Advertisement

Contralateral “Keyhole” Endoscopic Surgery

  • Jae Ha Hwang
  • Cheul Woong Park
Chapter

Abstract

Spinal stenosis is the most common disorder of the lumbar spine in elderly patients (Deyo et al., Spine 18:1463–70,193). Decompressive surgery is currently the best choice in the treatment for symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis (Weinstein et al., N Engl J Med 358:794–810, 2008). Percutaneous endoscopic decompression (PED) in progression has become a reasonable alternative to open microsurgery for lumbar spinal stenosis (Thongtrangan et al., Neurosurg Focus 16:1–10, 2004; Johnsson et al., Spine 11:107–110, 1986; Young et al., Neurosurgery 23:628–633, 1988; Sanderson et al., Bone Joint J 75:393–397, 1993; Poletti et al., Neurosurgery 37:343–347, 1995; Weiner et al., Spine 24:2268, 1999). PED has several advantages, including less paraspinal muscle injury, less postoperative back pain, and early discharge. Regarding postoperative spinal instability, however, PED surgery whether the uniportal or the biportal endoscopic technique is based on the unilateral laminectomy for bilateral decompression (so-called “over-the-top technique”). Thus the possibility of postoperative spinal instability due to extensive removal of the ipsilateral medial facet joint or the isthmus remains. A contralateral interlaminar approach is an unfamiliar method. But some microscopic tubular decompressions via a contralateral interlaminar approach for lumbar spinal stenosis or disc herniations have been reported (Niggemeyer et al., Eur Spine J 6:423–429, 1997; Ahn et al., Expert Rev Med Devices 11:605–616, 2014; Hwa Eum et al., J Neurosurg Spine 24:602–607, 2016; Komp et al., Clin Spine Surg 24:281–7, 2011; Minamide et al., J Neurosurg Spine 19:664–671, 2013; Ruetten et al., J Neurosurg Spine 10:476–485, 2009; Torudom et al., Asian Spine J 10:335–342, 2016). They emphasized that the contralateral approach procedures provided easier access to the lateral recess pathology than the ipsilateral approach, and it maintained biomechanical stability by preserving facet joints. Following the evolution of surgical instruments including development of the high-speed endoscopic drill, we can perform PED surgery via the contralateral interlaminar approach for lumbar spinal stenosis. In this chapter, we describe the technical methods of the contralateral keyhole endoscopic surgery that makes it possible to maximize preservation of facet joints and prevent segmental instability.

Keywords

Percutaneous Contralateral Keyhole Endoscopic Stenosis 

Supplementary material

Video 21.1

The video presentation of contralateral keyhole endoscopic surgery for facet cyst (WMV 702159 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Deyo RA, Ciol MA, Cherkin DC, Loeser JD, Bigos SJ. Lumbar spinal fusion: a cohort study of complications, reoperations, and resource use in the Medicare population. Spine. 1993;18(11):1463–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, Tosteson AN, Blood E, Hanscom B, et al. Surgical versus nonsurgical therapy for lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(8):794–810.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Thongtrangan I, Le H, Park J, Kim DH. Minimally invasive spinal surgery: a historical perspective. Neurosurg Focus. 2004;16(1):1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    K-e J, Willner S, Johnsson K. Postoperative instability after decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine. 1986;11(2):107–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Young S, Veerapen R, O’laoire SA. Relief of lumbar canal stenosis using multilevel subarticular fenestrations as an alternative to wide laminectomy: preliminary report. Neurosurgery. 1988;23(5):628–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sanderson P, Wood P. Surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis in old people. Bone Joint J. 1993;75(3):393–7.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Poletti CE. Central lumbar stenosis caused by ligamentum flavum: unilateral laminotomy for bilateral ligamentectomy. Neurosurgery. 1995;37(2):343–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Weiner BK, Walker M, Brower RS, McCulloch JA. Microdecompression for lumbar spinal canal stenosis. Spine. 1999;24(21):2268.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Niggemeyer O, Strauss J, Schulitz K. Comparison of surgical procedures for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a meta-analysis of the literature from 1975 to 1995. Eur Spine J. 1997;6(6):423–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ahn Y. Percutaneous endoscopic decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2014;11(6):605–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hwa Eum J, Hwa Heo D, Son SK, Park CK. Percutaneous biportal endoscopic decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: a technical note and preliminary clinical results. J Neurosurg Spine. 2016;24(4):602–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Komp M, Hahn P, Merk H, Godolias G, Ruetten S. Bilateral operation of lumbar degenerative central spinal stenosis in full-endoscopic interlaminar technique with unilateral approach: prospective 2-year results of 74 patients. Clin Spine Surg. 2011;24(5):281–7.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Minamide A, Yoshida M, Yamada H, Nakagawa Y, Kawai M, Maio K, et al. Endoscope-assisted spinal decompression surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. J Neurosurg Spine. 2013;19(6):664–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ruetten S, Komp M, Merk H, Godolias G. Surgical treatment for lumbar lateral recess stenosis with the full-endoscopic interlaminar approach versus conventional microsurgical technique: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. J Neurosurg Spine. 2009;10(5):476–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Torudom Y, Dilokhuttakarn T. Two portal percutaneous endoscopic decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: preliminary study. Asian Spine J. 2016;10(2):335–42.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wiltse L, Spencer C. New uses and refinements of the paraspinal approach to the lumbar spine. Spine. 1988;13(6):696–706.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yeom JS, Kim KH, Hong SW, Park K-W, Chang B-S, Lee C-K, et al. A minimally invasive technique for L5–S1 intraforaminal disc herniations: microdiscectomy with a tubular retractor via a contralateral approach. J Neurosurg Spine. 2008;8(2):193–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shin M-H, KiM J-S, Ryu K-S, HuR J-W. Bilateral decompression via microscopic tubular crossing laminotomy (MTCL) for lumbar spinal stenosis: technique and early surgical result. Neurol Med Chir. 2015;55(7):570–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kim CW. Scientific basis of minimally invasive spine surgery: prevention of multifidus muscle injury during posterior lumbar surgery. Spine. 2010;35(26S):S281–S6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    James A, Laufer I, Parikh K, Nagineni VV, Saleh TO, Härtl R. Lumbar juxtafacet cyst resection: the facet sparing contralateral minimally invasive surgical approach. Clinical Spine Surgery. 2012;25(2):E13–E7.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Alimi M, Njoku I Jr, Cong G-T, Pyo SY, Hofstetter CP, Grunert P, et al. Minimally invasive foraminotomy through tubular retractors via a contralateral approach in patients with unilateral radiculopathy. Oper Neurosurg. 2014;10(3):436–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Alimi M, Hofstetter CP, Pyo SY, Paulo D, Härtl R. Minimally invasive laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis in patients with and without preoperative spondylolisthesis: clinical outcome and reoperation rates. J Neurosurg Spine. 2015;22(4):339–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Berra LV, Foti D, Ampollini A, Faraca G, Zullo N, Musso C. Contralateral approach for far lateral lumbar disc herniations: a modified technique and outcome analysis of nine patients. Spine. 2010;35(6):709–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schöller K, Steingrüber T, Stein M, Vogt N, Müller T, Pons-Kühnemann J, et al. Microsurgical unilateral laminotomy for decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis: long-term results and predictive factors. Acta Neurochir. 2016;158(6):1103–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Müslüman AM, Cansever T, Yılmaz A, Çavuşoğlu H, Yüce İ, Aydın Y. Midterm outcome after a microsurgical unilateral approach for bilateral decompression of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012;16(1):68–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Caputy AJ, Luessenhop AJ. Long-term evaluation of decompressive surgery for degenerative lumbar stenosis. J Neurosurg. 1992;77(5):669–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hwang JH, Park WM, Park CW. Contralateral interlaminar keyhole percutaneous endoscopic lumbar surgery in patients with unilateral radiculopathy. World Neurosurg. 2017;101:33–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jae Ha Hwang
    • 1
  • Cheul Woong Park
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of NeurosurgeryDaejeon Woori HospitalDaejeonSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations