The Concept for A Standalone Lordotic Endoscopic Wedge Lumbar Interbody Fusion: The LEW-LIF

OBJECTIVE

To review concepts of a standalone endoscopically assisted lumbar interbody fusion as a simplified method to treat spinal instability.

METHODS

MacNab outcomes and complications were analyzed in a series of 48 consecutive patients who underwent standalone lordotic endoscopic wedge lumbar interbody fusion (LEW-LIF) for advanced lumbar disc degeneration, spinal stenosis, and spondylolisthesis.

RESULTS

Forty-two of the 48 patients (77.8%) did well with excellent and good outcomes with a follow up of up to 20 months. Fair outcomes were reported by 4, and poor by another 2 patients, respectively. Six patients had endoscopic decompression procedures at another level. Four patients underwent open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion revision surgery including the index level between 2 to 6 months postoperatively. An L5 vertebral body fracture was noted in 1 of these 4 patients. Another patient underwent removal of the extruded L3/4 cage. The cage fractured in one additional asymptomatic patient not requiring any intervention. No patient had a wound infection, or permanent sensory, or motor dysfunction. However, 29 patients developed a postoperative irritation of the dorsal root ganglion with burning leg pain typically between postoperative weeks 2 and 6. Symptoms were treated with activity modification, gabapentin, and transforaminal epidural steroid injections in 12 patients (25%).

CONCLUSION

Standalone LEW-LIF was associated with favorable clinical outcomes in the majority of patients. Patient-related predictors of less favorable outcomes considering normal variations as well as patho-anatomy may aid in the development of next-generation implants.

Does Preservation of Ligamentum Flavum in Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Interlaminar Discectomy Improve Clinical Outcomes?

Objective

Ligamentum flavum (LF) is an important anatomical structure for prevention of postoperative adhesions, but the opening of LF is necessary for percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interlaminar discectomy (PEID). Although the defect in LF is small with conventional PEID, the defect could be minimized with LF splitting technique. The objective of this study was to compare clinical outcomes of PEID with opening of LF versus splitting of LF.

Methods

A retrospective study was performed for patients underwent PEID for L5–S1. PEID with the opening of LF (open-group) was performed for 55 patients and with splitting of LF (split-group) was performed for 34 patients. The defect of LF in Open-group was 3–5 mm, but the defect was negligible in split-group because the split LF was reapproximated by its elasticity. Clinical outcomes were evaluated with Korean version of the Oswestry Disability Index (K-ODI) and visual analogue pain scores for back (VASB) and leg (VASL). The changes of clinical outcomes during postoperative 24 months between groups were evaluated with linear mixed-effects model.

Results

The clinical outcomes were similar between groups for K-ODI (p=0.98), VASB (p=0.52), and VASL (p=0.59). Each outcome demonstrated significant improvement from preoperative baseline throughout the postoperative 24 months (p<0.05). Complications included recurrence in 4 patients and dural tear in 1 in open-group (9.1%), and residual disc herniation in 2 patients and transient weakness in 1 in split-group (8.8%).

Conclusion

Splitting versus opening LF in PEID may be left to the surgeon’s discretion. The potential risks and benefits of LF handling should be considered when performing this surgical technique in PEID.