Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 5 of 5 items for

  • Author or Editor: Lynn McGrath Jr x
Clear All Modify Search
Restricted access

Lynn B. McGrath Jr., Gabrielle A. White-Dzuro and Christoph P. Hofstetter

OBJECTIVE

Minimally invasive lumbar unilateral tubular laminotomy for bilateral decompression has gradually gained acceptance as a less destabilizing but efficacious and safe alternative to traditional open decompression techniques. The authors have further advanced the principles of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) by utilizing working-channel endoscope–based techniques. Full-endoscopic technique allows for high-resolution off-axis visualization of neural structures within the lateral recess, thereby minimizing the need for facet joint resection. The relative efficacy and safety of MIS and full-endoscopic techniques have not been directly compared.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of 95 consecutive patients undergoing either MIS (n = 45) or endoscopic (n = 50) unilateral laminotomies for bilateral decompression in cases of lumbar spinal stenosis was performed. Patient demographics, operative details, clinical outcomes, and complications were reviewed.

RESULTS

The patient cohort consisted of 41 female and 54 male patients whose average age was 62 years. Half of the patients had single-level, one-third had 2-level, and the remaining patients had 3- or 4-level procedures. The surgical time for endoscopic technique was significantly longer per level compared to MIS (161.8 ± 6.8 minutes vs 99.3 ± 4.6 minutes; p < 0.001). Hospital stay for MIS patients was on average 2.4 ± 0.5 days compared to 0.7 ± 0.1 days for endoscopic patients (p = 0.001). At the 1-year follow-up, endoscopic patients had a significantly lower visual analog scale score for leg pain than MIS patients (1.3 ± 0.3 vs 3.0 ± 0.5; p < 0.01). Moreover, the back pain disability index score was significantly lower in the endoscopic cohort than in the MIS cohort (20.7 ± 3.4 vs 35.9 ± 4.1; p < 0.01). Two patients in the MIS group (epidural hematoma) and one patient in the endoscopic group (disc herniation) required a return to the operating room acutely after surgery (< 14 days).

CONCLUSIONS

Lumbar endoscopic unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression is a safe and effective surgical procedure with favorable complication profile and patient outcomes.

Free access

Lynn B. McGrath Jr., Karthik Madhavan, Lee Onn Chieng, Michael Y. Wang and Christoph P. Hofstetter

Approximately half a million spinal fusion procedures are performed annually in the US. It is estimated that up to one-third of arthrodesis constructs require revision surgeries. In this study the authors present endoscopic treatment strategies targeting 3 types of complications following arthrodesis surgery: 1) adjacent-level foraminal stenosis; 2) foraminal stenosis at an arthrodesis segment; and 3) stenosis caused by a displaced interbody cage.

A retrospective chart review of 11 patients with a mean age of 68 ± 15 years was performed (continuous variables are shown as the mean ± SEM). All patients had a history of lumbar arthrodesis surgery and suffered from unilateral radiculopathy. Endoscopic revision surgeries were done as outpatient procedures, and there were no intraoperative or perioperative complications. The cohort included 3 patients with foraminal stenosis at the level of previous arthrodesis. They presented with unilateral radicular leg pain (visual analog scale [VAS] score: 7.3 ± 2.1) and were severely disabled, as evidenced by an Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) of 46 ± 4.9. Transforaminal endoscopic foraminotomies were performed, and at a mean follow-up time of 9.0 ± 2.5 months VAS was reduced by an average of 6.3. The cohort also includes 7 patients suffering unilateral radiculopathy due to adjacent-level foraminal stenosis. Preoperative VAS for leg pain of the symptomatic side was 6.0 ± 1.6, VAS for back pain was 5.2 ± 1.7, and ODI was 40 ± 6.33. Endoscopic decompression led to reduction of the ipsilateral leg VAS score by an average of 5, resulting in leg pain of 1 ± 0.5 at an average of 8 months of follow-up. The severity of back pain remained stable (VAS 4.2 ± 1.4). Two of these patients required revision surgery for recurrent symptoms. Finally, this study includes 1 patient who presented with weakness and pain due to retropulsion of an L5/S1 interbody spacer. The patient underwent an endoscopic interlaminar approach with partial resection of the interbody cage, which resulted in complete resolution of her radicular symptoms.

Endoscopic surgery may be a useful adjunct for management of certain arthrodesis-related complications. Endoscopic foraminal decompression of previously fused segments and resection of displaced interbody cages appears to have excellent outcomes, whereas decompression of adjacent segments remains challenging and requires further investigation.

Free access

Saqib Hasan, Lynn B. McGrath Jr., Rajeev D. Sen, Jason K. Barber and Christoph P. Hofstetter

OBJECTIVE

The management of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) with concurrent scoliosis and/or spondylolisthesis remains controversial. Full-endoscopic unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) facilitates neural decompression while preserving stabilizing osseoligamentous structures and may be uniquely suited for the treatment of LSS with concurrent mild to moderate degenerative deformity. The safety and efficacy of full-endoscopic versus minimally invasive surgery (MIS) ULBD in this patient population is studied here for the first time.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data was conducted on 45 consecutive LSS patients with concurrent scoliosis (≥ 10° coronal Cobb angle) and/or spondylolisthesis (≥ 3 mm). Patient demographics, operative details, complications, and imaging characteristics were reviewed. Outcomes were quantified using back and leg visual analog scale (VAS) scores and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at 2 weeks, 3 months, and 1 year.

RESULTS

A total of 26 patients underwent full-endoscopic and 19 underwent MIS-ULBD with an average follow-up period of 12 months. The endoscopic cohort experienced a significantly shorter hospital length of stay (p = 0.014) and fewer adverse events (p = 0.010). Both cohorts experienced significant improvements in VAS and ODI scores at all time points (p < 0.001), but the endoscopic cohort demonstrated significantly better early ODI scores (p = 0.024).

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic and MIS-ULBD result in similar functional outcomes for LSS with mild to moderate deformity, while the endoscopic approach demonstrates a favorable rate of complications. Further studies are required to better delineate the characteristics of spinal deformities amenable to this approach and the durability of functional results.

Restricted access

Jason K. Chu, Abdullah H. Feroze, Kelly Collins, Lynn B. McGrath Jr., Christopher C. Young, John R. Williams and Samuel R. Browd

OBJECTIVE

Placement of an external ventricular drain (EVD) is a common and potentially life-saving neurosurgical procedure, but the economic aspect of EVD management and the relationship to medical expenditure remain poorly studied. Similarly, interinstitutional practice patterns vary significantly. Whereas some institutions require that patients with EVDs be monitored strictly within the intensive care unit (ICU), other institutions opt primarily for management of EVDs on the surgical floor. Therefore, an ICU burden for patients with EVDs may increase a patient’s costs of hospitalization. The objective of the current study was to examine the expense differences between the ICU and the general neurosurgical floor for EVD care.

METHODS

The authors performed a retrospective analysis of data from 2 hospitals within a single, large academic institution—the University of Washington Medical Center (UWMC) and Seattle Children’s Hospital (SCH). Hospital charges were evaluated according to patients’ location at the time of EVD management: SCH ICU, SCH floor, or UWMC ICU. Daily hospital charges from day of EVD insertion to day of removal were included and screened for days that would best represent baseline expenses for EVD care. Independent-samples Kruskal-Wallis analysis was performed to compare daily charges for the 3 settings.

RESULTS

Data from a total of 261 hospital days for 23 patients were included in the analysis. Ten patients were cared for in the UWMC ICU and 13 in the SCH ICU and/or on the SCH neurosurgical floor. The median values for total daily hospital charges were $19,824.68 (interquartile range [IQR] $12,889.73–$38,494.81) for SCH ICU care, $8,620.88 (IQR $6,416.76–$11,851.36) for SCH floor care, and $10,002.13 (IQR $8,465.16–$12,123.03) for UWMC ICU care. At SCH, it was significantly more expensive to provide EVD care in the ICU than on the floor (p < 0.001), and the daily hospital charges for the UWMC ICU were significantly greater than for the SCH floor (p = 0.023). No adverse clinical event related to the presence of an EVD was identified in any of the settings.

CONCLUSIONS

ICU admission solely for EVD care is costly. If safe EVD care can be provided outside of the ICU, it would represent a potential area for significant cost savings. Identifying appropriate patients for EVD care on the floor is multifactorial and requires vigilance in balancing the expenses associated with ICU utilization and optimal patient care.