Objective To assess the clinical application value of tranforaminal unilateral approach for bilateral decompression by comparing the short-term effectiveness of bilateral decompression via unilateral approach of intervertebral foramen with via small surgical incision of bilateral spinous process in lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. Methods Between July 2014 and June 2015, 48 patients with lumbar spinal stenosis underwent decompression and internal fixation by unilateral approach in 24 cases (trial group) and by bilateral small incision approach in 24 cases (control group). There was no significant difference in gender, age, disease duration, disease type, involved segment, combined medical diseases, preoperative level of creatine phosphokinase (CPK), the visual analogue scale (VAS), and Oswestry disability index (ODI) between 2 groups (P>0.05). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage, hospitalization time, and the incidence of complications were recorded. The CPK levels were evaluated at 1, 3, and 7 days after operation. VAS score and ODI were used to evaluate the effectiveness, and lumbar X-ray film or CT scanning to determine the intervertebral bony fusion. Results There was no significant difference in operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and hospitalization time between 2 groups (P>0.05), but significant difference was found in postoperative drainage (t=5.547,P=0.000). At 1 day after operation, the level of CPK in the trial group was significantly lower than that in the control group (t=3.129,P=0.005), but there was no significant difference at 3 and 7 days after operation between 2 groups (P>0.05). The patients were followed up 12-24 months (mean, 17 months). All the wounds healed primarily. Heart failure occurred in 1 case of the trial group, and cerebrospinal fluid leakage and pulmonary infection, and nerve root injury occurred in 1 case of the control group respectively. There was no significant difference in the incidence of complications between 2 groups (χ2=0.273,P=0.602). The interbody fusion rate was 95.8% (23/24) in the trial group and was 91.7% (22/24) in the control group, showing no significant difference (χ2=0.356,P=0.551). No cage sink, dislocation or plate and screw loosening and breakage was found in 2 groups. No adjacent segment degeneration occurred during the follow-up, and there was no change of scoliosis and lumbar sagittal curvature. At 3, 6, and 12 months after operation, the VAS score and ODI were significantly improved when compared with the preoperative scores in 2 groups (P<0.05), and the VAS score and ODI of the trial group were significantly better than those of control group (P<0.05). Conclusion The bilateral decompression via unilateral approach of intervertebral foramen and small surgical incision of bilateral spinous process in lumbar interbody fusion have satisfactory efficacy for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis, but the tranforaminal unilateral approach has the advantages of less trauma, avoidance of bilateral muscle stripping and soft paraspinal muscle injury, retention of posterior spinal structure, faster postoperative recovery, shorter hospital stay and good short-term effectiveness.
Objective To compare the effectiveness of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) by unilateral fenestration and bilateral decompression with ultrasounic osteotome and traditional tool total laminectomy decompression PLIF in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Methods The clinical data of 48 patients with single-stage degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis between January 2017 and June 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. Among them, 27 patients were treated with unilateral fenestration and bilateral decompression PLIF with ultrasonic osteotome (group A), and 21 patients were treated with total laminectomy and decompression PLIF with traditional tools (group B). There was no significant difference in gender, age, stenosis segment, degree of spinal canal stenosis, and disease duration between the two groups (P>0.05), which was comparable. The time of laminectomy decompression, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, and the occurrence of operation-related complications were recorded and compared between the two groups. Bridwell bone graft fusion standard was applied to evaluate bone graft fusion at last follow-up. Visual analogue scale (VAS) score was used to evaluate the patients’ lumbar and back pain at 3 days, 3 months, and 6 months after operation. Oswestry disability index (ODI) score was used to evaluate the patients’ lumbar and back function improvement before operation and at 6 months after operation. Results The time of laminectomy decompression in group A was significantly longer than that in group B, and the intraoperative blood loss and postoperative drainage volume were significantly less than those in group B (P<0.05). There was no nerve root injury, dural tear, cerebrospinal fluid leakage, and hematoma formation during and after operation in the two groups. All patients were followed up after operation, the follow-up time in group A was 6-18 months (mean, 10.5 months) and in group B was 6-20 months (mean, 9.3 months). There was no complication such as internal fixation fracture, loosening and nail pulling occurred during the follow-up period of the two groups. There was no significant difference in VAS scores between the two groups at 3 days after operation (t=1.448, P=0.154); the VAS score of group A was significantly lower than that of group B at 3 and 6 months after operation (P<0.05). The ODI scores of the two groups were significantly improved at 6 months after operation (P<0.05), and there was no significant difference in ODI scores between the two groups before operation and at 6 months after operation (P>0.05). At last follow-up, according to Bridwell criteria, there was no significant difference in bone graft fusion between the two groups (Z=–0.065, P=0.949); the fusion rates of groups A and B were 96.3% (26/27) and 95.2% (20/21) respectively, with no significant difference (χ2=0.001, P=0.979 ). Conclusion The treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with unilateral fenestration and bilateral decompression PLIF with ultrasonic osteotome can achieve similar effectiveness as traditional tool total laminectomy and decompression PLIF, reduce intraoperative blood loss and postoperative drainage, and reduce lumbar back pain during short-term follow-up. It is a safe and effective operation method.
Objective To design the surgical strategy of percutaneous full-endoscopic bilateral decompression via unilateral posterior approach for bilateral lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) and to evaluate the effectiveness. Methods The percutaneous full-endoscopic bilateral decompression via unilateral posterior approach for bilateral LSS was designed according to the pathological features of LSS. The technique was used to treat 42 patients with LSS between January 2016 and January 2018. There were 18 males and 24 females with an average age of 61.7 years (range, 46-81 years). The duration of symptoms was 1-20 years, with an average of 9.7 years. The surgical segment at L4, 5 were 27 cases, at L5, S1 were 15 cases. The operation time and perioperative complications were recorded. Lumbar X-ray, CT, and MRI examinations were performed at 1 week, 3 months, and 1 year after operation. Visual analogue scale (VAS) score was used to evaluate the low back pain and leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI) was used to evaluate the lumbar function, and single continuous walking distance (SCWD) was used to evaluate lower extremity nerve function. The clinical efficacy was evaluated by MacNab criteria at 1 year after operation. Results All patients underwent surgery successfully. The operation time was 68-141 minutes with an average of 98.2 minutes. All 42 patients were followed up 12-24 months with an average of 18.8 months. There were 2 cases of dural tears during operation, and 1 case of transient dysfunction of the lower limbs of the decompression channel after operation. All of them were cured after corresponding treatment. No serious complications such as death, major bleeding, or irreversible nerve injury occurred during follow-up. No segmental instability was found according to postoperative lumbar hyperextension and flexion X-ray films, and postoperative CT and MRI imaging showed that the stenotic lumbar spinal canal was significantly enlarged, and the compression of the nerve root was sufficient. The VAS score of low back pain and leg pain, ODI score, and SCWD at each time point after operation were significantly improved when compared with those before operation (P<0.05); the indexes were significantly improved over time after operation, and the differences were significantly (P<0.05). The clinical efficacy was evaluated by MacNab standard at 1 year after operation, and the results were excellent in 18 cases, good in 20 cases, fair in 3 cases, and poor in 1 case. The excellent and good rate was 90.5%. Conclusion The percutaneous full-endoscopic bilateral decompression via unilateral posterior approach for LSS is a safe and effective procedure. A well-designed surgical strategy and mastery of its technical points are important guarantees for successful operation and satisfactory results.
ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness between unilateral laminotomy and bilateral decompression (ULBD) with unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) and uniportal interlaminar endoscopy (UIE) in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. Methods A clinical data of 52 patients with lumbar spinal stenosis, who met the selection criteria and treated with ULBD between March 2021 and November 2022, was retrospectively analyzed. The patients were allocated into UBE group (23 cases) and UIE group (29 cases) according to the surgical methods. There was no significant difference (P>0.05) in age, gender, body mass index, surgical segment, type of lumbar stenosis, and preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score of low back pain, VAS score of leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), disc height, and dural sac area between the two groups. Perioperative indexes (incision length, operation time, hospital stay, and surgical complications), clinical indicators (VAS score of low back pain, VAS score of leg pain, and ODI before operation and at 3 days, 1 month, 6 months, and 12 months after operation), and imaging indicators (disc height and dural sac area before operation and at 1, 12 months after operation, and dural sac expansion area) were recorded and compared between the two group. Results All operations in both groups were successfully completed. Compared with the UIE group, the UBE group had shorter operation time and longer incision length, with significant differences (P<0.05). But there was no significant difference in hospital stay and incidence of complications between the two groups (P>0.05). All patients were followed up 12-20 months (mean, 14 months). The VAS scores of low back pain and leg pain and ODI after operation significantly improved when compared with preoperative values (P<0.05), and there was no significant difference in the above indicators between different time points after operation (P>0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups at different time points (P>0.05). Imaging examination showed that there was no significant difference in disc height between the two groups at different time points after operation (P>0.05). However, the dural sac area and dural sac expansion area were significantly larger in the UBE group than in the UIE group (P<0.05). Conclusion ULBD with UBE and UIE can achieve satisfactory effectiveness in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. But the former has more thorough decompression and better dural sac expansion than the latter.