decompressive surgery with concomitant fusion does not impose a greater risk than decompressive surgery alone and the clinical results of the added fusion are somewhat superior to decompressive surgery alone.

Symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis is a common entity and increasing in prevalence. Limited evidence is available regarding patient reported outcomes comparing primary vs revision surgery for those undergoing lumbar decompression, with or without fusion. Evidence available suggest a lower rate of improvement in the revision group. The aim of this study was to assess patient reported outcomes in patients undergoing revision decompression, with or without fusion, when compared to primary surgery.

Patient data was collected from the Canadian Spine Outcomes Research Network (CSORN) database. Patients undergoing lumbar decompression without or without fusion were included. Patients under 18, undergoing discectomy, greater than two level decompressions, concomitant cervical or thoracic spine surgery were excluded. Demographic data, smoking status, narcotic use, number of comorbidities as well as individual comorbidities were included in our propensity scores. Patients undergoing primary vs revision decompression were matched in a four:one ratio according to their scores, whilst a separate matched cohort was created for those undergoing primary vs revision decompression and fusion. Continuous data was compared using a two-tailed t-test, whilst categorical variables were assessed using chi-square test.

A total of 555 patients were included, with 444 primary patients matched to 111 revision surgery patients, of which 373 (67%) did not have fusion. Patients undergoing primary decompression with fusion compared to revision patients were more likely to answer yes to “feel better after surgery” (87.8% vs 73.8%, p=0.023), “undergo surgery again” (90.1% vs 76.2%, P=0.021) and “improvement in mental health” (47.7% vs 28.6%, p=0.03) at six months. There was no difference in either of these outcomes at 12 or 24 months. There was no difference between the groups ODI, EQ-5D, SF 12 scores at any time point. Patients undergoing primary vs revision decompression alone showed no difference in PROMs at any time point.

In a matched cohort, there appears to be no difference in improvement in PROMS between patients undergoing primary vs revision decompression, with or without fusion, at two year follow-up. This would suggest similar outcomes can be obtained in revision cases.

The Nerve Root Sedimentation Sign in transverse magnetic resonance imaging has been shown to discriminate well between selected patients with and without lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), but the performance of this new test, when used in a broad patient population, is not yet known (Barz et al. 2010).

We conducted a retrospective study of consecutive patients with suspected LSS from 2004–2006, before the sign had been described, to assess its association with health outcomes. Based on clinical and radiological diagnostics, patients had been treated with decompression surgery or conservative treatment (physical therapy, oral pain medication). Changes in the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) from baseline to 24 month follow-up were compared between Sedimentation Sign positives and negatives in both treatment arms.

Of the 146 included patients (52% female, mean age 59 yrs), 71 underwent surgery. Baseline ODI in this treatment arm was 52%, the sign was positive in 44 patients (mean ODI improvement 25 points) and negative in 27 (ODI improvement 24), with no significant difference between groups. In the 75 patients of the conservative treatment arm, baseline ODI was 44%, the sign was negative in 45 (ODI improvement 17), and positive in 30 (ODI improvement 5). Here a positive sign was associated with a smaller ODI improvement compared with sign negatives (t-test, p=0.003).

This study allowed an unbiased clinical validation of the Sedimentation Sign by avoiding it influencing treatment selection. In the conservative treatment arm a positive sign identifies a group of patients who are less likely to benefit. In these cases, surgery might be effective; however, this needs confirmation in prospective studies.

Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis is one of the most frequent surgical indications of spinal surgery in the elderly patient group. Because of the progression of the disease and neurologic deficiencies, patients’ quality of life is affected. We aimed to evaluate the postoperative quality of life of the surgically treated spinal stenotic patients.

Between 1998 and 2009, 38 patients, who were surgically decompressed and enstrumentated in our clinic were included to the study. The patients were preoperatively and postoperatively evaluated with Visual Analogue (Scale (VAS) and Japanese Orthopaedics Association (JOA) criterias. The same patient group were re-evaluated on the postoperative 6th month with Hamilton anxiety and depression scale, on the 12th month with short form-36 and Oswestry pain scoring scales to measure the quality of life.

Mean age of 38 patients (31 female, 7 male) was 59.6 (range 44 to 82). Mean preoperative VAS was 7.97 and postoperative VAS was 2.28. The pain decreased 56.9%. According to JOA criterias, in 3 patients (7.89%) no recovery, in 13 patients (34.2%) less than 50% recovery and in 22 patients (57.8%) more than 50% recovery was obtained. On the 6th month, according to Hamilton anxiety and depression scale, in 12 patients anxiety and in 3 of these patients depression which needs treatment was observed. The pain of all the patients with anxiety recovered meaningfully (42.3%) but according to JOA, less than 50% recovery could be obtained.

Surgically treated spinal stenosis patients improved clinically and radiologically and this affected the patients’ quality of life positively