Percutaneous full-endoscopic bilateral lumb ar decompression of central spinal stenosis th rough uniportal approach

Objective : The evaluate of clinical outcomes, safety, and technical peculiarities of percutaneous full-endoscopic bilateral lumbar decompression of central spinal stenosis through uniportal approach.
Material and methods : Analyzed the results of percutaneous full-endoscopic bilateral lumbar decompression of central spinal stenosis through uniportal approach performed of 28 patients for the period 2016–2019. To evaluate the results of surgical treatment used the ODI questionnaire, VAS scale and McNab. The assessment was made before surgery, the next day, after 1, 6 12 and 24 months after surgery.
Results: The average severity of preoperative radicular leg pain for VAS after surgery decreased from 6.5±1.3 to 1.8±1.2 (mean difference [MD] 4.7, 95 % CI, p = 8.5 × 10–14) in next day; to 1.3±1.1 (MD5.2, 95 % CI 4.3 to 5.6, p <=1.1 × 10–15) after 1 month; to 1.4±1.2 (MD5.1, 95 % CI 4.2 to 5.7, p = 1.2 × 10–13) after 6 months; to 1.4±1.2 (MD5.1, 95 % CI 3.8 to 5.5, p < 9.5 × 10–12) after 12 months; to 1.6±1.3 (MD4.9, 95 % CI 4.0 to 5.3, p <=9.2 × 10–14) after 24 months after operation, respectively. «Excellent» and «good» results of treatment on a scale of McNab evaluated 25 (89,3 %) patients. The mean value of the ODI improved from 56.2±6.4 to 23.2±4.2 after 1 month (MD33.0, 95 % CI 29 to 34, p < 2.2 × 10–16); up to 18.6±3.2 after 6 months (MD38,0, 95 % CI 33 to 40, p < 2.2 × 10–16); up to 16.6±3.2 at 12 months (MD40.0, 95 % CI 36.0 to 41.0, p < 2.2 × 10–16), and to 20.4±3.4 (MD36.0, 95 % CI 33.0 to 39.0, p < 2.2 × 10–16) after 24 months surgery, respectively.
Conclusion: Percutaneous full-endoscopic bilateral lumbar decompression of central spinal stenosis through uniportal approach is safe and effective; avoids excessive unnecessary resection of bone tissue including the facet joint; can be prevent of instability of the spinal motion segment; facilitates early postoperative activation and recovery of the patient.

1. Qualitative Grading of Severity of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Based on the Morphology of the Dural Sac on Magnetic Resonance Images / C. Schizas, N. Theumann, A. Burn et al. // Spine. — 2010. — Vol. 35(21). — P. 1919–1924.

2. Quantitative radiologic criteria for the diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic literature review / J. Steurer, S. R oner, R. Gnannt et al. // BMC Musculoskeletal Dis. — 2011. — Vol. 12(1). — P. 175.

3. North American Spine Society: Evidence Based Clinical Guidelines for Multidisciplinary Spine Care: Diagnosis and Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis. In. Burr Ridge, IL.: North American Spine Society; 2007.

4. Verbiest, H. A radicular syndrome from developmental narrowing of the lumbar vertebral canal / H. Verbiest // J Bone Joint Surg Brit. — 1954. —Vol. 36–B. — P. 230–237.

5. Gibson, J. N. Surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylosis: updated Cochrane review / J. N. Gibson, G. W addell // Spine. — 2005. — Vol. 30. — P. 2312–2320.

6. Surgical versus nonsurgical treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis / F. Zaina, C. Tonkins–Lane, E. C arragee et al. // Spine. — 2016. — Vol. 41. — E857–E868.

7. O utcome after less–invasive decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized comparison of unilateral laminotomy, bilateral laminotomy, and laminectomy / C. Thome, D. Zevgaridis, O. L eheta, et al. // J Neurosurg.: Spine. 2005. — Vol. 3. — P. 129–141.

8. M orbidity and mortality in association with operations on the lumbar spine. The influence of age, diagnosis, and procedure / R. A . D eyo, D. C . C herkin, J. D . L oeser et al. // J Bone Joint Surg Am. — 1992. — Vol. 74. — P. 536–543.

9. P erioperative complications of posterior lumbar decompression and arthrodesis in older adults / L. Y . C arreon, R. M . P uno, J. R . D imar et al.

10. Kalanithi, P. S. National complication rates and disposition after posterior lumbar fusion for acquired spondylolisthesis / P. S. Kalanithi, C. G. P atil, M. Boakye // Spine. — 2009. — Vol. 34. — P. 1963–1969.

11. O ’Toole, J. E . Surgical site infection rates after minimally invasive spinal surgery / J.E. O’Toole, K. M . E ichholz, R. G. Fessler // J Neurosurg.: Spine. — 2009. — Vol. 11. — P. 471–476.

12. Bilateral spinal decompression of lumbar central stenosis with the full–endoscopic interlaminar versus microsurgical laminotomy technique: a prospective, randomized, controlled study / M. Komp, P. Hahn, S. O ezdemir et al. // Pain Physician. — 2015. — Vol. 18. — P. 61–70.

13. P ercutaneous full endoscopic bilateral lumbar decompression of spinal stenosis through uniportal–contralateral approach: techniques and preliminary results / H. S. Kim, B. P audel, J. S. J ang et al. // World Neurosurg. — 2017. — Vol. 103. — P. 201–209.

14. P athology and pathogenesis of lumbar spondylosis and stenosis / W. H. Kirkaldy–Willis, J. H. W edge, K. Y ong–Hing et al. // Spine. — 1978. — Vol. 3. — P. 319–328.

15. Осна, А. И. Периодизация остеохондроза позвоночника: Методические рекомендации / А. И. Осна. — Новокузнецк, 1984. — 16 с.

16. Spinal Disorders. Fundamentals of Diagnosis and Treatment: Электронный ресурс / Ed. by N. Boos, M. A ebi. — Springer, 2008. — Режим доступа: DO I: 10.1007/978‑3‑540‑69091‑7. —Загл. с экрана.

17. L umbar spinal stenosis in elderly patients: is a unilateral microsurgical approach sufficient for decompression? / M. H. M orgalla, N. Noak, M. M erkle et al. // J Neurosurg.: Spine. — 2011. — Vol. 14. — P. 305–312.

18. M idterm outcome after unilateral approach for bilateral decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis: 5–year prospective study / H. Сavuşoğlu, R. А. Kaya, O. N. Türkmenoglu et al. // European Spine J. — 2007. — Vol. 16(12). — P. 2133–2142.

19. No relationship between epidural fibrosis and sciatica in the lumbar postdiscectomy syndrome. A study with contrast–enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients / M. A nnerzt, B. J onsson, B. Stromqvist et al. // Spine. — 1995. — Vol. 20. — P. 449–453.

20. Fritsch, E. W . The failed back surgery syndrome: Reasons, intraoperative findings and long term results: a report of 182 operative treatments / E. W . Fritsch, J. Heisel, S. R upp // Spine. — 1996. — Vol. 21. — P. 626–633.

21. O utcome after chronic sciatica as the only reason for lumbar microdiscectomy / A. Schoeggl, H. M aier, W. Saringer et al. // J Spinal Disord Tech. — 2002. — Vol. 15. — P. 415–419.

22. L ong–term prospective study of lumbosacral discectomy / P. J . L ewis, B.K.A. Weir, R. W . Broad et al. // J Neurosurg. — 1987. — Vol. 67. — P. 49–54.

23. P oletti, C. E . C entral lumbar stenosis caused by ligamentum flavum: unilateral laminotomy for bilateral ligamentectomy: preliminary report of two cases / C. E . P oletti // Neurosurgery. — 1995. — Vol. 37, № 2. — P. 343–347.

24. M inimally invasive lumbar spinal decompression in the elderly: outcomes of 50 patients aged 75 years and older / D. S. R osen, J.E. O’Toole, K. M . E ichholz et al. // Neurosurgery. — 2007. — Vol. 60. — P. 503–509.

25. E ffectiveness of posterior decompression techniques compared with conventional laminectomy: Электронный ресурс / G. M . O verdevest, W. J acobs, C. Vleggeert–Lankamp et al. // Cochrane Database Syst Rev. — 2015. — 1 электрон. опт. диск (CD 010036).

26. Biomechanical assessment of minimally invasive decompression for lumbar spinal canal stenosis: a cadaver study / T. Hamasaki, N. Tanaka, J. Kim, M. O kada et al. // J Spinal Disord Tech. — 2009. — Vol. 22. — P. 486–491.

27. Борщенко, И. А. Спинальный поясничный дегенеративный стеноз: билатеральная декомпрессия из одностороннего доступа / И. А. Борщенко, С. Л. Мигачев, А. В. Басков // Нейрохирургия. — 2011. — № 1. — С. 54–60.

28. A biomechanical evaluation of graded posterior element removal for treatment of lumbar stenosis: comparison of a minimally invasive approach with two standard laminectomy techniques L. Bresnahan, A. T. O gden, R. N. Natarajan et al. // Spine. — 2009. — Vol. 34. — P. 17–23.

29. Перкутанная эндоскопическая поясничная фораминотомия / А. М. Мержоев, Д. А. Гуляев, С. Б. Сингаевский и соавт. // Российский нейрохирургический журнал имени проф. А. Л. Поленова. — 2017. — Т. 9, № 2. — С. 30–36.

30. Bilateral operation of lumbar degenerative central spinal stenosis in full–endoscopic interlaminar technique with unilateral approach / M. Komp, P. Hahn, H. M erk et al. // J Spinal Disord Tech. — 2011. — Vol. 24. — P. 281–287.

31. Сравнительный анализ чрезкожной эндоскопической интраламинарной дискэктомии и микродискэктомии у пациентов с избыточной массой тела / Ю. В. Беляков, А. М. Мереджи, А. Ю. Орлов, А. С. Назаров, А. В. Кудзиев, Е. А. Олейник, В. П. Берснев, Е. Г. Потемкина // Российский нейрохирургический журнал имени проф. А. Л. Поленова. — 2020. — Т. 12, № 1. — С. 12–15.

32. Олейник Е. А. Выявление разновидности формы поясничного остеохондроза в отдаленном послеоперационном периоде / Олейник Е. А., Олейник А. А., Орлов А. Ю., Давыдов Е. А., Олейник А. Д., Иванова Н. Е.// Вестник Всероссийского общества специалистов по медико- социальной экспертизе, реабилитации и реабилитационной индустрии. — 2018. — № 4. — С. 91–97.