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. ResultsAt 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.
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.
Objective To investigate the short-term effectiveness of unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) in treatment of lumbar lateral saphenous fossa combined with intervertebral foramina stenosis via contralateral sublaminar approach. Methods A clinical data of 15 patients with lumbar lateral saphenous fossa combined with intervertebral foramina stenosis, who were admitted between September 2021 and December 2023 and met selective criteria, was retrospectively analyzed. There were 5 males and 10 females with an average age of 70.3 years (range, 46-83 years). Surgical segment was L4, 5 in 12 cases and L5, S1 in 3 cases. The disease duration was 12-30 months (mean, 18.7 months). All patients were treated by UBE via contralateral sublaminar approach. The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, and the occurrence of complications were recorded. The visual analogue scale (VAS) score was used to evaluate the degree of lower back and leg pain before and after operation; the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score and the Oswestry disability index (ODI) were used to evaluate the lumbar function; and the clinical outcome was evaluated using the MacNab criteria at 6 months after operation. Postoperative MRI and CT were taken to observe whether the lateral saphenous fossa and intervertebral foramen stenosis were removed or not, and the cross-sectional area of the spinal canal (CSA-SC), cross-sectional area of the intervertebral foramen (CSA-IVF), and cross-sectional area of the facet joint (CSA-FJ) were measured. Results The operation time was 55-200 minutes (mean, 127.5 minutes); the intraoperative blood loss was 10-50 mL (mean, 27.3 mL); the length of postoperative hospital stay was 3-12 days (mean, 6.8 days). All patients were followed up 6-12 months (mean, 8.9 months). At 1 day, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months after operation, the VAS scores of low back and leg pain and ODI scores after operation were significantly lower than preoperative scores and showed a gradual decrease with time; the JOA scores showed a gradual increase with time; the differences in the above indexes between different time points were significant (P<0.05). The clinical outcome was rated as excellent in 10 cases, good in 4 cases, and poor in 1 case according to the MacNab criteria at 6 months after operation, with an excellent and good rate of 93.33%. Imaging review showed that the compression on the lateral saphenous fossa and intervertebral foramina had been significantly relieved, and the affected articular process joint was preserved to the maximum extent; the CSA-SC and CSA-IVF at 3 days after operation significantly increased compared to the preoperative values (P<0.05), and the CSA-FJ significantly reduced (P<0.05). Conclusion The UBE via contralateral sublaminar approach can effectively reduce pressure in the lateral saphenous fossa and the intervertebral foramina of the same segment while preserving the bilateral articular process joints. The short-term effectiveness is good and it is expected to avoid fusion surgery caused by iatrogenic instability of the lumbar spine. However, further follow-up is needed to clarify the mid- and long-term effectiveness.