UNASSIGNED: This prospective longitudinal study compares outcomes for Medicare beneficiaries receiving outpatient percutaneous image-guided lumbar decompression (PILD) using the mild® procedure to patients undergoing outpatient laminectomy. All patients were diagnosed with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) with neurogenic claudication (NC).
UNASSIGNED: All medical claims for 100 % of Medicare beneficiaries were reviewed, with study subjects identified using Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Research Identifiable Files. Baseline data were extracted individually to allow for longitudinal analysis through two-year follow-up. The index procedure was defined as the first mild or outpatient laminectomy during the enrollment period. The rate of subsequent surgical procedures and incidence of harms were used as study outcomes.
UNASSIGNED: Cohorts included 2197 mild and 7416 laminectomy patients. mild patients were significantly older (76.7 years versus 73.4 years, respectively; p < 0.0001), and 57.4 % of mild were female, compared to 43.3 % of laminectomy (p < 0.0001). mild patients presented with significantly more baseline comorbidities compared to laminectomy patients (mean of 5.7 versus 4.8, respectively; p < 0.0001). Subsequent surgical procedure rate of 9.0 % for mild was significantly higher than 5.5 % for laminectomy (p < 0.0001). mild experienced harms at a significantly lower rate than laminectomy (1.9 % versus 5.8 %, respectively; p < 0.0001). The composite rate of subsequent surgical procedures and harms was similar between groups at 10.8 % for mild and 11.0 % for laminectomy.
UNASSIGNED: mild can be considered a viable option for treatment of LSS with NC as evidenced by real-world data in this study. At two-years, mild patients experienced fewer harms and underwent more subsequent surgical procedures than laminectomy patients. The higher rate of subsequent surgical procedures for mild may be attributable to its position earlier in the LSS treatment algorithm. The overall rate of harms and subsequent surgical procedures was similar between groups, suggesting that mild should be considered as a treatment option, particularly for older patients with multiple comorbidities.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the relational factors influencing the formation of cauda equina redundant nerve roots (RNRs) of the lumbar spinal stenosis.
METHODS: Clinical data of 116 patients with lumbar spinal stenosis treated from January 2016 to June 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into redundant nerve roots(RNRs) group and non-RNRs group based on the presence or absence of RNRs on sagittal T2-weighted MRI. In the non-RNRs group, there were 74 patients, including 38 males and 36 females with an average age of (62.00±10.41) years old, the body mass index (BMI) was (23.09±2.22) kg·m-2;the maximum stenosis segment was L2-L3 in 12 cases, L3-L4 in 38, L4-L5 in 20, and L5S1 in 4, respectively. In the RNRs group, there were 42 patients, including 18 males and 24 females with an average age of (63.36±8.73) years old, the BMI was (22.63±2.60) kg·m-2;the maximum stenosis segment was L2-L3 in 3 cases, L3-L4 in 9, L4-L5 in 27 and L5S1 in 3, respectively. MRI was performed in the supine position to observe the conshape and morphology of the redundant nerve in the sagittal position. The preoperative low back and leg pain visual analogue scale(VAS), and preoperative Oswestry disability index(ODI) were analyzed, and the rate of spondylolisthesis and ligamentum flavum hypertrophy were compared. Simultaneously, the inter-vertebral height, intervertebral foramen height, inter-vertebral height+vertebral height, median sagittal diameter at the inter-vertebral space level(DIW-MSD), median sagittal diameter at the pedicel level(DV-MSD), range of motion(ROM) of the stenotic segment were measured and analyzed.
RESULTS: Among the 116 patients with lumbar spinal stenosis, 42 patients developed RNRs, with an incidence of 36.2%. There were no significant differences in gender, age, BMI, preoperative VAS for lumbar and leg pain and ODI between two groups(P>0.05). There were statistically significant differences regard to the duration of symptoms and the rate of spondylolisthesis and ligamentum flavum hypertrophy (P<0.05);the inter-vertebral height, intervertebral foramen height, inter-vertebral height+vertebral height, DIW-MSD, ROM of the stenotic segment were also significantly different between two groups(P<0.05). However, there was no significant difference in DV-MSD between two groups(P>0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: The inter-vertebral height, inter-vertebral foramen height, inter-vertebral height+vertebral height, DIW-MSD and ROM of the stenotic segment were the crucial factors related to RNRs in lumbar spinal stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) and spondylolisthesis (SPL) are characterized as degenerative spinal pathologies and share considerable similarities. However, opinions vary on whether to recommend exercise or restrict it for these diseases. Few studies have objectively compared the effects of daily physical activity on LSS and SPL because it is impossible to restrict activities ethnically and practically. We investigated the effect of restricting physical activity due to social distancing (SoD) on LSS and SPL, focusing on the aspect of healthcare burden changes during the pandemic period.
METHODS: We included first-visit patients diagnosed exclusively with LSS and SPL in 2017 and followed them up for two years before and after the implementation of the SoD policy. As controls, patients who first visited in 2015 and were followed for four years without SoD were analyzed. The common data model was employed to analyze each patient\'s diagnostic codes and treatments. Hospital visits and medical costs were analyzed by regression discontinuity in time to control for temporal effects on dependent variables.
RESULTS: Among 33,484 patients, 2,615 with LSS and 446 with SPL were included. A significant decrease in hospital visits was observed in the LSS (difference, -3.94 times/month·100 patients; p = 0.023) and SPL (difference, -3.44 times/month·100 patients; p = 0.026) groups after SoD. This decrease was not observed in the data from the control group. Concerning medical costs, the LSS group showed a statistically significant reduction in median copayment (difference, -$45/month·patient; p < 0.001) after SoD, whereas a significant change was not observed in the SPL group (difference, -$19/month·patient; p = 0.160).
CONCLUSIONS: Restricted physical activity during the SoD period decreased the healthcare burden for patients with LSS or, conversely, it did not significantly affect patients with SPL. Under circumstances of physical inactivity, patients with LSS may underrate their symptoms, while maintaining an appropriate activity level may be beneficial for patients with SPL.

UNASSIGNED: To compare the effectiveness of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (UBE-TLIF) and endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) in the treatment of single-segment degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with lumbar spondylolisthesis.
UNASSIGNED: Between November 2019 and May 2023, a total of 81 patients with single-segment degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with lumbar spondylolisthesis who met the selection criteria were enrolled. They were randomly divided into UBE-TLIF group (39 cases) and Endo-TLIF group (42 cases). There was no significant difference in baseline data between the two groups ( P>0.05), including gender, age, body mass index, surgical segment, and preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for low back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and serum markers including creatine kinase (CK) and C reactive protein (CRP). Total blood loss (TBL), intraoperative blood loss, hidden blood loss (HBL), postoperative drainage volume, and operation time were recorded and compared between the two groups. Serum markers (CK, CRP) levels were compared between the two groups at 1 day before operation and 1, 3, and 5 days after operation. Furthermore, the VAS scores for low back and leg pain, and ODI at 1 day before operation and 1 day, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after operation, and intervertebral fusion rate at 12 months after operation were compared between the two groups.
UNASSIGNED: All surgeries were completed successfully without occurrence of incision infection, vascular or nerve injury, epidural hematoma, dural tear, or postoperative paraplegia. The operation time in UBE-TLIF group was significantly shorter than that in Endo-TLIF group, but the intraoperative blood loss, TBL, and HBL in UBE-TLIF group were significantly more than those in Endo-TLIF group ( P<0.05). There was no significant difference in postoperative drainage volume between the two groups ( P>0.05). The levels of CK at 1 day and 3 days after operation and CRP at 1, 3, and 5 days after operation in UBE-TLIF group were slightly higher than those in the Endo-TLIF group ( P<0.05), while there was no significant difference in the levels of CK and CPR between the two groups at other time points ( P>0.05). All patients were followed up 12 months. VAS score of low back and leg pain and ODI at each time point after operation significantly improved when compared with those before operation in the two groups ( P<0.05); there was no significant difference in VAS score of low back and leg pain and ODI between the two groups at each time point after operation ( P>0.05). There was no significant difference in the intervertebral fusion rate between the two groups at 12 months after operation ( P>0.05).
UNASSIGNED: UBE-TLIF and Endo-TLIF are both effective methods for treating degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with lumbar spondylolisthesis. However, compared to Endo-TLIF, UBE-TLIF requires further improvement in minimally invasive techniques to reduce tissue trauma and blood loss.
UNASSIGNED: 比较单侧双通道脊柱内镜下经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术（unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion，UBE-TLIF）与单通道脊柱内镜下经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术（endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion，Endo-TLIF）对单节段退行性腰椎管狭窄症伴腰椎滑脱的治疗效果。.
UNASSIGNED: 纳入2019年11月—2023年5月收治且符合选择标准的81例单节段退行性腰椎管狭窄症伴腰椎滑脱患者，随机分为UBE-TLIF组（39例）和Endo-TLIF组（42例）。两组患者性别、年龄、身体质量指数、手术节段及术前腰、腿痛疼痛视觉模拟评分（VAS）、Oswestry功能障碍指数（ODI）、血清学指标肌酸激酶（creatine kinase，CK）和C反应蛋白（C reactive protein，CRP）水平等基线资料比较差异均无统计学意义（ P>0.05）。记录并比较两组患者总失血量（total blood loss，TBL）、术中失血量、隐性失血量（hidden blood loss，HBL）、术后引流量、手术时间；比较两组术前1 d及术后1、3、5 d血清学指标CK、CRP水平，术前1 d及术后1 d、3个月、6个月、12个月腰、腿痛VAS评分、ODI及术后12个月椎间融合率。.
UNASSIGNED: 所有手术均顺利完成，无切口感染、血管神经损伤、硬膜外血肿、硬脑膜撕裂和术后截瘫等情况发生。UBE-TLIF组手术时间少于Endo-TLIF组，但术中失血量、TBL、HBL均多于Endo-TLIF组，差异均有统计学意义（ P<0.05）；两组术后引流量比较差异无统计学意义（ P>0.05）。UBE-TLIF组术后1、3 d CK水平及术后1、3、5 d CRP水平均高于Endo-TLIF组（ P<0.05）；其余时间点两组CK和CPR水平比较差异无统计学意义（ P>0.05）。两组患者均获随访12个月。两组术后各时间点腰、腿痛VAS评分及ODI均较术前显著改善（ P<0.05）；术后各时间点两组间腰、腿痛VAS评分及ODI比较差异均无统计学意义（ P>0.05）。术后12个月两组椎间融合率比较差异亦无统计学意义（ P>0.05）。.
UNASSIGNED: UBE-TLIF与Endo-TLIF均为治疗退行性腰椎管狭窄症伴腰椎滑脱的有效方法，但与Endo-TLIF相比，UBE-TLIF需在微创技术上进一步改进，以减少组织创伤与失血量。.

UNASSIGNED: This study aimed to compare the outcomes of unilateral biportal endoscopy, unilateral laminectomy bilateral decompression (UBE-ULBD), and open lumbar decompression (OLD) in patients with lumbar epidural lipomatosis (LEL).
UNASSIGNED: This prospective observational study was conducted from March 2019 to May 2022 and encompassed 33 patients with LEL who underwent lumbar decompression. The study included 15 cases of UBE-ULBD decompression and 18 cases of open decompression, which were followed up for 1 year. The baseline characteristics, initial clinical manifestations, and surgical details [including estimated blood loss (EBL) and preoperative complications] of all patients were recorded. Radiographic evaluation included the cross-sectional area (CSA) of the thecal sac and paraspinal muscles on MRI. Clinical results were analyzed using the Short Form-36 Score (SF-36), the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NRS) for lumbar and leg pain, creatine kinase, the Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI).
UNASSIGNED: The dural sac CSA increased considerably at the 1-year postoperative follow-up in both groups (p < 0.001). The operative duration in the OLD group (48.2 ± 7.2 min) was shorter than that in the UBE-ULBD group (67.7 ± 6.3 min, p < 0.001). The OLD group (97.2 ± 19.8 mL) was associated with more EBL than the UBE-ULBD group (40.6 ± 13.6 mL, p < 0.001). The duration of hospitalization in the OLD group (5.4 ± 1.3 days) was significantly longer compared with the UBE-ULBD group (3.5 ± 1.2 days, p < 0.01). The SF-36, NRS, RMDQ, and ODI scores improved in both groups postoperatively (p < 0.001). Serum creatine kinase values in the UBE-ULBD group (101.7 ± 15.5) were significantly lower than those in the OLD group (330.8 ± 28.1 U/L) 1 day after surgery (p < 0.001). The degree of paraspinal muscle atrophy in the UBE-ULBD group (4.81 ± 1.94) was significantly lower than that in the OLD group (12.15 ± 6.99) at 1 year (p < 0.001).
UNASSIGNED: UBE-ULBD and OLD demonstrated comparable clinical outcomes in treating LEL. However, UBE-ULBD surgery was associated with shorter hospital stays, lower rates of incision infection, lighter paravertebral muscle injury, and lower EBL than OLD surgery. Consequently, UBE-ULBD can be recommended in patients with LEL if conservative treatment fails.

OBJECTIVE: The primary objective was to validate the construct validity of the Japanese Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) in preoperative patients aged 60 years or older undergoing lumbar spine surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) and lumbar disk herniation (LDH). Additionally, as a secondary aim, we explored the impact of these diseases on quality of life (QOL).
METHODS: The analysis included 199 preoperative patients aged 60 and above who were scheduled for lumbar spine surgery. To assess QOL, Japanese versions of the COMI, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), EuroQol-5 Dimension-3 Level (EQ-5D-3L), and SF-12v2 were employed. The study assessed the validity of the COMI and compared demographic and clinical characteristics between the LSS (147 cases) and LDH (52 cases) groups. It used multivariate covariance analysis (MANCOVA) to examine the impact of diseases (LSS and LDH) on each patient-reported outcome measure while considering covariates.
RESULTS: Compared to the LSS group, the LDH group showed more difficulty with the COMI summary score (LSS/LDH [mean]: 6.9/8.1, p < 0.001), ODI score (46.8/57.4, p < 0.001), and EQ-5D utility (0.53/0.43, p < 0.001). The LDH group also reported more difficulties in the COMI-function, COMI-symptom-specific well-being, COMI-disability, ODI-personal care, ODI-social life, and SF-12v2-bodily pain subscales. MANCOVA demonstrated that these results were not influenced by covariates such as gender and medical history.
CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the distinct impact of LSS and LDH on preoperative QOL in older patients undergoing lumbar spinal surgery. Tailored interventions are essential to address the specific challenges posed by these conditions and improve patient-centered outcomes and postoperative recovery.

BACKGROUND: The one-hole split endoscopy (OSE) was first proposed and clinically applied in China in 2019. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of one-hole split endoscopy (OSE) and unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) for treating lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).
METHODS: One hundred sixty patients with LSS who met the inclusion from November 2020 to August 2022 were analyzed and divided into OSE and UBE groups. The propensity score matching (PSM) method was used to adjust the imbalanced confounding variables between the two groups. After matching, surgical outcomes were recorded, and clinical data, including functional scores and imaging findings, were compared. Functional scores included the visual analog scale of leg pain (VAS-LP) and back pain (VAS-BP), the Japanese Orthopedic Association score (JOA), and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Imaging data included dural sac cross-sectional area (DCSA), lumbar range of motion (ROM), and sagittal translation (ST).
RESULTS: After PSM, 104 LSS patients were included in the study, and all covariates were well-balanced between the two groups. Among the matched patients, the OSE showed advantages over the UBE regarding operative time (62.42 ± 4.86 vs. 68.96 ± 4.56) and incision length (2.30 ± 0.14 vs. 2.70 ± 0.15) (P < 0.001). However, differences between the two groups in intraoperative blood loss, hospital length of stay, and complication rates were not statistically significant (P > 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference regarding VAS-BP, VAS-LP, JOA, and ODI between the two groups (P > 0.05). However, all clinical and functional scores significantly improved postoperatively (P < 0.05). Postoperative DCSA of both groups was significantly found to be improved (P < 0.05), ROM and ST remained within the normal range, and no cases of lumbar instability were recorded. According to the modified MacNab criteria, the excellent and good rates in the OSE and UBE groups were 94.23% and 90.38%, respectively, with no statistically significant difference (P = 0.713).
CONCLUSIONS: OSE is an alternative technique to UBE for the treatment of LSS, with similar satisfactory clinical outcomes, shorter operative time, and smaller incision length. Further studies are needed for long-term efficacy.