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.
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.
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).
Lumbar endoscopic unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression is a safe and effective surgical procedure with favorable complication profile and patient outcomes.
ABBREVIATIONSAP = anteroposterior; BMI = body mass index; MCID = minimally clinically important difference; MIS = minimally invasive surgery; ODI = Oswestry Disability Index; SAP = superior articular process; ULBD = unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression; VAS = visual analog scale.
AlimiMHofstetterCPPyoSYPauloDHärtlR: Minimally invasive laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis in patients with and without preoperative spondylolisthesis: clinical outcome and reoperation rates. J Neurosurg Spine22:339–3522015
AlimiMHofstetterCPTorres-CampaJMNavarro-RamirezRCongGTNjokuIJr: Unilateral tubular approach for bilateral laminotomy: effect on ipsilateral and contralateral buttock and leg pain. Eur Spine J26:389–3962017
AtlasSJKellerRBWuYADeyoRASingerDE: Long-term outcomes of surgical and nonsurgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis: 8 to 10 year results from the Maine Lumbar Spine Study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)30:936–9432005
BeurskensAJde VetHCKökeAJvan der HeijdenGJKnipschildPG: Measuring the functional status of patients with low back pain. Assessment of the quality of four disease-specific questionnaires. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)20:1017–10281995
CostaFSassiMCardiaAOrtolinaADe SantisALuccarellG: Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: analysis of results in a series of 374 patients treated with unilateral laminotomy for bilateral microdecompression. J Neurosurg Spine7:579–5862007
DasenbrockHHJuraschekSPSchultzLRWithamTFSciubbaDMWolinskyJP: The efficacy of minimally invasive discectomy compared with open discectomy: a meta-analysis of prospective randomized controlled trials. J Neurosurg Spine16:452–4622012
FoxMWOnofrioBMOnofrioBMHanssenAD: Clinical outcomes and radiological instability following decompressive lumbar laminectomy for degenerative spinal stenosis: a comparison of patients undergoing concomitant arthrodesis versus decompression alone. J Neurosurg85:793–8021996
FritzellPHäggONordwallA: Complications in lumbar fusion surgery for chronic low back pain: comparison of three surgical techniques used in a prospective randomized study. A report from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group. Eur Spine J12:178–1892003
JönssonBAnnertzMSjöbergCStrömqvistB: A prospective and consecutive study of surgically treated lumbar spinal stenosis. Part II: Five-year follow-up by an independent observer. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)22:2938–29441997
KompMHahnPOezdemirSGiannakopoulosAHeikenfeldRKaschR: Bilateral spinal decompression of lumbar central stenosis with the full-endoscopic interlaminar versus microsurgical laminotomy technique: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Pain Physician18:61–702015
ParkerSLGodilSSMendenhallSKZuckermanSLShauDNMcGirtMJ: Two-year comprehensive medical management of degenerative lumbar spine disease (lumbar spondylolisthesis, stenosis, or disc herniation): a value analysis of cost, pain, disability, and quality of life: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine21:143–1492014
RuettenSKompMMerkHGodoliasG: Surgical treatment for lumbar lateral recess stenosis with the full-endoscopic interlaminar approach versus conventional microsurgical technique: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. J Neurosurg Spine10:476–4852009
SuriPBoykoEJGoldbergJForsbergCWJarvikJG: Longitudinal associations between incident lumbar spine MRI findings and chronic low back pain or radicular symptoms: retrospective analysis of data from the longitudinal assessment of imaging and disability of the back (LAIDBACK). BMC Musculoskelet Disord15:1522014
TaylorWRChenJWMeltzerHGennarelliTAKelbchCKnowltonS: Quantitative pupillometry, a new technology: normative data and preliminary observations in patients with acute head injury. Technical note. J Neurosurg98:205–2132003
ThoméCZevgaridisDLehetaOBäznerHPöckler-SchönigerCWöhrleJ: Outcome after less-invasive decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized comparison of unilateral laminotomy, bilateral laminotomy, and laminectomy. J Neurosurg Spine3:129–1412005