Javascript not enabled
SpineFocus On...

Recent developments in less invasive lumbar spine surgery

L. Ng, M. Grevitt
AttachmentSize
PDF icon FocusOn_aug10_02.pdf161.65 KB

Introduction

Minimally invasive surgical (MIS) techniques have been widely accepted in various orthopaedic subspecialties. Certainly, arthroscopy revolutionised the treatment of joint disorders in the early 1980s. MIS is designed to reduce the morbidity of the surgical approach, while achieving the same success rates as open procedures. Numerous studies have documented the benefits of MIS, which include shorter hospital stay, lower blood loss, reduced iatrogenic soft-tissue injury and a quicker recovery.1-3

A standard open posterior approach is associated with denervation of the multifidus muscle while histological studies have shown a correlation between the extent of surgical retraction and muscle necrosis.4 Rantanen et al5 have correlated poor clinical outcome with type II atrophy of multifidus after surgery. However, the histological features are reversible and can be improved by physiotherapy.

Disc surgery/nerve root decompression

Although spinal MIS is perceived to be in its infancy, the earliest recorded departure from traditional laminectomy and discectomy for sciatica was in the 1950s, with the introduction of anterior retroperitoneal annular fenestration for the decompression of herniated lumbar discs.6 The reduction in intradiscal hydrostatic pressure after fenestration results in a reduction in the disc bulge; however, the long-term efficacy of annular fenestration is not proven.

In 1972, the introduction of surgical microscopes marked the beginning of less invasive posterior spinal surgery. William7 further refined the technique so that lumbar microdiscectomy remains the most common surgical intervention for lumbar disc herniation. Foley and Smith8 have described an alternative technique, microendoscopic discectomy. A randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing microendoscopic discectomy with open discectomy found a significant reduction in hospital stay with microsurgical techniques, although there was no difference in blood loss or the time taken to return to work.9

An interspinous spacer offers an alternative to lumbar decompression surgery for the treatment of neurogenic claudication secondary to spinal stenosis. Cadaver studies have demonstrated that spacers can increase the canal diameter by 18% and foraminal area by 25%.10 Radiological studies have also shown that sagittal alignment changes by less than one degree for single-level implants and by slightly more than one degree for two-level implants.11 Zucherman et al reported the results of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing the results of interspinous spacers and lumbar epidural at two years. Only 6% of those with spacers required further intervention, which was similar to other reports in the literature.12 In another RCT, Anderson, Tribus and Kitchel reported a clinically significant improvement at two years in 63.4% of patients after implantation of an interspinous spacer compared with 13% who had received an epidural.13 Both of these RCTs were sponsored by industry. At present there are no trials comparing the insertion of an interspinous spacer with lumbar decompressive surgery.

Spinal fusion

Magerl first reported the use of percutaneous pedicle screws for spinal fusion in 1982.14 Matthew et al suggested placing the rods in the subcutaneous tissues in order to reduce the risk of infection,15 although the relatively superficial implants make this technique poorly tolerated by patients. Foley et al16 subsequently revised the instrumentation in order to allow subfascial placement of the rods. Advances in the design of percutaneous pedicle screws, combined with the tubular retractor system developed by Foley and Smith,8 led to the development of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and posterolateral fusion. Peng et al3 reported that after minimally invasive TLIF patients had a statistically significant reduction in post-operative pain and blood loss compared with those who had undergone open TLIF. However, there was a threefold increase in fluoroscopy time during surgery while the outcome at two years was similar.

The standard approaches for anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) are the anterior retroperitoneal and transperitoneal approaches. Bergey et al17 reported the preliminary results of endoscopic lateral transpsoas retroperitoneal lumbar fusion in 21 patients; fusion was achieved in all cases, with no subsidence of the cage. Zdeblick and David18 compared the laparoscopic transperitoneal approach with mini-open access for the lumbar spine and found that the laparoscopic approach had a 20% complication rate. This compared with a 4% complication rate for a mini-open approach. Additionally, 10% of laparoscopic cases had to be converted to open surgery because of bleeding and peritoneal tears.  In a separate study, Rodriguez et al19 found no difference in post-operative analgesic requirements or the length of hospital stay between laparoscopic and open procedures.

Vertebral cement augmentation

Percutaneous vertebroplasty (PV) is a minimally invasive procedure now commonly performed for the treatment of pain associated with osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures and osteolytic metastases. It was first reported in 1984 by Galibert et al20 for the treatment of haemangiomata of the cervical spine. This resulted in complete pain relief and a subsequent series of six patients was published in 1987. Lapras et al21 and Bascoulergue et al22 subsequently modified the technique by injecting polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) into osteoporotic fractures of the vertebral body and osteolytic spinal metastases. In the early 1990s, Wilson et al23 introduced an inflatable balloon which can be used to restore vertebral body height and minimise kyphotic deformity. Based on 329 cases published between 1985 and 2004, pain reduction varied between 70% and 90%. A meta-analysis based on the literature from 1983 to 2004 by Taylor, Taylor and Fritzell24 concluded there was reasonable evidence to support both vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty in the management of symptomatic, osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. There was also a statistically significant improvement in vertebral height and kyphotic angle in comparative studies. A meta-analysis of complications reported significantly more cement extrusion and procedure-related complications in vertebroplasty compared with kyphoplasty.25 A recent multi-centre RCT by Buchbinder et al26 concluded there were no benefits compared with sham procedures. Unfortunately, there was a potential bias in the study as only 78 cases were recruited into the trial, from a cohort of 468. In addition, there is concern about ‘insufficient vertebroplasty’ because a mean of only 2.8 ml of cement had been injected into the vertebral bodies.

Spinal trauma

The application of MIS techniques to spinal trauma can be used to address decompression, realignment and stabilisation of the spine. It is an attractive option to minimise further soft-tissue trauma and limit the inflammatory response, especially in patients who sustain multiple injuries. In patients with flexion distraction injury of the spine, the posterior tension band can be restored with a percutaneous short-segment pedicle screw; percutaneous screws can also used to augment anterior column reconstruction. Compared with standard open techniques, MIS demonstrates reduced blood loss, less peri-operative pain, and earlier mobilisation.27

Spinal deformity/thoracoscopic surgery

Video-assisted thoracoscopic (VAT) spinal surgery became popular in the 1990s, particularly in scoliosis.28-30 Newton et al31 published a series of 38 cases in which thoracoscopic instrumentation was used in idiopathic adolescent scoliosis, concluding that the degree of correction achieved compares well with cases treated by thoracotomy. VAT staple hemi-epiphysiodesis has also shown promising results in the correction of selected scoliotic deformity cases. Betz et al32 reported that 79% of patients with a thoracic curve of less than 35°, and 87% of all lumbar curves, had an improvement of more than 10°. The indication for VAT also extended to thoracic discectomy and fusion, corpectomy for trauma and tumour-related spinal pathologies.

Intradiscal procedures

MIS procedures for the treatment of lumbar intradiscal disease are rapidly expanding and continue to challenge conventional surgical management. Saal and Saal33 introduced an alternative method for the treatment of discogenic back pain, using controlled thermal energy delivered through an intradiscal catheter. It has been suggested that intradiscal electrothermal therapy (IDET) may coagulate annular nociceptors and lead to contraction of the collagen. This would address both the nociceptive and mechanical components of discogenic pain, although the long-term effects of collagen shortening and restructuring are not known. Two subsequent RCTs produced conflicting results. Freeman et al34 concluded that IDET did not produce any benefit compared with a sham procedure. Meanwhile, Pauza et al35 reported a statistically significant improvement compared with a placebo group. Percutaneous intradiscal radiofrequency (RF) is a variant of IDET that involves the application of an alternating radiofrequency current to the disc annulus. A recent systematic review of nonsurgical intervention therapies for low back pain has concluded there is insufficient evidence to evaluate reliably the efficacy of IDET, while there is good evidence that radiofrequency thermocoagulation is not clinically effective.36

Advances in medical technology have enabled the use of neodymium-doped yttrium, aluminium and garnet (Nd:YAG) lasers and cryoablation to reduce intradiscal pressure for the treatment of sciatica secondary to discogenic back pain. These have shown promising results in case series and observational studies37,38 but unfortunately there is a lack of firm evidence of their efficacy.

Conclusion

The technology of MIS procedures in spinal surgery will continue to evolve in parallel with advances in robotic technology and three-dimensional image-guidance systems. However, a long learning curve, combined with the cost, may limit acceptance of MIS in mainstream spinal practices. To justify this learning curve, quality studies that can demonstrate clinical superiority in long-term outcomes are essential.

References

1. Powers CJ, Issacs RE. Minimally invasive fusion and fixation techniques. Neurosurg Clin N Am 2006;17:477-9.

2. Rahman M, Summers LE, Richter B, Mimran RI, Jacob RP. Comparison of techniques for decompressive lumbar laminectomy: the minimally invasive versus the “classic” open approach. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 2008;51:100-5.

3. Peng CWB, Yue WM, Poh SY, et al. Clinical and radiological outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 2009;34:1385-89.

4. Kawaguchi Y, Matsui H, Tsuji H. Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery. A histologic and enzymatic analysis. Spine 1996;21:941-4.

5. Rantanen J, Hurme M, Falck B, et al. The lumbar multifidus muscle five years after surgery for a lumbar intervertebral disc herniation. Spine 1993;18:568-74.

6. Hult L. Retroperitoneal disc fenestration in low back pain and sciatica. Acta Orthop Scand 1956;20:342-8.

7. William RW. Microsurgical lumbar discectomy: Report to American Association of Neurorology and Surgery, 1975. Neurosurg 1979;4:140.

8. Foley KT, Smith MM. Microendoscopic discectomy. Techniques Neurosurg 1997; 3:301-7.

9. Righesso O, Falavigna A, Avanzi O. Comparison of open discectomy with microendoscopic discectomy in lumbar disc herniations: results of a randomized controlled trial. Neurosurg 2007;61:545-9.

10. Richards JC, Majumdar S, Lindsey DP, Beaupré GS, Yerby SA. The treatment mechanism of an interspinous process implant for lumbar neurogenic intermittent claudication. Spine 2005; 30:744-9.

11. Lindsey DP, Swanson KE, Fuchs P, et al. The effects of an interspinous implant on the kinematics of the instrumented and adjacent levels in the lumbar spine. Spine 2003;28:2192-7.

12. Zucherman JF, Hsu KY, Hartjen CA, et al. A multicenter trial evaluating the X-STOP interspinous process decompression system for the treatment of neurogenic intermittent claudication. Spine 2005;30:1351-8.

13. Anderson PA, Tribus CB, Kitchel S. Treatment of neurogenic claudication by interspinous decompression: application of the X-STOP device in patients with lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine 2006:4:464-71.

14. Magerl F. External skeletal fixation of the lower thoracic and lumbar spine. In: Uhthoff HK, Stahl E, eds. Current concepts of external fixation of fractures. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1982: 353-66.

15. Matthew HH, Evans MT, Molligan HJ, Long BH. Laparoscopic discectomy with anterior lumbar interbody fusion: a preliminary review. Spine 1995;20;1797-802.

16. Foley KT, Gupta SK, Justis JR, Sherman MC. Percutaneous pedicle screw fixation of the lumbar spine. Neurosurgery focus 2001:10:1-8.

17. Bergey DL, Villavicencio AT, Goldstein T, Regan JJ. Endoscopic lateral transpsoas approach to the lumbar spine. Spine 2004:29:1681-8.

18. Zdeblick TA, David SM. A prospective comparison of surgical approach for anterior L4-5 fusion. Spine 2000;25:2682-7.

19. Roriguez HE, Connolly MM, Dracopoulos, Geisler FH, Podbielski FJ. Anterior access to the lumbar spine: laparoscopic versus open. Am Surg 2002;68;982-3.

20. Galibert P, Deramond H, Rosat P, Le Gars D. Preliminary note on the treatment of vertebral angioma by percutaneous acrylic vertebroplasty. Neurochirurgie 1987;33:166-8.

21. Lapras C, Mottolese C, Deruty R et al. [Percutaneous injection of methyl-metacrylate in osteoporosis and severe vertebral osteolysis (Galibert's technic)]. Ann Chir 1989;43:371-6.

22. Bascoulergue Y, Duquesnel J, Leclercq R, Mottolese C, Lapras C. Percutaneous injection of methyl methacrylate in the vertebral body for the treatment of various diseases: percutaneous vertebroplasty. Radiology 1988;169:372

23. Wilson DR, Myers ER, Mathis JM, et al. Effect of augmentation on the mechanics of vertebral wedge fractures. Spine 2000;255:158-65.

24. Taylor RS, Taylor RJ, Fritzell P. Balloon kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty for vertebral compression fracture. A comparative systemic review of efficacy and safety. Spine 2006;31:2747-55.

25. Lee MJ, Dumonski M, Cahill P, Stanley T, Park D, Singh K. Percutaneous treatment of vertebral compression fractures: a meta-analysis of complications. Spine 2009;34:1228-32.

26. Buchbinder R, Osborne RH, Ebeling PR, et al. A randomized trial of vertebroplasty for painful osteoporotic vertebral fractures. N Eng J Med 2009;361:557-68.

27. Khoo LT, Beisse R, Potulski M. Thoracoscopic-assisted treatment of thoracic and lumbar fractures: a series of 371 consecutive cases. Neurosurgery 2002;51(suppl):104-17.

28. Holcomb GW, Mencio GA, Green NE. Video-assisted thoracoscopic diskectomy and fusion. J Pediatr Surg 1997;32:1120-2.

29. Arlet V. Anterior thoracoscopic spine release in deformity surgery: a meta-anaylsis and review. Eur Spine J 2000;9:S17-23.

30. Huang TJ, Hsu RW, Liu HP, et al. Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery to upper thoracic spine. Surg Endosc 1999;13:123-6.

31. Newton PO, Marks M, Faro F et al. Use of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery to reduce perioperative morbidity in scoliosis surgery. Spine 2003;28(20S):S249-54.

32. Betz R, Ranade A, Samdani AF, et al. Vertebral body stapling: a fusionless treatment option for a growing child with moderate idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 2010;35:169-76 .

33. Saal JS, Saal JA. Management of chronic discogenic low back pain with a thermal intradiscal catheter: a preliminary report. Spine 2000;25:382-8.

34. Freeman BJC, Fraser RD, Cain CMJ, et al. A randomized, double-blind, controlled trial: intradiscal electrothermal therapy versus placebo for the treatment of chronic discogenic low back pain. Spine 2005;30:2369-77.

35. Pauza K, Howell S, Dreyfuss P et al. A randomised, placebo-controlled trial of intradiscal electrothermal therapy for the treatment of discogenic low back pain. Spine J 2004;4:27-35.

36. Chou R, Atlas SJ, Stanos SP et al. Nonsurgical interventional therapies for low back pain: a review of the evidence for an American Pain Society clinical practice guideline. Spine 2009;34:1078-93.

37. Choy DSJ. Percutaneous laser disc decompression: a 17-year experience. Photo Med Laser Surg 2004;22:407-10.

38. NICE (National Institute for Clinical Excellence). Interventional procedure overview of percutaneous disc decompression using coblation for low back pain, London, UK: National Institute for Clinical Excellence; 2004. IP Guidance No:IPG173.