Abstract
Performing surgeries in the cervical spine endoscopically is gaining more and more traction. Nowadays, there are four standard surgeries, which can be done endoscopically in the cervical spine; anterior endoscopic cervical discectomy (AECD), posterior endoscopic cervical discectomy (PECD), posterior endoscopic cervical foraminotomy (PECF), and cervical endoscopic unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (CE-ULBD). Some authors consider “posterior cervical endoscopic ventral bony decompression” as a separate entity, counting it as the fifth procedure. Beyond these standard procedures, there are numerous individually adapted special approaches for not so common pathologies.
Endoscopic procedures in the cervical spine are preferentially performed through a posterior approach. This chapter will focus on the standard procedure of CE-ULBD, a procedure intended for decompression of a cervical central canal stenosis. In cases of moderate and severe stenosis/myelopathy, there is a clear recommendation for surgical treatment.
In microsurgery, anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is commonplace for the treatment of cervical spinal stenosis. However, the standard endoscopic anterior approach has limited range of motion and allows the use of only small instruments and therefore remains a procedure primarily reserved for the removal of (small) fresh disc herniations. Performing CE-ULBD through a posterior approach enables to effectively decompress a central stenosis due to sufficient mobility of the endoscope and the use of effective endoscopic decompression instruments such as power burrs.
Nowadays, CE-ULBD is characterized in the literature. Beyond studies of feasibility, different authors could prove noninferiority of CE-ULBD in regard to Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score and superiority in terms of duration of surgery, intraoperative blood loss, and length of hospital stay in comparison to microsurgical ACDF.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Konig SA, Spetzger U. Surgical management of cervical spondylotic myelopathy–indications for anterior, posterior or combined procedures for decompression and stabilisation. Acta Neurochir. 2014;156:253–8. discussion 8.
Law MD Jr, Bernhardt M, White AA 3rd. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a review of surgical indications and decision making. Yale J Biol Med. 1993;66:165–77.
Law MD Jr, Bernhardt M, White AA 3rd. Evaluation and management of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Instr Course Lect. 1995;44:99–110.
Nouri A, Tetreault L, Singh A, et al. Degenerative cervical myelopathy: epidemiology, genetics, and pathogenesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015;40:E675–93.
Tetreault L, Goldstein CL, Arnold P, et al. Degenerative cervical myelopathy: a spectrum of related disorders affecting the aging spine. Neurosurgery. 2015;77(Suppl 4):S51–67.
Abiola R, Rubery P, Mesfin A. Ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: etiology, diagnosis, and outcomes of nonoperative and operative management. Global Spine J. 2016;6:195–204.
Matsunaga S, Kukita M, Hayashi K, et al. Pathogenesis of myelopathy in patients with ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. J Neurosurg. 2002;96:168–72.
Medow JE, Trost G, Sandin J. Surgical management of cervical myelopathy: indications and techniques for surgical corpectomy. Spine J. 2006;6:233S–41S.
Goh GS, Liow MHL, Ling ZM, et al. Severity of preoperative myelopathy symptoms affects patient-reported outcomes, satisfaction, and return to work after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for degenerative cervical myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2020;45:649–56.
Kong W, Xin Z, Du Q, et al. Anterior percutaneous full-endoscopic transcorporeal decompression of the spinal cord for single-segment cervical spondylotic myelopathy: the technical interpretation and 2 years of clinical follow-up. J Orthop Surg Res. 2019;14:461.
Minamide A, Yoshida M, Simpson AK, et al. Microendoscopic laminotomy versus conventional laminoplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: 5-year follow-up study. J Neurosurg Spine. 2017;27:403–9.
Yuan H, Zhang X, Zhang LM, et al. Comparative study of curative effect of spinal endoscopic surgery and anterior cervical decompression for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Spine Surg. 2020;6:S186–S96.
Lin Y, Rao S, Li Y, et al. Posterior percutaneous full-endoscopic cervical laminectomy and decompression for cervical stenosis with myelopathy: a technical note, vol. 124. World Neurosurg; 2019. p. 350.
Oshima Y, Seichi A, Takeshita K, et al. Natural course and prognostic factors in patients with mild cervical spondylotic myelopathy with increased signal intensity on T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37:1909–13.
Karadimas SK, Gatzounis G, Fehlings MG. Pathobiology of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Eur Spine J. 2015;24(Suppl 2):132–8.
Zhang C, Li D, Wang C, et al. Cervical endoscopic laminoplasty for cervical myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016;41(Suppl 19):B44–51.
Nakagawa H, Saito K, Mitsugi T, et al. Microdiscectomy and foraminotomy in cervical spondylotic myelopathy and radiculopathy: anterior versus posterior, microendoscopic surgery versus mini-open microsurgery. World Neurosurg. 2014;81:292–3.
Deora H, Kim SH, Behari S, et al. Anterior surgical techniques for cervical Spondylotic myelopathy: WFNS spine committee recommendations. Neurospine. 2019;16:408–20.
Hukuda S, Mochizuki T, Ogata M, et al. Operations for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. A comparison of the results of anterior and posterior procedures. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1985;67:609–15.
Kato S, Ganau M, Fehlings MG. Surgical decision-making in degenerative cervical myelopathy–anterior versus posterior approach. J Clin Neurosci. 2018;58:7–12.
Manabe N, Shimizu T, Tanouchi T, et al. A novel skull clamp positioning system and technique for posterior cervical surgery: clinical impact on cervical sagittal alignment. Medicine (Baltimore). 2015;94:e695.
Park P, Lewandrowski KU, Ramnath S, et al. Brachial neuritis: an under-recognized cause of upper extremity paresis after cervical decompression surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32:E640–4.
Lin CY, Chang CC, Tseng C, et al. Seizure after percutaneous endoscopic surgery-incidence, risk factors, prevention, and management. World Neurosurg. 2020;138:411–7.
Alomar SA, Maghrabi Y, Baeesa SS, et al. Outcome of anterior and posterior endoscopic procedures for cervical radiculopathy due to degenerative disk disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Global Spine J. 2021;12:21925682211037270.
Carr DA, Abecassis IJ, Hofstetter CP. Full endoscopic unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression of the cervical spine: surgical technique and early experience. J Spine Surg. 2020;6:447–56.
Shen J, Telfeian AE, Shaaya E, et al. Full endoscopic cervical spine surgery. J Spine Surg. 2020;6:383–90.
Burgess LC, Wainwright TW. What is the evidence for early mobilisation in elective spine surgery? A Narrative Review. Healthcare (Basel). 2019;7:7.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
1 Electronic Supplementary Material
(MP4 472546 kb)
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hagel, V. (2023). Cervical Endoscopic Unilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Decompression (CE-ULBD). In: Lui, T.H. (eds) Endoscopy of the Spine. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-7761-9_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-7761-9_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-19-7760-2
Online ISBN: 978-981-19-7761-9
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)