The durability of minimally invasive lumbar decompression procedure in patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis: Long-term follow-up

Three-year results of the MOTION randomized controlled trial for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis using the percutaneous mild® Procedure

Objective

The MOTION prospective, multicenter randomized controlled trial compares the outcomes of percutaneous image-guided lumbar decompression in combination with conventional medical management (CMM) to the use of CMM alone for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication secondary to hypertrophic ligamentum flavum. The study includes extended follow-up for patients in both the treatment group and for those who crossed over from the control group to the treatment group.

Methods

The treatment group received the mild® Procedure (Vertos Medical, Aliso Viejo, CA, USA) in combination with nonsurgical CMM, while the active control group received CMM alone. There were no restrictions for either group regarding access to real-world CMM therapies. Patients reported outcomes using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ), and Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS). Objective outcomes were measured using a validated Walking Tolerance Test (WTT), the incidence of subsequent lumbar spine interventions, and the occurrence of adverse events.

Results

Forty-eight patients initially receiving mild + CMM consented to extended follow-up and were available for 3-year follow-up. All outcomes for this group were significantly improved over baseline (p-values ranging from <0.0001 to 0.0001). At 3-year, ODI, NPRS back and leg, ZCQ symptom severity, and physical function improved by 16.9, 3.0, 4.3, 0.8, and 0.6, respectively. Walking tolerance test demonstrated 274 % improvement from baseline, and only 4 (5.6 %) patients had received surgical intervention. No device- or procedure-related adverse events were reported.

Conclusions

MOTION 3-year follow-up results continue to demonstrate the safety and durability of the mild Procedure combined with CMM for early interventional treatment of symptomatic LSS. The absence of device or procedure-related adverse events further underscores the robust safety profile of the mild Procedure. Significant and substantial improvements in all the outcomes were observed from baseline to follow-up for patients treated with the mild Procedure. These results support the mild Procedure as an effective approach for early intervention in LSS treatment.

Analysis of complications of minimally invasive approaches for symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis

INTRODUCTION

Current treatment modalities of lumbar spinal stenosis range from conservative medical management and physical therapy to open surgical decompression. Minimally invasive lumbar decompression (MILD) and Superion interspinous spacers (SISS) Vertiflex offer the promise of effective pain relief with shorter recovery time and lesser potential complications compared with open surgical decompression procedures and general anesthesia. Despite their increasing utilization, their complication profile is not well established in the literature.

METHODS

We searched the FDA's Manufacturer and User facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database for all entries on MILD product code 'HRX' and SISS product code 'NQO'. MAUDE database was queried from 2010 to 2021. Duplicate entries were removed, and complications were classified based on the event descriptions.

RESULTS

For the MILD procedure, a total of 10 entries were found in the MAUDE database. Among these, 8 were classified as surgical complications and 2 were device related. On the other hand, a total of 919 reports were found in the MAUDE database for Vertiflex, with 385 medical device reports were included in the analysis. Device-related were the most reported complication, accounting for 189 cases.

CONCLUSION

As with any new intervention, we must proceed with caution and evaluate the procedure performance over time. Such data should aid physicians to make informed decisions before choosing either technique for their patients. The findings from this study provide insight into the complication profile associated with both MILD and Vertiflex procedures, highlighting the need for continued evaluation and careful consideration in clinical decision-making.

An Algorithmic Overview of Advanced Pain Therapies: A Narrative Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Quickly referenceable, streamlined, algorithmic approaches for advanced pain management are lacking for patients, trainees, non-pain specialists, and interventional specialists. This manuscript aims to address this gap by proposing a comprehensive, evidence-based algorithm for managing neuropathic, nociceptive, and cancer-associated pain. Such an algorithm is crucial for pain medicine education, offering a structured approach for patient care refractory to conservative management.

RECENT FINDINGS

A comprehensive literary review with PubMed and regulatory documents from the United States Food and Drug Administration were searched for a variety of interventions. Pain syndromes were categorized into nociceptive and neuropathic pain, and an algorithm was constructed. Serving as an educational tool for patients, trainees, and non-pain specialists, and as an accessible reference for pain specialists, this algorithm bridges knowledge gaps, promotes interdisciplinary collaboration, and streamlines the learning curve for new practitioners. The strength of this algorithm lies in integrating extensive clinical data, emphasizing the latest clinical evidence, and providing a structured decision-making pathway.

Management of cerebrospinal fluid leak after a minimally invasive lumbar decompression procedure: illustrative case

BACKGROUND

Neurogenic claudication caused by lumbar stenosis is a prevalent disorder of the spinal canal for which many treatment options exist. The mild (minimally invasive lumbar decompression) procedure has recently been introduced as a safe and effective alternative to medical management in the treatment of lumbar stenosis. However, data on complications are rarely reported, and the incidence of complications, when reported, is frequently assessed at 0% in the literature.

OBSERVATIONS

The case of a patient with a cerebrospinal fluid leak following a mild procedure performed at an outpatient facility who presented to an inpatient emergency department is discussed. After lumbar drainage failed, the patient required 2 operative procedures to rectify the leak.

LESSONS

A seemingly innocuous procedure may have highly morbid complications requiring a lengthy inpatient stay and return trips to the operating room. The physicians and surgeons who manage these complications are frequently not those who performed the index procedure; they should be educated on the risks of the procedure and best practices for definitive management. https://thejns.org/doi/10.3171/CASE24497.

Percutaneous image-guided lumbar decompression and outpatient laminectomy for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: a 2-year Medicare claims benchmark study

Background

This prospective longitudinal study compares outcomes for Medicare beneficiaries receiving outpatient percutaneous image-guided lumbar decompression (PILD) using the mild® procedure to patients undergoing outpatient laminectomy. All patients were diagnosed with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) with neurogenic claudication (NC).

Methods

All medical claims for 100 % of Medicare beneficiaries were reviewed, with study subjects identified using Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Research Identifiable Files. Baseline data were extracted individually to allow for longitudinal analysis through two-year follow-up. The index procedure was defined as the first mild or outpatient laminectomy during the enrollment period. The rate of subsequent surgical procedures and incidence of harms were used as study outcomes.

Results

Cohorts included 2197 mild and 7416 laminectomy patients. mild patients were significantly older (76.7 years versus 73.4 years, respectively; p < 0.0001), and 57.4 % of mild were female, compared to 43.3 % of laminectomy (p < 0.0001). mild patients presented with significantly more baseline comorbidities compared to laminectomy patients (mean of 5.7 versus 4.8, respectively; p < 0.0001). Subsequent surgical procedure rate of 9.0 % for mild was significantly higher than 5.5 % for laminectomy (p < 0.0001). mild experienced harms at a significantly lower rate than laminectomy (1.9 % versus 5.8 %, respectively; p < 0.0001). The composite rate of subsequent surgical procedures and harms was similar between groups at 10.8 % for mild and 11.0 % for laminectomy.

Conclusions

mild can be considered a viable option for treatment of LSS with NC as evidenced by real-world data in this study. At two-years, mild patients experienced fewer harms and underwent more subsequent surgical procedures than laminectomy patients. The higher rate of subsequent surgical procedures for mild may be attributable to its position earlier in the LSS treatment algorithm. The overall rate of harms and subsequent surgical procedures was similar between groups, suggesting that mild should be considered as a treatment option, particularly for older patients with multiple comorbidities.

Patient and physician radiation exposure during minimally invasive lumbar decompression: A prospective assessment of X-ray exposure risks

INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive lumbar decompression (mild®) is becoming a popular procedure for treating lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) secondary to hypertrophic ligamentum flavum (LF). The mild® procedure is commonly performed under live fluoroscopic guidance and carries a risk of radiation exposure to the patient and healthcare.

METHODS

One physician performed mild® on 41 patients at the Cleveland Clinic Department of Pain Management from October 2019 to December 2021, while wearing a radiation exposure monitor (Mirion Technologies). Mean fluoroscopy time, mean exposure per case, and mean exposure per unilateral level decompressed were the primary outcomes measured. The secondary outcome was to provide a comparison of radiation exposure during similar fluoroscopically guided procedures.

RESULTS

Mean patient fluoroscopy exposure time was 2.1 min ±0.9 (range: 1.1-5.6) fluoroscopy time per unilateral level decompressed. The mean patient radiation skin exposure from mild® was 1.1 ± 0.9 mGym2, and the mean total dose was 142.3 ± 108.6 mGy per procedure. On average, the physician was exposed to an average deep tissue exposure of 4.1 ± 3.2 mRem, 2.9 ± 2.2 mRem estimated eye exposure, and 14.7 ± 11.0 mRem shallow tissue exposure per unilateral level decompressed. An individual physician would exceed the annual exposure limit of 5 Rem after approximately 610 mild® procedures per year.

CONCLUSIONS

This study is an attempt to quantify the radiation exposure to the physician and patient during the mild® procedure. Compared with other fluoroscopically guided pain management procedures, patient and physician radiation exposure during mild® was low.

Incidence of subsequent surgical decompression following minimally invasive approaches to treat lumbar spinal stenosis: A retrospective review

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Surgical decompression is the definitive treatment for managing symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis; however, select patients are poor surgical candidates. Consequently, minimally invasive procedures have gained popularity, but there exists the potential for failure of therapy necessitating eventual surgical decompression.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the incidence and characteristics of patients who require surgical decompression following minimally invasive procedures to treat lumbar spinal stenosis.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Retrospective review.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Patients who underwent minimally invasive procedures for lumbar spinal stenosis (Percutaneous Image-guided Lumbar Decompression [PILD] or interspinous spacer device [ISD]) and progressed to subsequent surgical decompression within 5 years.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was the rate of surgical decompression within 5 years following the minimally invasive approach. Secondary outcomes included demographic and comorbid factors associated with increased odds of requiring subsequent surgery.

METHODS

Patient data were collected using the PearlDiver-Mariner database. The rate of subsequent decompression was described as a percentage while univariable and multivariable regression analysis was used for the analysis of predictors.

RESULTS

A total of 5278 patients were included, of which 3222 (61.04%) underwent PILD, 1959 (37.12%) underwent ISD placement, and 97 (1.84%) had claims for both procedures. Overall, the incidence of subsequent surgical decompression within 5 years was 6.56% (346 of 5278 patients). Variables associated with a significantly greater odds ratio (OR) [95% confidence interval (CI)] of requiring subsequent surgical decompression included male gender and a prior history of surgical decompression by 1.42 ([1.14, 1.77], p = 0.002) and 2.10 times ([1.39, 3.17], p < 0.001), respectively. In contrast, age 65 years and above, a diagnosis of obesity, and a Charlson Comorbidity Index score of three or greater were associated with a significantly reduced OR [95% CI] by 0.64 ([0.50, 0.81], p < 0.001), 0.62 ([0.48, 0.81], p < 0.001), and 0.71 times ([0.56, 0.91], p = 0.007), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive procedures may provide an additional option to treat symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis in patients who are poor surgical candidates or who do not desire open decompression; however, there still exists a subset of patients who will require subsequent surgical decompression. Factors such as gender and prior surgical decompression increase the likelihood of subsequent surgery, while older age, obesity, and a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index score reduce it. These findings aid in selecting suitable surgical candidates for better outcomes in the elderly population with lumbar spinal stenosis.

Efficacy of lumbar decompression under large-channel spinal endoscope in elderly patients with segmental lumbar spinal stenosis

OBJECTIVE

The present study was conducted with an attempt to explore the overall efficacy of large-channel spinal endoscopy technology in elderly patients with segmental lumbar spinal stenosis.

METHODS

We included a total of 68 elderly patients with segmental lumbar spinal stenosis in our hospital from February 2021 to March 2023. The participants were randomly and equally distributed into the study group and the control group using a random number table method. The control group received the open lumbar decompression surgery, and the study group received the lumbar decompression under large-channel spinal endoscopy technology. We compared the surgical conditions of the two groups, including pain level, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score, and Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score before surgery, 1 week after surgery, 3 months after surgery, and 1 year after surgery. In addition, we compared the efficacy and adverse reactions 1 year after surgery between the two groups.

RESULTS

Our findings revealed that the operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, and hospital stay in the study group were significantly lower than those in the control group (p < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in the degree of pain between the two groups before surgery (p > 0.05), and the pain intensity of the study group was significantly lower than that of the control group at 1 week, 3 months, and 1 year after surgery (p < 0.05). Similarly, preoperative ODI and JOA scores were not significantly different between the two groups (p > 0.05), while they were significantly lower in the study group than those in the control group at 1 week, 3 months, and 1 year after surgery (p < 0.05). Before surgery, no significant difference was seen in therapeutic efficacy between the two groups (p > 0.05), whereas the efficacy was remarkably improved in the study group comparing to the control group at 1 week, 3 months, and 1 year after surgery (p < 0.05). All patients in this study were followed up for 10 to 16 months, with an average of 13.29 ± 1.28 months. The incidence of adverse reactions in the study group was significantly lower than that in the control group (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Large-channel spinal endoscopy technology exerted promising results in elderly patients with segmental lumbar spinal stenosis, in terms of reducing the surgical time, intraoperative bleeding, postoperative drainage volume, and hospital stay. The approach also alleviated pain, reduced ODI and JOA scores, and restored lumbar function, with decreased incidence of adverse reactions, thereby promoting patient recovery. It is considered valid for wide clinical application.

The MOTION study: Two-year results of a real-world randomized controlled trial of the mild® procedure for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis

OBJECTIVE

The MOTION study is designed to measure the impact of percutaneous image-guided lumbar decompression as a first-line therapy on patients otherwise receiving real-world conventional medical management for lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication secondary to hypertrophic ligamentum flavum. This prospective, multicenter randomized controlled trial uses objective and patient-reported outcome measures to compare the combination of the mild® percutaneous treatment and nonsurgical conventional medical management (CMM) to CMM-Alone.

METHODS

Test group patients received the mild procedure after study enrollment. Test and control groups were allowed conventional conservative therapies and low-risk interventional therapies as recommended by their physicians. Subjective outcomes included the Oswestry Disability Index, Numeric Pain Rating Scale, and Zurich Claudication Questionnaire. Objective outcomes included a validated Walking Tolerance Test, the rate of subsequent lumbar spine interventions, and safety data.

RESULTS

Two-year follow-up included 64 mild + CMM and 67 CMM-Alone patients. All outcome measures showed significant improvement from baseline for mild + CMM, whereas the majority of CMM-Alone patients had elected to receive mild treatment or other lumbar spine interventions by 2 years, precluding valid 2-year between-group comparisons. Neither group reported any device- or procedure-related adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

The durability of mild + CMM for this patient population was demonstrated for all efficacy outcomes through 2 years. Improvements in walking time from baseline to 2 years for patients treated with mild + CMM were significant and substantial. The lack of reported device or procedure-related adverse events reinforces the strong safety profile of the mild procedure. These results provide support for early interventional treatment of symptomatic LSS with the mild procedure.

Lumbar Spinal Stenosis and Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression: A Narrative Review

Background

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a common pain condition that causes lumbar back pain, radiating leg pain, and possible functional impairment. MILD is an emerging minimally invasive treatment for LSS. It is an image-guided percutaneous procedure designed to debulk hypertrophied ligamentum flavum. However, the exact short- and long-term efficacy, safety profile, indication criteria, and certain procedure details reported in medical literature vary.

Objective

This narrative review was to elucidate efficacy, safety profile, certain procedure details, advantages, and limitations of MILD.

Study Design

This is a narrative review.

Setting

All included articles are clinic trials including analytic studies and descriptive studies.

Methods

PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus were searched. Only clinical trials of MILD procedure were included. Information of indications, contraindications, VAS scores, ODI scores, effective rate, efficacy durations, and certain procedure details was focused on.

Results

According to the literature, for the MILD procedure, the VAS score could be reduced from a pre-treatment level of 6.3-9.6 to a post-treatment level of 2.3-5.8. The ODI score could be reduced from a pre-treatment level of 38.8-55.3 to a post-treatment level of 27.4-39.8. The effective rate of the MILD procedure was reported to be 57.1%-88%. A 2-year postoperative stability of efficacy was also supported. One RCT study testified superior efficacy of MILD over epidural steroid injection.

Limitations

There is few high-quality literature in the review. Moreover, the long-term efficacy of MILD cannot be revealed according to the current literature.

Conclusion

Based on the reviewed literature, MILD is an effective and safe procedure. MILD can reduce pain intensity and improve functional status significantly. Therefore, it is a preferable option for LSS patients who failed conservative treatments, but not for those who require immediate invasive decompression surgery.

Pain improvement and reoperation rate after full-endoscopic decompression for lateral recess stenosis: a 10-year follow-up

PURPOSE

To share long-term clinical outcomes and our experience with full-endoscopic interlaminar decompression (FEI) for lateral recess stenosis (LRS).

METHODS

We included all patients who underwent FEI for LRS from 2009 to 2013. VAS for leg pain, ODI, neurological findings, radiographic findings, and complications were analyzed at one week, one month, three months, and one year postoperation. The telephone interview for local patients with simple questions was done approximately ten years after the operation. International patients receive an email with the same questionnaire as local patients during the same follow-up period.

RESULTS

One hundred and twenty-nine patients underwent FEI for LRS with complete data during 2009-2013. Most of the patients (70.54%) had LRS radiculopathy for less than one year, mainly L4-5 (89.92%), followed by L5-S1 (17.83%). Early outcomes three months after surgery showed that most patients (93.02%) reported significant pain relief, and 70.54% reported no pain at their ODI scores were significantly reduced from 34.35 to 20.32% (p = 0.0052). In contrast, the mean VAS for leg pain decreased substantially by 3.77 points (p < 0.0001). There were no severe complications. At ten years of follow-up, 62 patients responded to the phone call or email. 69.35% of the patients reported having little or no back or leg pain, did not receive any further lumbar surgery, and were still satisfied with the result of the surgery. There were six patients (8.06%) who underwent reoperation.

CONCLUSION

FEI for LRS was satisfactory at 93.02%, with a low complication rate during the early follow-up period. Its effect seems to decline slightly in the long term at a 10-year follow-up. 8.06% of the patients subsequently underwent reoperation.

Nonsurgical Interventional Spine Pain Procedures: Outcomes and Complications

»

Nonsurgical interventional spine pain procedures provide an additional treatment option for lower back pain at the traditional bifurcation of conversative vs. operative management.

»

Transforaminal epidural steroid injections, radiofrequency ablations, intrathecal drug delivery, and spinal cord stimulation were found to be effective and safe techniques when applied to their specific indication.

»

Thermal annuloplasty and minimally invasive lumbar decompression showed mixed support.

»

Discography, sacroiliac joint injections, and spinous process spacers lacked sufficient evidence to support efficacy.

»

Medial branch blocks and facet joint injections were found to be useful diagnostic tools.

The MOTION Study: A Randomized Controlled Trial with Objective Real-World Outcomes for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Patients Treated with the mild® Procedure: One-Year Results

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to provide Level-1 objective, real-world outcome data for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis suffering from neurogenic claudication secondary to hypertrophic ligamentum flavum.

DESIGN

The MOTION Study is a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial comparing the mild® Procedure (minimally invasive lumbar decompression; Vertos Medical, Aliso Viejo, CA, USA) as a first-line therapy in combination with nonsurgical conventional medical management (CMM) vs CMM alone as the active control.

METHODS

Patients in the test group received the mild Procedure at baseline. Both the mild+CMM group and the control group were allowed unrestricted access to conventional real-world therapies. Patient-reported outcomes included the Oswestry Disability Index, the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire, and the Numeric Pain Rating Scale. A validated Walking Tolerance Test, the incidence of subsequent lumbar spine interventions, and the occurrence of adverse events were used to measure objective outcomes.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine patients in each group were analyzed at 1-year follow-up. No device- or procedure-related adverse events were reported in either group. Results from all primary and secondary outcome measures showed statistical significance in favor of mild+CMM.

CONCLUSIONS

One-year results of this Level-1 study demonstrated superiority of mild+CMM over CMM alone for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis who were suffering from neurogenic claudication secondary to hypertrophic ligamentum flavum. Use of the validated Walking Tolerance Test to objectively measure increased ability to walk without severe symptoms provided evidence of statistically significantly better outcomes for mild+CMM than for CMM alone. With no reported device or procedure-related adverse events, the long-standing safety profile of the mild Procedure was reaffirmed. mild is a safe, durable, minimally invasive procedure that has been shown to be effective as an early interventional therapy for patients suffering from symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis.

Minimally invasive direct decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: impact of multiple prior epidural steroid injections

Background: A modified algorithm for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with hypertrophic ligamentum flavum using minimally-invasive lumbar decompression (mild^®)was assessed, with a focus on earlier intervention. Patients & methods: Records of 145 patients treated with mild after receiving 0-1 epidural steroid injections (ESIs) or 2+ ESIs were retrospectively reviewed. Pain assessments as measured by visual analog scale (VAS) scores were recorded at baseline and 1-week and 3-month follow-ups. Results: Improvements in VAS scores at follow-ups compared with baseline were significant in both groups. No statistically significant differences were found between the two groups. Conclusion: Multiple ESIs prior to mild showed no benefit. A modified algorithm to perform mild immediately upon diagnosis or after the failure of the first ESI is recommended.