A Cost-utility Analysis of Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy for L5-S1 Lumbar Disc Herniation: Transforaminal versus Interlaminar

Comparative Study Between Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Discectomy and Percutaneous Interlaminar Endoscopic Discectomy for the Treatment of L5/S1 Disc Herniation

PURPOSE

To compare the clinical outcomes of unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBED) and percutaneous interlaminar endoscopic discectomy (PIED) for treating L5/S1 disc herniation.

METHODS

Patients with L5/S1 disc herniation treated with UBED (n = 46) and PIED (n = 50) in our hospital during the same period were retrospectively reviewed. Clinical outcome, radiographic parameters, and complications of each group were collected and evaluated.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up period was 14.11 ± 3.47 months in the UBED group and 14.52 ± 5.37 months in the PIED group. There was no significant difference in visual analog scale score for the leg (P = 0.836) or lumbar scores (P = 0.335) between PIED and UBED group at preoperative, 1-day postoperative, and last follow-up point. Within the same group, there were significant differences in visual analog scale score for the leg (P < 0.001) and lumbar scores (P < 0.001) compared pairwise at 3 time points. Oswestry Disability Index scores of both groups showed significant improvement at the last follow-up (P < 0.001, P < 0.001), and there was no significant difference in patient satisfaction rates (97.8% vs. 96%) between the 2 groups on the basis of the MacNab criteria. The percentage of facet joint preservation was 96.74 ± 9.10% in the UBED group and 99.22 ± 1.52% in the PIED group. The total blood loss and hospitalization cost was greater in the UBED group. One patient in both groups showed postoperative hematoma. A dural tear occurred in UBED group and a never root injury occurred in the PIED group.

CONCLUSIONS

UBED indicates similar short-term efficacy compared with PIED for treating L5/S1 disc herniation. No difference was found in facet joint preservation between the 2 groups. We believe the increased cost of UBED as the result of surgical consumables will decrease in the future.

Comparison of Full Endoscopic Lumbar Diskectomy Using the Transforaminal Approach versus Interlaminar Approach for L5-S1 Lumbar Disk Herniation Treatment: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

 Numerous studies have examined the clinical effectiveness of transforaminal full endoscopic lumbar diskectomy (T-FELD) and interlaminar full endoscopic lumbar diskectomy (I-FELD) for L5-S1 lumbar disk herniation (LDH), with mixed findings. The goal of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the perioperative outcomes, clinical results, and complications of T-FELD and I-FELD to determine their efficacy and safety for treating L5-S1 LDH and to examine the features of complications in depth.

METHODS

 Several databases were searched for articles that matched all of the inclusion criteria. The visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were used to assess the clinical results. Information on perioperative outcomes and complications was gathered and analyzed.

RESULTS

 Eight studies with 756 participants were included. There were no significant differences in postoperative bed time (p = 0.44) and hospitalization time (p = 0.49) between T-FELD and I-FELD. When compared with I-FELD, T-FELD was associated with substantially longer fluoroscopy time (p < 0.0001) and operating time (p < 0.0001). There were no significant differences in the preoperative and postoperative VAS and ODI scores between T-FELD and I-FELD. The rates for overall complications, postoperative dysesthesia, postoperative lower extremity pain, incomplete decompression, recurrence, and conversion to open surgery were comparable for T-FLED and I-FELD.

CONCLUSION

 T-FELD and I-FELD had equal clinical results and safety for treatment of L5-S1 LDH. Fluoroscopy and operative times were shorter for I-FELD than for T-FELD.

New ipsilateral full endoscopic interlaminar approach for L5-S1 foraminal and extraforaminal decompression: technique description and initial case series

BACKGROUND

The L5-S1 interlaminar access described in 2006 by Ruetten et al. represented a paradigm shift and a new perspective on endoscopic spinal approaches. Since then, the spinal community has shown that both the traditional ipsilateral and novel contralateral interlaminar approaches to the L5-S1 foramen are good alternatives to transforaminal access. This study aimed to provide a technical description and brief case series analysis of a new endoscopic foraminal and extraforaminal approach for pathologies at the lumbar L5-S1 level using a new ipsilateral interlaminar approach.

METHODS

Thirty patients with degenerative stenotic conditions at the L5-S1 disc level underwent the modified interlaminar approach. The surgical time, blood loss, occurrence of complications, and clinical outcomes were recorded. The data were compiled in Excel and analyzed using R software version 4.2. All continuous variables are presented as the mean, median, minimum, and maximal ranges. For categorical variables, data are described as counts and percentages.

RESULTS

Thirty patients were included in the study. The cohort showed significant improvements in all quality-of-life scores (ODI, visual analog scale of back pain, and visual analog scale of leg pain). Five cases of postoperative numbness and three cases of postoperative dysesthesia have been reported. No case of durotomy or leg weakness has been reported.

CONCLUSIONS

The fundamental change proposed by this procedure, the new ipsilateral approach, presents potential advantages to surgeons by overcoming anatomical challenges at the L5-S1 level and by providing surgeon-friendly visualization and access. This approach allows for extensive foraminal and extraforaminal decompression, including the removal of hernias and osteophytosis, without causing neural retraction of the L5-S1 roots while maintaining the stability of the operated level.

Transforaminal lumbar endoscopic discectomy: should we abandon it for L5-S1 foraminal and extraforaminal lumbar disc herniations? A prospective non-randomised study and literature review

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to investigate the clinical outcomes of transforaminal lumbar endoscopic discectomy (TLED) in patients with L5-S1 lumbar disc herniation (LDH).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Seventy-five consecutive individuals with diagnosed foraminal/extraforaminal L5-S1 LDH were included in this study. All patients underwent TLED, being subsequently evaluated in a 2-year follow-up period. Assessment was performed preoperatively and at 6 weeks and 3, 6, 12 and 24 months postoperatively. Visual Analogue Scale (distinctly applied for lower limb - VAS-LP and low back - VAS-BP pain) and Short-Form 36 (SF-36) Medical Health Survey Questionnaire were implemented to assess pain and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of enrolled individuals, respectively.

RESULTS

No major perioperative complications were observed. Recorded values of all studied indices were demonstrated to feature a clinically and statistically significant amelioration at 6 weeks, presenting lesser improvement at 3 months with subsequent stabilisation. VAS-LP and VAS-BP values were displayed to reach a plateau in 6 months postoperatively, whereas all parameters of SF-36 continued to present a statistically significant improvement until the end of follow-up at 2 years.

CONCLUSIONS

TLED represent a safe and efficient technique in terms of diminishing perceived pain and improving HRQoL in patients with L5-S1 LDHs. However, specific patient- and technique-related circumstances on the ground of low surgical experience may limit its effectiveness in these patients.

Modified Percutaneous Endoscopic Interlaminar Discectomy through the Near-spinous Process Approach for L4/5 Disc Herniation: A Retrospective Clinical Study

OBJECTIVE

Compared with traditional open surgery, percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) has the advantages of less trauma, faster recovery, and less postoperative pain, so it has been widely used in the field of spinal surgery. However, it still has the defect of intraoperative fluoroscopy occurrences, complications, and even the risk of damage to the spinal cord and nerve. This study aims to compare the clinical efficacy of modified percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (MPEID) with percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy (PETD) in treating L4/5 lumbar disc herniation (LDH) and to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of MPEID.

METHODS

Thirty-four L4/5 LDH patients treated at the Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University from June 2020 to June 2021 were studied retrospectively. Seventeen underwent MPEID and seventeen PETD. Variables analyzed included demographics, operative duration, intraoperative fluoroscopy occurrences, and surgical outcomes. Effectiveness was evaluated using the visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), and modified MacNab criteria. Lumbar Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) was used to assess radiological outcomes. A paired t-test was performed to compare intragroup pre- and postoperative clinical data, VAS, and ODI scores.

RESULTS

The average operative time in PETD group was 91.65 ± 14.04 min, and the average operative time in MPEID group was 65.41 ± 12.61 min (p < 0.001). In PETD group, the fluoroscopy occurrences averaged 9.71 ± 1.05 times, with fluoroscopy occurrences averaging 6.47 ± 1.00 times (p < 0.001) in MPEID group. At 12 months follow-up, the clinical effect showed significant improvement in both two groups. The MPEID group showed a decrease in average VAS-back score from 5.41 ± 2.18 to 1.76 ± 1.09 (p < 0.001) and VAS-leg score from 6.53 ± 1.66 to 0.82 ± 0.64 (p < 0.001). The ODI scores decreased from 51.35 ± 10.65 to 11.71 ± 2.91 (p < 0.001). In the PETD group, the VAS-back score decreased from 4.94 ± 1.98 to 2.06 ± 1.25 (p < 0.001), VAS-leg score from 7.12 ± 1.73 to 1.12 ± 0.60 (p < 0.001), and ODI scores from 48.00 ± 11.62 to 12.24 ± 2.56 (p < 0.001). According to the modified MacNab criteria, MPEID had 15 excellent and two good results; PETD had 12 excellent and 5 good (p = 0.23). No nerve root injuries, dural tears, or significant complications were reported.

CONCLUSION

MPEID and PETD effectively treat L4/5 LDH, with MPEID showing shorter operative times and fewer fluoroscopies. Furthermore, the MPEID group can provide excellent clinical efficacy as the PETD group in the short term.

A possible correlation between facet orientation and development of degenerative cervical spinal stenosis

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have demonstrated the relationship between sagittal facet orientation and cervical degenerative spondylolisthesis. However, the associations between facet orientation and cervical spinal stenosis (CSS) have rarely been studied.

METHODS

One hundred twenty patients with CSS (CSS group) and 120 healthy participants (control group) were consecutively enrolled. The cervical facet angles and anteroposterior diameter (A-P diameter) of spinal canal at each subaxial cervical levels were measured using axial magnetic resonance imaging. The intersection angle of the midsagittal line of the vertebra to the facet line represents the orientation of the facet joint.

RESULTS

The facet angles on the right side at C2- C3 and C3-C4 in CSS group and at C2- C3 in control group had significantly higher values than those of the other sides. Besides, the facet angles and A-P diameter of spinal canal in CSS group were significantly smaller than those in control group at all levels (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrated that patients with CSS have smaller axial cervical facet joint angles compared to the healthy individuals. Further studies are needed to elicit the specific underlying mechanism between sagittalization of the cervical facet joints and the pathology of CSS.

Feasibility of Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy in a Remote Government Hospital in Thailand: A Cost-Utility Analysis

BACKGROUND

Treatments for lumbar discectomy have developed over time. Recently, endoscopy has played an important role. However, a major obstacle to endoscopy in rural areas is the cost of surgery, particularly for endoscopes and disposable equipment. We assessed the cost effectiveness of endoscopic lumbar discectomy compared to the traditional open microdiscectomy technique in a government hospital in a developing country.

METHODS

This study focused on 50 patients who underwent endoscopic lumbar discectomy between April 2019 and March 2020 at Yala Regional Hospital and were reviewed by our team. The duration of hospital stays, operative time, follow-up, and clinical outcomes at one, three, and six months postoperatively were observed and compared with 30 patients who underwent microscopic lumbar discectomy. Hospital expenses were calculated and compared using t-tests.

RESULTS

Endoscopic discectomy was 4.00 days length of stay while microscopic discectomy has 9.77 days in averages. The pain score was 8.82 for endoscopic surgery and 9.1 for microscopic surgery. The operative price for the endoscopic discectomy was 144.69 USD higher than that for the open lumbar discectomy because of the disposable equipment. However, each patient in the microdiscectomy group had a longer hospital stay and required more perioperative care, which decreased the difference of the total hospital expenses (1,420.612 vs 1,399.16 USD).

CONCLUSION

Full endoscopic lumbar discectomy is an effective procedure that is beneficial for patients. The total hospital costs are not significantly different between the two procedures. To ensure that more patients receive this benefit and to develop surgical competency in government hospitals, the surgical reimbursement fee for endoscopic discectomy should be more affordable than that for conventional discectomy.

Cost and Effectiveness of Percutaneous Endoscopic Interlaminar Discectomy versus Microscope-Assisted Tubular Discectomy for L5-S1 Lumbar Disc Herniation

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost and effectiveness of percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) and microscope-assisted tubular discectomy (MATD) for patients with L5/S1 lumbar disc herniation (LDH).

METHODS

The medical and financial records of patients diagnosed with L5/S1 LDH and who underwent either PEID or MATD from April 2021 to April 2022 were retrospectively collected. Demographic and baseline information, perioperative observational index, clinical outcomes, and inpatient costs were analyzed.

RESULTS

Sixty patients were included, with 30 patients in the PEID group and 30 patients in the MATD group. No significant difference was found in demographic and baseline information between the 2 groups (P > 0.05). The PEID group showed significantly shorter incision length, less intraoperative blood loss, shorter hospital stays, and higher intraoperative fluoroscopy frequency compared with the MATD group (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in visual analog scale back/leg score, Oswestry Disability Index, and 36-Item Short-Form Survey score between PEID and MATD groups before the surgery and at any follow-up time points (P > 0.05). The total cost, surgery cost, and surgical instruments/materials cost were significantly higher in the PEID group compared with the MATD group (P < 0.05). In contrast, the drug and nursing costs were significantly higher in the MATD group than in the PEID group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

PEID and MATD provide equivalent clinical efficacy and safety in treating LDH at L5/S1 segment within a 1-year follow-up. However, PEID is less invasive and MATD is less costly. No one surgical technique is superior in all aspects and patients should make decisions according to their top concern.

Basics of health economics for clinical trials in orthopaedic trauma

With the rise in global healthcare spending, medical decision-making is increasingly based on health economics outcomes. This narrative review aims to provide an overview of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and cost-utility analysis (CUA), including their advantages and limitations, and outline practical aspects for implementing health economics in clinical trials for orthopaedic trauma. Both CEA and CUA offer several advantages. Firstly, they consider the costs as well as benefits of an intervention, providing a more comprehensive picture of its economic impact. Secondly, they provide a clear and straightforward metric for comparing interventions, which can help decision-makers make informed choices. However, there are methodological shortcomings that must be acknowledged, such as the lack of standardized instruments for assessing health utility measures, which can result in a wide range of cost-benefit ratios. In addition, a consensus on the willingness-to-pay threshold still needs to be reached to develop decision rules for cost-effectiveness similar to clinical effectiveness. Methods such as CEA and CUA should be incorporated into clinical trials in orthopaedic trauma research. Practical aspects for this include planning in advance, preferably in cooperation with a health economist. Selecting appropriate outcome measures is crucial, and both the medical effects of interventions and quality of life instruments should be carefully chosen to ensure comparability with previous studies. Additionally, the potential impact on clinical practice and healthcare policies should be considered. Direct as well as indirect costs should be assessed, and quality assurance with well-established checklists should be confirmed.

Comparison of the Interlaminar and Transforaminal Approaches for Full-endoscopic Discectomy for the Treatment of L4/5 Lumbar Disc Herniation

This study aims to compare the outcomes of interlaminar and transforaminal approaches for full-endoscopic discectomy (FED) for treating L4/5 lumbar disc herniation (LDH).A retrospective study of patients with L4/5 LDH treated with interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy (IELD, n = 19) or transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy (TELD, n = 105) was conducted. Patient background, radiological findings, and operative data were collected. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and European Quality of Life-5 Dimension (EQ-5D) scores were recorded preoperatively and 1 and 2 years postoperatively.Although ODI and EQ-5D scores 1 and 2 years postoperatively improved statistically in the IELD and TELD groups, there were no statistical differences between the groups. IELD was predominantly performed in patients who were taller and heavier. The mean operative times and the frequency of laminectomy for IELD and TELD were 67.2 and 44.6 min and 63.2 and 17.1%, respectively (P < 0.001). The radiological findings showed that the concave configuration of the L4 lamina, interlaminar space width, and foraminal width were statistically different between the groups. There were no complications in either of the groups. Reoperation was required for recurrence in two and five patients in the IELD and TELD groups (P = 0.29), respectively.Operative outcomes were identical between the two groups. Although the operative time was longer in the IELD group, both approaches were safely and effectively performed. Depending on the patient's physique and preoperative radiological findings, the more suitable approach for L4/5 LDH should be chosen.

Comparative Analysis of Non-Full and Full Endoscopic Spine Technique via Interlaminar Approach for the Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Retrospective, Single Institute, Propensity Score-Matched Study

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical efficacy of posterior lumbar laminectomy decompression under full endoscopic technique (Endo-LOVE) and percutaneous endoscopic medial foraminal decompression (PE-MFD) in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS).

METHODS

Between April 2017 and April 2018, 96 patients with DLSS underwent Endo-LOVE or PE-MFD, including 58 with Endo-LOVE and 38 with PE-MFD. After propensity score matching (PSM), patient characteristics, operation time, intraoperative fluoroscopy times, postoperative bedridden time, hospital stay and postoperative complications were recorded and compared. The clinical efficacy was evaluated according to Oswestry disability index (ODI), visual analogue scale (VAS), lumbar disease JOA and modified MacNab criteria.

RESULTS

A total of 96 patients with DLSS were included in the study. After PSM, the 2 groups were comparable in patient demographic and baseline characteristics. The operation time and intraoperative fluoroscopy times in PE-MFD group were significantly more than those in Endo-LOVE group (P < .05). The operation time in PE-MFD group was significantly less than that in Endo-LOVE group (P < .05).The intraoperative fluoroscopy times in PE-MFD group were significantly more than that in Endo-LOVE group (P < .05). The ODI, VAS and lumbar disease JOA in the 2 groups were significantly improved comparing with those before operation (P < .05). According to the modified MacNab criteria, the excellent and good rates of the 2 groups were 93.5% in Endo-LOVE group and 87.1% in PE-MFD group (P > .05).

CONCLUSION

Endo-LOVE and PE-MFD technique can both effectively treat DLSS, and the short-term follow-up results are positive. Endo-LOVE technique has the advantages of fast puncture positioning, less radiation exposure and wider indications. However, PE-MFD needs more radiation exposure and has the possibility of incomplete decompression for complex multiplanar spinal stenosis.

Local Anesthesia Versus General Anesthesia in Percutaneous Interlaminar Endoscopic Discectomy: A Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to systematically evaluate the safety and efficacy of local anesthesia (LA) and general anesthesia (GA) in percutaneous interlaminar endoscopic discectomy (PIED).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, EuropePMC, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane databases, and CNKI databases for all relevant studies. All statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager version 5.3.

RESULTS

A total of 6 articles with 549 study participants were included, with 282 patients in LA group and 267 patients in GA group. The results of the meta-analysis showed that the LA group had significantly better results in hospital stay time (mean difference [MD], -1.68; 95% CI, -3.35 to -0.01) and hospital costs (MD, -0.57, 95% CI, -1.02 to -0.12) compared with the GA group; whereas Oswestry Disability Index (MD, 0.48; 95% CI, -0.07 to 1.04), Visual Analog Scale Scores (MD, -0.05; 95% CI, -0.24 to 0.13), postoperative transient dysesthesia and weakness (odds ratio [OR], 0.83, 95% CI, 0.40 to 1.69), dura and nerve root injury (OR, 0.21, 95% CI, 0.03 to 1.25), operation time (MD, -3.51; 95% CI, -11.5 to 4.48), and willingness rate to receive the same procedure(OR, 0.12, 95% CI, 0.01 to 1.00) showed no significant differences between the 2 groups.

DISCUSSION

LA can effectively relieve pain during PIED surgery and ensure the safety of operation without increasing the occurrence of postoperative complications. PIED under LA not only has similar patient satisfaction but also shows obvious advantages in shortening hospital stay and reducing hospital costs compared with GA surgery.

Methodology of economic evaluations in spine surgery: a systematic review and qualitative assessment

OBJECTIVES

The present study is a systematic review conducted as part of a methodological approach to develop evidence-based recommendations for economic evaluations in spine surgery. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the methodology and quality of currently available clinical cost-effectiveness studies in spine surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic literature review.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EconLit and The National Institute for Health Research Economic Evaluation Database were searched through 8 December 2022.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Studies were included if they met all of the following eligibility criteria: (1) spine surgery, (2) the study cost-effectiveness and (3) clinical study. Model-based studies were excluded.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

The following data items were extracted and evaluated: pathology, number of participants, intervention(s), year, country, study design, time horizon, comparator(s), utility measurement, effectivity measurement, costs measured, perspective, main result and study quality.

RESULTS

130 economic evaluations were included. Seventy-four of these studies were retrospective studies. The majority of the studies had a time horizon shorter than 2 years. Utility measures varied between the EuroQol 5 dimensions and variations of the Short-Form Health Survey. Effect measures varied widely between Visual Analogue Scale for pain, Neck Disability Index, Oswestry Disability Index, reoperation rates and adverse events. All studies included direct costs from a healthcare perspective. Indirect costs were included in 47 studies. Total Consensus Health Economic Criteria scores ranged from 2 to 18, with a mean score of 12.0 over all 130 studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The comparability of economic evaluations in spine surgery is extremely low due to different study designs, follow-up duration and outcome measurements such as utility, effectiveness and costs. This illustrates the need for uniformity in conducting and reporting economic evaluations in spine surgery.

Clinical efficacy of general anesthesia versus local anesthesia for percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy

Objective

Local anesthesia (LA) is recommended for percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy(PTED), but satisfactory pain management is not mostly achieved. The goal of this study was to examine the clinical efficacy of PTED for lumbar disc herniation when performed under local anaesthetic vs. general anesthesia (GA).

Methods

From August 2018 to August 2020, the clinical data of 108 patients treated with PTED were retrospectively evaluated and separated into two groups: LA and GA based on the anesthesia method. General information and clinical outcomes of patients were included. Visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) were recorded before operation, 1 week after operation, and 1 year after operation. In addition, VAS for back pain and leg pain on the second postoperative day were also recorded.

Results

We divided the patients into two groups: 72 in LA and 36 in GA. There were no significant differences in gender, age, course of disease, body mass index, surgical segment, duration of operation, intraoperative bleeding, time of fluoroscopy, length of hospital stay, total hospitalization cost reoperation, surgical satisfaction, Macnab satisfaction, complications, preoperative and 1 year postoperatively VAS for back pain and leg pain and ODI, VAS for leg pain on the second day and 1 week postoperatively between the two groups (P > 0.05). VAS for back pain in GA group on the second day postoperatively, as well as the VAS for back pain and ODI at one week postoperatively, were better than those in LA group (P < 0.05). However, the total hospitalization cost in LA group was significantly lower than that in GA group (P < 0.05). Further analysis of different ages in the two groups showed that there were significant differences in the VAS for back pain on the second day postoperatively and ODI at 1 week postoperatively in the middle-aged group (45 ≤ Y ≤ 59), as well as the VAS for back pain on the second day postoperatively in the senior group (Y ≥ 60) (P < 0.05). However, there were no significant difference among other groups (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

Long-term outcomes were similar for both PTED under LA and GA, while GA group had better short-term outcomes, especially in middle-aged and elderly patients.

A Proposed Personalized Spine Care Protocol (SpineScreen) to Treat Visualized Pain Generators: An Illustrative Study Comparing Clinical Outcomes and Postoperative Reoperations between Targeted Endoscopic Lumbar Decompression Surgery, Minimally Invasive TLIF and Open Laminectomy

Background: Endoscopically visualized spine surgery has become an essential tool that aids in identifying and treating anatomical spine pathologies that are not well demonstrated by traditional advanced imaging, including MRI. These pathologies may be visualized during endoscopic lumbar decompression (ELD) and categorized into primary pain generators (PPG). Identifying these PPGs provides crucial information for a successful outcome with ELD and forms the basis for our proposed personalized spine care protocol (SpineScreen). Methods: a prospective study of 412 patients from 7 endoscopic practices consisting of 207 (50.2%) males and 205 (49.8%) females with an average age of 63.67 years and an average follow-up of 69.27 months was performed to compare the durability of targeted ELD based on validated primary pain generators versus image-based open lumbar laminectomy, and minimally invasive lumbar transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF) using Kaplan-Meier median survival calculations. The serial time was determined as the interval between index surgery and when patients were censored for additional interventional and surgical treatments for low back-related symptoms. A control group was recruited from patients referred for a surgical consultation but declined interventional and surgical treatment and continued on medical care. Control group patients were censored when they crossed over into any surgical or interventional treatment group. Results: of the 412 study patients, 206 underwent ELD (50.0%), 61 laminectomy (14.8%), and 78 (18.9%) TLIF. There were 67 patients in the control group (16.3% of 412 patients). The most common surgical levels were L4/5 (41.3%), L5/S1 (25.0%), and L4-S1 (16.3%). At two-year f/u, excellent and good Macnab outcomes were reported by 346 of the 412 study patients (84.0%). The VAS leg pain score reduction was 4.250 ± 1.691 (p < 0.001). No other treatment during the available follow-up was required in 60.7% (125/206) of the ELD, 39.9% (31/78) of the TLIF, and 19.7% (12/61 of the laminectomy patients. In control patients, only 15 of the 67 (22.4%) control patients continued with conservative care until final follow-up, all of which had fair and poor functional Macnab outcomes. In patients with Excellent Macnab outcomes, the median durability was 62 months in ELD, 43 in TLIF, and 31 months in laminectomy patients (p < 0.001). The overall survival time in control patients was eight months with a standard error of 0.942, a lower boundary of 6.154, and an upper boundary of 9.846 months. In patients with excellent Macnab outcomes, the median durability was 62 months in ELD, 43 in TLIF, and 31 months in laminectomy patients versus control patients at seven months (p < 0.001). The most common new-onset symptom for censoring was dysesthesia ELD (9.4%; 20/206), axial back pain in TLIF (25.6%;20/78), and recurrent pain in laminectomy (65.6%; 40/61) patients (p < 0.001). Transforaminal epidural steroid injections were tried in 11.7% (24/206) of ELD, 23.1% (18/78) of TLIF, and 36.1% (22/61) of the laminectomy patients. The secondary fusion rate among ELD patients was 8.8% (18/206). Among TLIF patients, the most common additional treatments were revision fusion (19.2%; 15/78) and multilevel rhizotomy (10.3%; 8/78). Common follow-up procedures in laminectomy patients included revision laminectomy (16.4%; 10/61), revision ELD (11.5%; 7/61), and multilevel rhizotomy (11.5%; 7/61). Control patients crossed over into ELD (13.4%), TLIF (13.4%), laminectomy (10.4%) and interventional treatment (40.3%) arms at high rates. Most control patients treated with spinal injections (55.5%) had excellent and good functional outcomes versus 40.7% with fair and poor (3.7%), respectively. The control patients (93.3%) who remained in medical management without surgery or interventional care (14/67) had the worst functional outcomes and were rated as fair and poor. Conclusions: clinical outcomes were more favorable with lumbar surgeries than with non-surgical control groups. Of the control patients, the crossover rate into interventional and surgical care was 40.3% and 37.2%, respectively. There are longer symptom-free intervals after targeted ELD than with TLIF or laminectomy. Additional intervention and surgical treatments are more often needed to manage new-onset postoperative symptoms in TLIF- and laminectomy compared to ELD patients. Few ELD patients will require fusion in the future. Considering the rising cost of surgical spine care, we offer SpineScreen as a simplified and less costly alternative to traditional image-based care models by focusing on primary pain generators rather than image-based criteria derived from the preoperative lumbar MRI scan.

Comparative study of the efficacy and safety of minimally invasive interlaminar full-endoscopic discectomy versus conventional microscopic discectomy in single-level lumbar herniated intervertebral disc (ENDO-F Trial): a multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trial protocol

Background

Advances in minimally invasive surgery have expanded the indications for interlaminar full-endoscopic discectomy. Although the clinical outcomes for this approach may be equivalent to those of conventional microscopic discectomy, the supporting evidence is still based on small, single-center, prospective, and retrospective studies. Therefore, a multicenter randomized controlled trial is warranted.

Methods

This will be a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial comparing the efficacy and safety of interlaminar full-endoscopic discectomy to those of conventional microscopic discectomy. The trial will enroll 100 participants with a lumbar disc herniation, 50 in each group. The primary outcome will be the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score at 12 months post-surgery. Secondary outcomes will be back and leg pain (visual analog scale); the ODI; the EuroQol-5-dimension score; patient satisfaction; and walking distance/time and time to return to daily activities post-surgery. Surgical outcomes will include postoperative drainage, operative time, duration of hospital stay, postoperative creatine kinase level as an indicator of muscle injury, and postoperative scarring. Postoperative magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, and simple radiography will be performed to evaluate radiographic outcomes between the two surgical approaches. Surgery-related complications and adverse effects will be evaluated as safety outcomes. A single assessor at each participating hospital, blinded to group allocation, will assess the enrolled participants at baseline, at 2 weeks, and at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively.

Discussion

This trial is designed to determine whether interlaminar full-endoscopic discectomy is clinically comparable to microscopic discectomy to treat lumbar disc herniations. All efforts will be made to reduce bias, including adequate sample size, blinded analyses, and multicenter prospective registration. The outcomes will inform practice, providing the evidence needed for using interlaminar full-endoscopic over microscopic discectomy by confirming the potential of this technique to improve patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes.

Trial registration: Clinical Research Information Service; cris.nih.go.kr. (KCT0006277); protocol version (v1, June 8, 2021).

Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy for Huge Lumbar Disc Herniation with Complete Dural Sac Stenosis via an Interlaminar Approach: An Observational Retrospective Cohort Study

Purpose

Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) is a minimally invasive spinal surgery for huge lumbar disc herniation (HLDH). The aim of this study was to investigate the short-term clinical effectiveness of PELD for HLDH with complete dural sac stenosis via an interlaminar approach.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 56 patients diagnosed with HLDH with complete dural sac stenosis and treated with PELD via an interlaminar approach. Numerical rating scale (NRS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), and modified Japanese orthopedic association (mJOA) were used to evaluate preoperative conditions as well as outcomes at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months postoperatively. At the final follow-up, the clinical effects were evaluated using modified MacNab criteria.

Results

All patients were followed for at least 12 months. At 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively, the NRS and ODI scores were significantly decreased, and the mJOA score significantly increased compared with preoperative results (P<0.001). According to the Macnab criteria at the final follow-up, it was excellent in 42 patients (75%), good in 9 (16.1%), and fair in 5 (8.9%). The overall clinical satisfactory rate was 91.1%.

Conclusion

Our study results suggest that percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) is available for the treatment of HLDH with complete dural sac stenosis, whose benefits are rapid recovery, complete removal of the herniated disc, effective spinal canal decompression, fewer complications, and significant relief of clinical symptoms.

Original Designed Uniportal-Bichannel Spinal Endoscopic System (UBiSES) for Foraminoplasty in Percutaneous Endoscopic Transforaminal Discectomy

OBJECTIVE

The study introduced uniportal-bichannel spinal endoscopic system (UBiSES) and explored the feasibility of applying UBiSES to conduct lumbar foraminoplasty in percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy (PETD).

METHODS

This is a cohort study. 36 patients confirmed as L5/S1 lumbar disc herniation (LDH) in our hospital from March, 2019 to November, 2019 were enrolled. 36 patients were divided into two groups named the UBiSES group (n = 18, male: female = 8:10) and the TESSYS group (n = 18, male: female = 10:8). The average age of the UBiSES group and the TESSYS group were 40.94 ± 12.39 years old and 39.78 ± 13.02 years old respectively. PETD via uniportal-bichannel foraminoplasty assisted by UBiSES was adopted on the UBiSES group while PETD via conventional foraminoplasty was performed on the TESSYS group. One experienced surgeon with more than 4000 cases of lumbar surgery performed PETD on all patients. The demographic data, the duration of working cannula placement (minutes), decompression time (minutes), radiation exposure time (seconds), complications, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores and modified MacNab criteria were recorded and analyzed. The magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) were conducted to evaluate the radiographic improvement.

RESULTS

PETD via lumbar foraminoplasty was successfully performed in all cases. The follow-up points were 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months. The average follow-up period of all patients was 15.78 ± 2.29 months. There was no statistic difference in age (P = 0.81), sex (P = 0.51) and follow-up (P = 0.14) between two groups. The duration of working cannula placement was 19.08 ± 2.30 min in the UBiSES group and 24.90 ± 4.71 min in the TESSYS group and there was significant difference between two groups (P < 0.05). There was no statistic difference in decompression time between the UBiSES group (44.18 ± 5.70 min) and the TESSYS group (47.46 ± 5.96 min) (P = 1.70). The radiation exposure time was 28.00 ± 4.70 s in the UBiSES group and 40.50 ± 5.73 s in the TESSYS group respectively, and has significant difference between two groups (P < 0.05). Furthermore, there was significant different in the duration of working cannula placement and radiation exposure time in male or female between the UBiSES group and the TESSYS group (P < 0.05). For male or female, no difference observed in decompression time and follow-up period between two groups. Postoperative VAS of low back and leg at every follow-up point (1 day, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months) was improved significantly in both groups compared with their preoperative VAS (P < 0.05). The postoperative ODI (3 months, 6 months, 12 months) has decreased significantly in both the UBiSES group and the TESSYS group compared with their preoperative ODI (P < 0.05). 94.44% patients received an excellent or good recovery in the UBiSES group and 88.89% for the TESSYS group. There was no poor result reported in both groups. The radiographic images showed satisfactory foraminoplasty and sufficient decompression of nerve in both groups. No postoperative complications were observed during follow-ups in the UBiSES group. Two patients in the TESSYS group experienced postoperative dysesthesia and the symptom was disappeared in 5 days and 7 days respectively with dexamethasone and neurotrophic drugs treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The original designed UBiSES could effectively and safely enlarge the foramen with an extensive surgical view and space under full-time and real-time visualization and get satisfactory efficacy.

Variation in spatial distance between the lumbar interlaminar window and intervertebral disc space during flexion-extension

PURPOSE

Knowledge of interlaminar space is important for undertaking percutaneous endoscopic discectomy via an interlaminar approach (PED-IL). However, dynamic changes in the lumbar interlaminar space and the spatial relationship between the interlaminar space and intervertebral disc space (IDS) are not clear. The aim of this study was to anatomically clarify the changes in interlaminar space height (ILH) and variation in distance between the two spaces during flexion-extension of the lumbar spine in vitro.

METHODS

First, we used a validated custom-made loading equipment to obtain neutral, flexion, and extension 3D models of eight lumbar specimens through 3D reconstruction software. Changes in ILH (ILH, IL-yH, IL-zH) and distances between the horizontal plane passing through the lowest edge of the lamina of the superior lumbar vertebrae and the horizontal plane passing through the lowest position of the trailing edge of the same-level IDS (DpLID) at L3/4, L4/5 and L5/S1 were examined on 3D lumbar models.

RESULTS

We found that ILH was greater at L4/5 than at L3/4 and L5/S1 in the neutral position, but the difference was not significant. In the flexion position, ILH was significantly more than that in neutral and extension positions at L3/4, L4/5, and L5/S1. There were significantly more DpLID changes from neutral to flexion than that from neutral to extension at all levels (L3/4, L4/5, L5/S1).

CONCLUSION

These findings demonstrated level-specific changes in ILH and DpLID during flexion-extension. The data may provide a better understanding of the spatial relationship between lumbar interlaminar space and IDS, and aid the development of segment-specific treatment for PED-IL.

Percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy for the treatment of L5-S1 lumbar disc herniation and the influence of iliac crest height on its clinical effects

The present study aimed to explore the clinical effects of percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy using a transforaminal endoscopic spine system (TESSYS) technique for the treatment of L5-S1 lumbar disc herniation and to analyse the influence of iliac crest height on these clinical effects. The clinical data of 76 patients with L5-S1 single-segment disc herniation treated with TESSYS at The Second Affiliated Hospital and Third Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University between January and December 2016 were retrospectively analysed. Patients were divided into the following three groups according to the positional relation between the highest point of the iliac crest and the L4 and L5 pedicles in the lateral lumbar, as determined by X-ray: Group I, iliac crest height below the upper edge horizontal line of the L5 pedicle (n=42); group II, iliac crest height between the lower edge horizontal line of the L4 pedicle and the upper edge horizontal line of the L5 pedicle (n=29) and group III, iliac crest height above the lower edge horizontal line of the L4 pedicle (n=5). Changes in the postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score and Oswestry disability index (ODI) of the lower back and lower limbs were observed, and the effects were compared among the three groups. The mean operating time was 86.5±13.5 min. A single patient experienced cerebrospinal fluid leakage due to a mild tear of the dura mater during the operation, which improved after symptomatic treatment. The same operation was repeated in one patient due to the recurrence of disc herniation. In all patients, the VAS pain score and ODI of the lower back and lower limbs at 1 week and 1, 3 and 12 months following the operation were significantly lower than those before the operation (all P<0.05). Furthermore, the postoperative VAS pain score and ODI of the lower back and lower limbs were poorer in group III (L5-S1 lumbar disc herniation complicated with high iliac crest) than in groups I and II (P<0.05). These results suggested that TESSYS was effective in treating lumbar disc herniation. Whether the iliac crest is higher than the lower edge horizontal line of the L4 pedicle is suggested to be one of the factors influencing the outcome of the operation.

Understanding cost-utility analysis studies in the trauma and orthopaedic surgery literature

Cost-utility analysis (CUA) studies are becoming increasingly important due to the need to reduce healthcare spending, especially in the field of trauma and orthopaedics.

There is an increasing need for trauma and orthopaedic surgeons to understand these economic evaluations to ensure informed cost-effective decisions can be made to benefit the patient and funding body.

This review discusses the fundamental principles required to understand CUA studies in the literature, including a discussion of the different methods employed to assess the health outcomes associated with different management options and the various approaches used to calculate the costs involved.

Different types of model design may be used to conduct a CUA which can be broadly categorized into real-life clinical studies and computer-simulated modelling. We discuss the main types of study designs used within each category. We also cover the different types of sensitivity analysis used to quantify uncertainty in these studies and the commonly employed instruments used to assess the quality of CUAs. Finally, we discuss some of the important limitations of CUAs that need to be considered.

This review outlines the main concepts required to understand the CUA literature and provides a basic framework for their future conduct.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:305-315. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.200115

Is Less Really More? Economic Evaluation of Minimally Invasive Surgery

STUDY DESIGN

Review.

OBJECTIVE

A comparative overview of cost-effectiveness between minimally invasive versus and equivalent open spinal surgeries.

METHODS

A literature search using PubMed was performed to identify articles of interest. To maximize the capture of studies in our initial search, we combined variants of the terms "cost," "minimally invasive," "spine," "spinal fusion," "decompression" as either keywords or MeSH terms. PearlDiver database was queried for open and minimally invasive surgery (MIS; endoscopic or percutaneous) reimbursements between Q3 2015 and Q2 2018.

RESULTS

In general, MIS techniques appeared to decrease blood loss, shorten hospital lengths of stay, mitigate complications, decrease perioperative pain, and enable quicker return to daily activities when compared to equivalent open surgical techniques. With regard to cost, primarily as a result of these latter benefits, MIS was associated with lower costs of care when compared to equivalent open techniques. However, cost reporting was sparse, and relevant methodology was inconsistent throughout the spine literature. Within the PearlDiver data sets, MIS approaches had lower reimbursements than open approaches for both lumbar posterior fusion and discectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Current data suggests that overall cost-savings may be incurred with use of MIS techniques. However, data reporting on costs lacks in uniformity, making it difficult to formulate any firm conclusions regarding any incremental improvements in cost-effectiveness that may be incurred when utilizing MIS techniques when compared to equivalent open techniques.

Percutaneous Transforaminal Endoscopic Discectomy Versus Microendoscopic Discectomy for Lumbar Disc Herniation: Two-Year Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective randomized controlled study.

OBJECTIVE

To clarify whether percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) has better clinical outcomes and less surgical trauma compared with microendoscopic discectomy (MED).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Two kinds of minimally invasive spine surgeries, PTED and MED, are now widely used for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH). It is still a controversial issue to choose the proper surgical approach.

METHODS

In this single-center, open-label, randomized controlled trial, patients were included if they had persistent signs and symptoms of radiculopathy with corresponding imaging-confirmed LDH, and were randomly allocated to PTED or MED group. The primary outcome was the score of Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the secondary outcomes included the score of Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey bodily pain and physical function scales, European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions, and Visual Analogue Scales for back pain and leg pain.

RESULTS

A total of 250 participants were randomly assigned to two treatment groups, 241 of that received the specific surgical procedure. Two hundred twenty-two patients (92.1%) have completed the 2-year follow-up. Both the primary and secondary outcomes did not differ significantly between the two treatment groups at each prespecified follow-up time (P > 0.05). For PTED, the postoperative improvement of ODI score in the median herniation subgroup was less compared with paramedian subgroup. For MED, less improvement of ODI score was found in far-lateral herniation subgroup compared with paramedian subgroup. Total complication rate over the course of 2 year was 13.44% in PTED group and 15.57% in MED group (P = 0.639). Ten cases (8.40%) in PTED group and five cases (4.10%) in MED group suffered from residue/recurrence of herniation, for which reoperation was required.

CONCLUSION

Over the 2-year follow-up period, PTED did not show superior clinical outcomes and did not appear to be safer procedure for patients with LDH compared with MED. PTED had inferior results for median disc herniation, whereas MED did not appear to be the best option for far-lateral disc herniation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2.

Transforaminal Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy and Foraminotomy with Modified Radiofrequency Nerve Stimulator and Continuous Electromyography Under General Anesthesia

BACKGROUND

Transforaminal endoscopic lumbar approaches involve working in Kambin's triangle. These procedures are performed on awake patients or under general anesthesia with continuous electromyography. Potential morbidity of this approach includes injury to exiting and traversing nerve roots, as substantial dissection or cauterization of overlying tissues is required for visualization.

METHODS

We developed a novel connection system that accepts input from a bipolar radiofrequency probe to allow direct nerve stimulation in conjunction with electromyography. This study included 30 consecutive patients undergoing transforaminal endoscopic lumbar approaches for discectomies (73.3%), foraminal stenosis (23.3%), or lateral recess stenosis (3.3%). Demographic, operative, and outcomes data were collected.

RESULTS

Average age of patients was 61.4 years, and the L4-5 segment was most commonly treated (65.6%). Electrophysiologic mapping of the exiting nerve root was attempted in 28 patients with an average stimulation threshold of 8.6 ± 0.9 mA. Mapping of the traversing nerve root was attempted in 12 patients with an average stimulation threshold of 6.0 ± 0.8 mA. There were no instances of new postoperative sensorimotor deficits or dysesthesia. These findings persisted through mean and median follow-up of 294 days and 165 days, respectively. No patient required subsequent lumbar surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Our modified instrumentation and technique allow for accurate identification of the exiting and traversing nerve roots with minimal changes to the workflow of transforaminal endoscopic lumbar approaches. Modification of a bipolar radiofrequency device connection arrangement is simple, inexpensive, and reusable. In this study, no patients developed injury or pain related to nerve root dysfunction.

The Role of Full-Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy in Surgical Treatment of Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Health-Related Quality of Life Approach

Objective

To investigate the utility of full-endoscopic lumbar discectomy (FELD) in surgical treatment of recurrent lumbar disc herniation (RLDH).

Methods

Forty-five patients were prospectively studied. All patients were subjected to FELD for RLDH. They were assessed preoperatively and in regular intervals at 6 weeks and 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months postoperatively. Evaluation was conducted with visual analogue scale for leg (VAS-LP) and low back (VAS-BP) pain. Short-Form 36 Health Survey Questionnaire was utilized for health-related quality of life assessment.

Results

All studied parameters featured statistically significant amelioration at all follow-up intervals. Maximal improvement was in general at 6 weeks observed, with subsequent lesser improvement until 6 months and stabilization until the end of follow-up. Comparative assessment indicated that VAS-BP displayed quantitatively lower improvement, whereas physical function, bodily pain, and role-emotional parameters demonstrated greater amelioration.

Conclusion

FELD is associated with a favorable impact in postoperative daily life of patients with RLDH.