Early experience with endoscopic revision of lumbar spinal fusions
- PMID: 26828879
- DOI: 10.3171/2015.10.FOCUS15503
Early experience with endoscopic revision of lumbar spinal fusions
Abstract
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.
Keywords: ODI = Oswestry Disability Index; PEEK = polyetheretherketone; TLIF = transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion; VAS = visual analog scale; arthrodesis surgery; endoscopic spine surgery; revision.
Similar articles
-
Transforaminal Endoscopic Surgical Treatment for Posterior Migration of Polyetheretherketone Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cage: Case Series.World Neurosurg. 2021 Mar;147:e437-e443. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2020.12.080. Epub 2021 Jan 5. World Neurosurg. 2021. PMID: 33359521
-
Early Outcomes of Endoscopic Contralateral Foraminal and Lateral Recess Decompression via an Interlaminar Approach in Patients with Unilateral Radiculopathy from Unilateral Foraminal Stenosis.World Neurosurg. 2017 Dec;108:763-773. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2017.09.018. Epub 2017 Sep 12. World Neurosurg. 2017. PMID: 28919229
-
Long-term durability of minimal invasive posterior transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a clinical and radiographic follow-up.J Spinal Disord Tech. 2011 Jul;24(5):288-96. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e3181f9a60a. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2011. PMID: 20975594
-
Systematic Review of Current Literature on Clinical Outcomes of Uniportal Interlaminar Contralateral Endoscopic Lumbar Foraminotomy for Foraminal Stenosis.World Neurosurg. 2022 Dec;168:392-397. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2022.04.130. World Neurosurg. 2022. PMID: 36527218
-
Risk factors for cage retropulsion after lumbar interbody fusion surgery: Series of cases and literature review.Int J Surg. 2016 Jun;30:56-62. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.04.025. Epub 2016 Apr 21. Int J Surg. 2016. PMID: 27107661 Review.
Cited by
-
A narrative review of endoscopic spine surgery: history, indications, uses, and future directions.J Spine Surg. 2024 Jun 21;10(2):295-304. doi: 10.21037/jss-23-112. Epub 2024 May 10. J Spine Surg. 2024. PMID: 38974485 Free PMC article. Review.
-
AOSpine Consensus Paper on Nomenclature for Working-Channel Endoscopic Spinal Procedures.Global Spine J. 2020 Apr;10(2 Suppl):111S-121S. doi: 10.1177/2192568219887364. Epub 2020 May 28. Global Spine J. 2020. PMID: 32528794 Free PMC article.
-
The benefit zone of full-endoscopic spine surgery.J Spine Surg. 2019 Jun;5(Suppl 1):S41-S56. doi: 10.21037/jss.2019.04.19. J Spine Surg. 2019. PMID: 31380492 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Endoscopic Resection and Decompression for Lateral Displacement of Cage after Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Case Report from a Single Center.Orthop Surg. 2023 Oct;15(10):2730-2735. doi: 10.1111/os.13808. Epub 2023 Jul 12. Orthop Surg. 2023. PMID: 37435856 Free PMC article.
-
Efficiency of Lidocaine Intramuscular and Intraosseous Trigger Point Injections in the Treatment of Residual Chronic Pain after Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Decompression Surgery.J Clin Med. 2024 Sep 13;13(18):5437. doi: 10.3390/jcm13185437. J Clin Med. 2024. PMID: 39336924 Free PMC article.
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical