RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Durotomy during endoscopic spine surgery can cause a patient's neurological or cardiovascular status to deteriorate unexpectedly intra- or postoperatively. There is currently limited literature regarding appropriate fluid management strategies, irrigation-related risk factors, and clinical consequences of incidental durotomy during spinal endoscopy, and no validated irrigation protocol exists for endoscopic spine surgery. Thus, the present article sought to (1) describe 3 cases of durotomy, (2) investigate standard epidural pressure measurements, and (3) survey endoscopic spine surgeons on the incidence of adverse effects believed to result from durotomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors first reviewed clinical outcomes and analyzed complications in 3 patients with intraoperatively recognized incidental durotomy. Second, the authors conducted a small case series with intraoperative epidural pressure measurements during gravity-assisted irrigated video endoscopy of the lumbar spine. Measurements were conducted on 12 patients with a transducer assembly that was introduced through the endoscopic working channel of the RIWOSpine Panoview Plus and Vertebris endoscope to the decompression site in the spine. Third, the authors conducted a retrospective, multiple-choice survey of endoscopic spine surgeons to better understand the frequency and seriousness of problems they attributed to irrigation fluid escaping from the surgical decompression site into the spinal canal and neural axis. Descriptive and correlative statistical analyses were performed on the surgeons' responses. RESULTS: In the first part of this study, durotomy-related complications during irrigated spinal endoscopy were observed in 3 patients. Postoperative head computed tomographic (CT) images revealed massive blood in the intracranial subarachnoid space, the basal cisterns, the III and IV ventricle, and the lateral ventricles characteristic of an arterial fisher grade IV subarachnoid hemorrhage, and hydrocephalus without evidence of aneurysms or angiomas. Two additional patients developed intraoperative seizures, cardiac arrhythmia, and hypotension. The head CT image in 1 of these 2 patients had intracranial air entrapment.In the second part, epidural pressure measurements in 12 patients who underwent uneventful routine lumbar interlaminar decompression for L4-L5 and L5-S1 disc herniation showed an average epidural pressure of 24.5 mm Hg.In the third part, the online survey was accessed by 766 spine surgeons worldwide and had a response rate of 43.6%. Irrigation-related problems were reported by 38% of responding surgeons. Only 11.8% used irrigation pumps, with 90% running the pump above 40 mm Hg. Headaches (4.5%) and neck pain (4.9%) were observed by nearly a 10th (9.4%) of surgeons. Seizures in combination with headaches, neck and abdominal pain, soft tissue edema, and nerve root injury were reported by another 5 surgeons. One surgeon reported a delirious patient. Another 14 surgeons thought that they had patients with neurological deficits ranging from nerve root injury to cauda equina syndrome related to irrigation fluid. Autonomic dysreflexia associated with hypertension was attributed by 19 of the 244 responding surgeons to the noxious stimulus of escaped irrigation fluid that migrated from the decompression site in the spinal canal. Two of these 19 surgeons reported 1 case associated with a recognized incidental durotomy and another with postoperative paralysis. CONCLUSIONS: Patients should be educated preoperatively about the risk of irrigated spinal endoscopy. Although rare, intracranial blood, hydrocephalus, headaches, neck pain, seizures, and more severe complications, including life-threatening autonomic dysreflexia with hypertension, may arise if irrigation fluid enters the spinal canal or the dural sac and migrates from the endoscopic site along the neural axis rostrally. Experienced endoscopic spine surgeons suspect a correlation between durotomy and irrigation-related extra- and intradural pressure equalization that could be problematic if associated with high volumes of irrigation fluid LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.
RESUMO
Background: Endoscopically visualized spine surgery has become an essential tool that aids in identifying and treating anatomical spine pathologies that are not well demonstrated by traditional advanced imaging, including MRI. These pathologies may be visualized during endoscopic lumbar decompression (ELD) and categorized into primary pain generators (PPG). Identifying these PPGs provides crucial information for a successful outcome with ELD and forms the basis for our proposed personalized spine care protocol (SpineScreen). Methods: a prospective study of 412 patients from 7 endoscopic practices consisting of 207 (50.2%) males and 205 (49.8%) females with an average age of 63.67 years and an average follow-up of 69.27 months was performed to compare the durability of targeted ELD based on validated primary pain generators versus image-based open lumbar laminectomy, and minimally invasive lumbar transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF) using Kaplan-Meier median survival calculations. The serial time was determined as the interval between index surgery and when patients were censored for additional interventional and surgical treatments for low back-related symptoms. A control group was recruited from patients referred for a surgical consultation but declined interventional and surgical treatment and continued on medical care. Control group patients were censored when they crossed over into any surgical or interventional treatment group. Results: of the 412 study patients, 206 underwent ELD (50.0%), 61 laminectomy (14.8%), and 78 (18.9%) TLIF. There were 67 patients in the control group (16.3% of 412 patients). The most common surgical levels were L4/5 (41.3%), L5/S1 (25.0%), and L4-S1 (16.3%). At two-year f/u, excellent and good Macnab outcomes were reported by 346 of the 412 study patients (84.0%). The VAS leg pain score reduction was 4.250 ± 1.691 (p < 0.001). No other treatment during the available follow-up was required in 60.7% (125/206) of the ELD, 39.9% (31/78) of the TLIF, and 19.7% (12/61 of the laminectomy patients. In control patients, only 15 of the 67 (22.4%) control patients continued with conservative care until final follow-up, all of which had fair and poor functional Macnab outcomes. In patients with Excellent Macnab outcomes, the median durability was 62 months in ELD, 43 in TLIF, and 31 months in laminectomy patients (p < 0.001). The overall survival time in control patients was eight months with a standard error of 0.942, a lower boundary of 6.154, and an upper boundary of 9.846 months. In patients with excellent Macnab outcomes, the median durability was 62 months in ELD, 43 in TLIF, and 31 months in laminectomy patients versus control patients at seven months (p < 0.001). The most common new-onset symptom for censoring was dysesthesia ELD (9.4%; 20/206), axial back pain in TLIF (25.6%;20/78), and recurrent pain in laminectomy (65.6%; 40/61) patients (p < 0.001). Transforaminal epidural steroid injections were tried in 11.7% (24/206) of ELD, 23.1% (18/78) of TLIF, and 36.1% (22/61) of the laminectomy patients. The secondary fusion rate among ELD patients was 8.8% (18/206). Among TLIF patients, the most common additional treatments were revision fusion (19.2%; 15/78) and multilevel rhizotomy (10.3%; 8/78). Common follow-up procedures in laminectomy patients included revision laminectomy (16.4%; 10/61), revision ELD (11.5%; 7/61), and multilevel rhizotomy (11.5%; 7/61). Control patients crossed over into ELD (13.4%), TLIF (13.4%), laminectomy (10.4%) and interventional treatment (40.3%) arms at high rates. Most control patients treated with spinal injections (55.5%) had excellent and good functional outcomes versus 40.7% with fair and poor (3.7%), respectively. The control patients (93.3%) who remained in medical management without surgery or interventional care (14/67) had the worst functional outcomes and were rated as fair and poor. Conclusions: clinical outcomes were more favorable with lumbar surgeries than with non-surgical control groups. Of the control patients, the crossover rate into interventional and surgical care was 40.3% and 37.2%, respectively. There are longer symptom-free intervals after targeted ELD than with TLIF or laminectomy. Additional intervention and surgical treatments are more often needed to manage new-onset postoperative symptoms in TLIF- and laminectomy compared to ELD patients. Few ELD patients will require fusion in the future. Considering the rising cost of surgical spine care, we offer SpineScreen as a simplified and less costly alternative to traditional image-based care models by focusing on primary pain generators rather than image-based criteria derived from the preoperative lumbar MRI scan.