Search

Conventional laminectomy for spine decompression involves inherent complications resulting from perioperative traumatization of posterior structures. Minimally invasive decompression was developed to address these issues. Full endoscopic spine surgery has shifted the paradigm from disc pathology to spinal stenosis by overcoming the limitation of bony procedures with evolving endoscopic instruments. However, a steep learning curve restricts the development of endoscopic decompression. The purpose of this study is to describe full endoscopic uniportal unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression through the interlaminar approach and to evaluate its efficacy and safety in 2 years of follow-up.A total of 106 patients (45 men, 61 women) with degeneration lumbar stenosis involving 165 segments were enrolled from April 2015 to June 2017, and treated by full endoscopic uniportal unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression. We made an 8-mm incision and used a general-size endoscope (working channel 4.3 mm) to avoid neurological compromise during the demonstration.The visual analogue scale (VAS) results for back pain revealed a significant reduction from preoperative 6.8 ± 2.1 to 1.7 ± 1.7 after 2 years (P0.001). The VAS results for leg pain revealed a significant reduction from preoperative 7.6 ± 1.3 to 1.3 ± 1.6 after 2 years (P0.001). The Oswestry Disability Index showed significant improvement from preoperative 62.0 ± 13.9 to 14.6 ± 15.7 after 2 years (P 0.001). The average operation time was 68.9 ± 10.0 minutes per level. One case had iatrogenic durotomy, 1 case underwent revision surgery due to incomplete decompression, and 2 cases had delayed wound healing.This procedure obtained successful and satisfactory outcomes for patients, and was more feasible for surgeons.

To retrospectively assess the clinical outcomes of the patients with large to massive reparable RCTs treated by arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR) combined with modified superior capsule reconstruction (mSCR) using the long head of biceps tendon (LHBT) as reinforcement with a minimum of 2 years of follow-up.We retrospectively evaluated 40 patients with large to massive reparable RCTs who underwent ARCR and mSCR (group I) between February 2017 and June 2018 (18 patients) or underwent ARCR and tenotomy of LHBT performed at the insertion site (group II) between January 2015 and January 2017 (22 patients). The pain visual analog score (VAS) was assessed preoperatively and 1, 3, 6, 12, 24 months postoperatively. American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores, the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) shoulder rating scale, and active range of motion (AROM) were assessed before surgery and 6, 12, and 24 months after surgery. The integrity of the rotator cuff and mSCR was evaluated using magnetic resonance images at 12 months postoperatively.After surgery, both groups had significantly improved in VAS, ASES, UCLA and AROM scores in the final follow-up. There were no significant between-group differences in the characteristics of the patients before surgery. Group I had improved pain relief at 1 month (P.001) and at 3 months (P.01) after surgery. For the AROM, group I (flexion, external rotation, internal rotation) demonstrated better improvement than group II 6 months after surgery (all P.05) and better internal rotation 12 and 24 months after surgery (all P.05). The mSCR survival rate was 94.4% (17/18). The retear rate of repaired rotator cuffs for groups I and II was 16.7% (3/18) and 40.9% (9/22), respectively, and the differences were significant (P.046).ARCR combined with mSCR using LHBT as reinforcement may lead to a lower retear rate and earlier functional recovery than conventional ARCR with tenotomy of LHBT for large to massive reparable RCTs.Level III, retrospective therapeutic comparative trial.

Objective To compare the complications of patella fracture after open reduction and internal fixation using our innovative, loop-based modification of the tension band wiring technique and the traditional tension band wiring technique. Methods Fifty-eight patients with patella fracture (AO/OTA: 34-C) were enrolled in this retrospective case-control study during the study period. We treated 36 patients with the traditional tension band wiring and 22 patients with our loop anchor tension band technique. Lysholm knee scoring scale, sex, numbers of wire dislodge, number of implants removal between two groups were compared. Results The number of cases of wire dislodgement was zero in the loop anchor tension band group and seven in the traditional tension band group. There was statistically significant difference (P = 0.037). Lysholm knee score (P = 0.685) and operation time (P = 0.395) were not significantly different between the two groups Conclusions The loop anchor tension band technique is safe and effective for treating patella fractures. The rates of implant loosening and wire pull-out were significantly lower in the loop anchor tension band group than those in the traditional technique group.

Background Context Lumbar endoscopic unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (LE-ULBD) has been reported as an alternative treatment for degenerative lumbar central canal stenosis (DLCS). Purpose To investigate the outcomes of LE-ULBD for different types of DLCS, including simple DLCS, DLCS with degenerative spondylolisthesis (DSL), and DLCS with degenerative scoliosis (DSC). Study Design/Setting Prospective cohort study. Patient Sample One-hundred sixteen patients with DLCS who underwent LE-ULBD at a spine center from April 2015 to June 2017 were enrolled in this study. Outcome Measures Operative time, postoperative duration of hospitalization, and clinical outcomes (Oswestry disability index [ODI], visual analog scale [VAS], and modified Macnab outcome scale), and adverse events. Methods A comparative analysis was performed evaluating medical records, radiological studies, and patient reported outcomes including ODI score, VAS scores and modified Macnab outcome scales in patients who underwent LE-ULBD. Data were prospectively collected at preoperative, postoperative 3-, 6-, 12-, 24-month to assess clinical and radiological outcomes and complications. Results The study analyzed 106 patients (45 men and 61 women, with a mean age of 69.5 years); 40 (37.8%) had simple DLCS, 41 (38.7%) had DLCS with DSL, and 25 (23.5%) had DLCS with DSC. The mean follow-up period was 33.3 months. The mean preoperative and postoperative follow-up ODI score and VAS scores for leg and back pain showed significant improvement in all time points. No significant difference was found among different pathologies in terms of VAS scores for back and leg pain, ODI scores and modified Macnab outcome scales at all follow-up periods. Conclusions LE-ULBD is a feasible treatment method for DLCS. It did not result in worse outcomes in cases with DLCS with DSL or DLCS with DSC as compared with cases with simple DLCS.