Subscribe to RSS
Microendoscopic Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Associated with Adjacent Segment Disease following Lumbar Fusion Surgery: 5-year Follow-up of a Retrospective Case SeriesFunding The authors received no specific funding for this work.
Background and Study Aims Surgical treatment options for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) based on adjacent segment disease (ASD) after spinal fusion typically involve decompression, with or without fusion, of the adjacent segment. The clinical benefits of microendoscopic decompression for LSS based on ASD have not yet been fully elucidated. We aimed to investigate the clinical results of microendoscopic spinal decompression surgery for LSS based on ASD.
Patients and Methods From 2011 to 2014, consecutive patients who underwent microendoscopic spinal decompression without fusion for LSS based on ASD were enrolled. Data of 32 patients (17 men and 15 women, with a mean age of 70.5 years) were reviewed. Japanese Orthopaedic Association score and low back pain/leg pain visual analog scale score were utilized to measure neurologic and axial pain outcomes, respectively. Additionally, after the surgeries, we analyzed the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT) scans, or radiographs to identify any new instabilities of the decompressed segments or progression of ASD adjacent to the decompressed segments.
Results The Japanese Orthopaedic Association recovery rate at the 5-year postoperative visit was 49.2%. The visual analog scale scores for low back pain and leg pain were significantly improved. The minimum clinically important difference for leg pain (decrease by ≥24 mm) and clinically important difference for low back pain (decrease by ≥38 mm) were achieved in 84% (27/32) and 72% (23/32) of cases, respectively. Regarding new instability after microendoscopic decompression, no cases had apparent spinal instability at the decompression segment and adjacent segment to the decompressed segment.
Conclusions Microendoscopic spinal decompression is an effective treatment alternative for patients with LSS caused by ASD. The ability to perform neural decompression while maintaining key stabilizing structures minimizes subsequent clinical instability. The substantial clinical and economic benefits of this approach may make it a favorable alternative to performing concurrent fusion in many patients.
Received: 02 September 2020
Accepted: 04 February 2021
Article published online:
12 December 2021
© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany
- 1 Lawrence BD, Wang J, Arnold PM, Hermsmeyer J, Norvell DC, Brodke DS. Predicting the risk of adjacent segment pathology after lumbar fusion: a systematic review. Spine 2012; 37 (22, Suppl): S123-S132
- 2 Kasliwal MK, Shaffrey CI, Lenke LG, Dettori JR, Ely CG, Smith JS. Frequency, risk factors, and treatment of distal adjacent segment pathology after long thoracolumbar fusion: a systematic review. Spine 2012; 37 (22, Suppl): S165-S179
- 3 Imagama S, Kawakami N, Matsubara Y. et al. Radiographic adjacent segment degeneration at five years after L4/5 posterior lumbar interbody fusion with pedicle screw instrumentation: evaluation by computed tomography and annual screening with magnetic resonance imaging. Clin Spine Surg 2016; 29 (09) E442-E451
- 4 Lee JC, Kim Y, Soh JW, Shin BJ. Risk factors of adjacent segment disease requiring surgery after lumbar spinal fusion: comparison of posterior lumbar interbody fusion and posterolateral fusion. Spine 2014; 39 (05) E339-E345
- 5 Drysch A, Ajiboye RM, Sharma A. et al. Effectiveness of reoperations for adjacent segment disease following lumbar spinal fusion. Orthopedics 2018; 41 (02) e161-e167
- 6 Minamide A, Yoshida M, Yamada H. et al. Endoscope-assisted spinal decompression surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. J Neurosurg Spine 2013; 19 (06) 664-671
- 7 Yamada H, Yoshida M, Hashizume H. et al. Efficacy of novel minimally invasive surgery using spinal microendoscope for treating extraforaminal stenosis at the lumbosacral junction. J Spinal Disord Tech 2012; 25 (05) 268-276
- 8 Minamide A, Yoshida M, Yamada H. et al. Clinical outcomes after microendoscopic laminotomy for lumbar spinal stenosis: a 5-year follow-up study. Eur Spine J 2015; 24 (02) 396-403
- 9 Minamide A, Simpson AK, Okada M. et al. Microendoscopic decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis: the influence of spondylolisthesis stage (disc height and static and dynamic translation) on clinical outcomes. Clin Spine Surg 2019; 32 (01) E20-E26
- 10 Khoo LT, Fessler RG. Microendoscopic decompressive laminotomy for the treatment of lumbar stenosis. Neurosurgery 2002; 51 (5, Suppl): S146-S154
- 11 Izumida S, Inoue S. Assessment of treatment for low back pain. J Japan Orthop Assoc 1986; 60: 391-394
- 12 Parker SL, Mendenhall SK, Shau D. et al. Determination of minimum clinically important difference in pain, disability, and quality of life after extension of fusion for adjacent-segment disease. J Neurosurg Spine 2012; 16 (01) 61-67
- 13 Lee CW, Yoon KJ, Ha SS. Which approach is advantageous to preventing development of adjacent segment disease? Comparative analysis of 3 different lumbar interbody fusion techniques (ALIF, LLIF, and PLIF) in L4–5 spondylolosthesis. World Neurosurg 2017; 105: 612-622
- 14 Adogwa O, Carr RK, Kudyba K. et al. Revision lumbar surgery in elderly patients with symptomatic pseudarthrosis, adjacent-segment disease, or same-level recurrent stenosis. Part 1. Two-year outcomes and clinical efficacy: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 2013; 18 (02) 139-146
- 15 Miwa T, Sakaura H, Yamashita T, Suzuki S, Ohwada T. Surgical outcomes of additional posterior lumbar interbody fusion for adjacent segment disease after single-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J 2013; 22 (12) 2864-2868
- 16 Phillips FM, Carlson GD, Bohlman HH, Hughes SS. Results of surgery for spinal stenosis adjacent to previous lumbar fusion. J Spinal Disord 2000; 13 (05) 432-437
- 17 Alvin MD, Lubelski D, Abdullah KG, Whitmore RG, Benzel EC, Mroz TE. Cost-utility analysis of instrumented fusion versus decompression alone for Grade I L4–L5 spondylolisthesis at 1-year follow-up: a pilot study. Clin Spine Surg 2016; 29 (02) E80-E86
- 18 Ghogawala Z, Whitmore RG, Watters III WC. et al. Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 3: assessment of economic outcome. J Neurosurg Spine 2014; 21 (01) 14-22
- 19 Kuntz KM, Snider RK, Weinstein JN, Pope MH, Katz JN. Cost-effectiveness of fusion with and without instrumentation for patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal stenosis. Spine 2000; 25 (09) 1132-1139
- 20 Lubelski D, Mihalovich KE, Skelly AC. et al. Is minimal access spine surgery more cost-effective than conventional spine surgery?. Spine 2014; 39 (22, Suppl 1): S65-S74
- 21 Parker SL, Adogwa O, Bydon A, Cheng J, McGirt MJ. Cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis associated low-back and leg pain over two years. World Neurosurg 2012; 78 (1–2): 178-184
- 22 Parker SL, Mendenhall SK, Shau DN. et al. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis: comparative effectiveness and cost-utility analysis. World Neurosurg 2014; 82 (1–2): 230-238
- 23 Parker SL, Anderson LH, Nelson T, Patel VV. Cost-effectiveness of three treatment strategies for lumbar spinal stenosis: conservative care, laminectomy, and the Superion interspinous spacer. Int J Spine Surg 2015; 9: 28
- 24 Deyo RA, Mirza SK, Martin BI, Kreuter W, Goodman DC, Jarvik JG. Trends, major medical complications, and charges associated with surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis in older adults. JAMA 2010; 303 (13) 1259-1265