Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression: A Review of Indications, Techniques, Efficacy and Safety

References

• Arnoldi CC , BrodskyAE , CauchoixJet.al Lumbar spinal stenosis and nerve root entrapment syndromes. Definition and classification. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res.115, 4–5 (1976).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kreiner DS , ShafferWO , BaisdenJLet.al An evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (update). Spine J.13(7), 734–743 (2013).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kalichman L , ColeR , KimDHet.al Spinal stenosis prevalence and association with symptoms: the Framingham Study. Spine J.9(7), 545–550 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ishimoto Y , YoshimuraN , MurakiSet.al Prevalence of symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis and its association with physical performance in a population-based cohort in Japan: the Wakayama Spine Study. Osteoarthritis Cartilage20(10), 1103–1108 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ammendolia C , ChowN. Clinical outcomes for neurogenic claudication using a multimodal program for lumbar spinal stenosis: a retrospective study. J. Manipulative Physiol. Ther.38(3), 188–194 (2015).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ammendolia C , StuberKJ , RokEet.al Nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev.8, CD010712 (2013).
   Google Scholar
• Manchikanti L , KnezevicNN , BoswellMV , KayeAD , HirschJA. Epidural injections for lumbar radiculopathy and spinal stenosis: a comparative systematic review and meta-analysis. Pain Physician19(3), E365–E410 (2016).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fukusaki M , KobayashiI , HaraT , SumikawaK. Symptoms of spinal stenosis do not improve after epidural steroid injection. Clin. J. Pain14(2), 148–151 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deer TR , GriderJS , PopeJEet.al The MIST guidelines: the Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Consensus Group guidelines for minimally invasive spine treatment. Pain Pract.19(3), 250–274 (2019).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Viejo-Fuertes D , LiguoroD , RivelJ , MidyD , GuerinJ. Morphologic and histologic study of the ligamentum flavum in the thoraco-lumbar region. Surg. Radiol. Anat.20(3), 171–176 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elsberg C . Experiences in spinal surgery. Surg. Gynecol. Obstet.16, 117–132 (1913).
   Google Scholar
• Hansson T , SuzukiN , HebelkaH , GaulitzA. The narrowing of the lumbar spinal canal during loaded MRI: the effects of the disc and ligamentum flavum. Eur. Spine J.18(5), 679–686 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yong-Hing K , ReillyJ , Kirkaldy-WillisWH. The ligamentum flavum. Spine1(4), 226–234 (1976).
   Google Scholar
• Chen J , LiuZ , ZhongGet.al Hypertrophy of ligamentum flavum in lumbar spine stenosis is associated with increased miR-155 level. Dis. Markers2014, 786543 (2014).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Honsawek S , PoonpukdeeJ , ChalermpanpipatCet.al Hypertrophy of the ligamentum flavum in lumbar spinal canal stenosis is associated with increased bFGF expression. Int. Orthop.37(7), 1387–1392 (2013).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park JB , ChangH , LeeJK. Quantitative analysis of transforming growth factor-beta 1 in ligamentum flavum of lumbar spinal stenosis and disc herniation. Spine (Phila PA 1976)26(21), E492–E495 (2001).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hur JW , BaeT , YeSet.al Myofibroblast in the ligamentum flavum hypertrophic activity. Eur. Spine J.26(8), 2021–2030 (2017).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jirathanathornnukul N , LimthongkulW , YingsakmongkolW , SinghatanadgigeW , ParkpianV , HonsawekS. Increased expression of vascular endothelial growth factor is associated with hypertrophic ligamentum flavum in lumbar spinal canal stenosis. J. Investig. Med.64(4), 882–887 (2016).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malfair D , BeallDP. Imaging the degenerative diseases of the lumbar spine. Magn. Reson. Imaging Clin. N. Am.15(2), 221–238 (2007).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Siebert E , PrussH , KlingebielR , FailliV , EinhauplKM , SchwabJM. Lumbar spinal stenosis: syndrome, diagnostics and treatment. Nat. Rev. Neurol.5(7), 392–403 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abbas J , HamoudK , MasharawiYMet.al Ligamentum flavum thickness in normal and stenotic lumbar spines. Spine (Phila PA 1976)35(12), 1225–1230 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benyamin RM , StaatsPS. mild® is an effective treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication: MiDAS ENCORE Randomized Controlled Trial. Pain Physician19(4), 229–242 (2016).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steurer J , RonerS , GnanntR , HodlerJ. on behalf of the LumbSten Research Collaboration. Quantitative radiologic criteria for the diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic literature review. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord.12, 175 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Staats PS , ChafinTB , GolovacSet.al Long-term safety and efficacy of minimally invasive lumbar decompression procedure for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication: 2-year results of MiDAS ENCORE. Reg. Anesth. Pain Med.43(7), 789–794 (2018).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mekhail N , CostandiS , AbrahamB , SamuelSW. Functional and patient-reported outcomes in symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis following percutaneous decompression. Pain Pract.12(6), 417–425 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deer TR , KapuralL. New image-guided ultra-minimally invasive lumbar decompression method: the mild procedure. Pain Physician13(1), 35–41 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chopko B , CarawayDL. MiDAS I (mild Decompression Alternative to Open Surgery): a preliminary report of a prospective, multi-center clinical study. Pain Physician13(4), 369–378 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lingreen R , GriderJS. Retrospective review of patient self-reported improvement and post-procedure findings for mild (minimally invasive lumbar decompression). Pain Physician13(6), 555–560 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chopko BW . A novel method for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis in high-risk surgical candidates: pilot study experience with percutaneous remodeling of ligamentum flavum and lamina. J. Neurosurg. Spine14(1), 46–50 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schomer DF , SolsbergD , WongW , ChopkoBW. mild® lumbar decompression for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. Neuroradiol. J.24(4), 620–626 (2011).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Basu S . mild procedure: single-site prospective IRB study. Clin. J. Pain28(3), 254–258 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deer TR , KimCK , BowmanRG2nd , RansonMT , YeeBS. Study of percutaneous lumbar decompression and treatment algorithm for patients suffering from neurogenic claudication. Pain Physician15(6), 451–460 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levy RM , DeerTR. Systematic safety review and meta-analysis of procedural experience using percutaneous access to treat symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis. Pain Med.13(12), 1554–1561 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mekhail N , VallejoR , ColemanMH , BenyaminRM. Long-term results of percutaneous lumbar decompression mild® for spinal stenosis. Pain Pract.12(3), 184–193 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong WH . mild interlaminar decompression for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: procedure description and case series with 1-year follow-up. Clin. J. Pain28(6), 534–538 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown LL . A double-blind, randomized, prospective study of epidural steroid injection vs. the mild® procedure in patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis. Pain Pract.12(5), 333–341 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Durkin B , RomeiserJ , ShroyerALet.al Report from a quality assurance program on patients undergoing the mild procedure. Pain Med.14(5), 650–656 (2013).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chopko BW . Long-term results of percutaneous lumbar decompression for LSS: two-year outcomes. Clin. J. Pain29(11), 939–943 (2013).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang JJ , BowdenK , PangG , CiptaA. Decrease in health care resource utilization with mild. Pain Med.14(5), 657–661 (2013).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Udeh BL , CostandiS , DaltonJE , GhoshR , YousefH , MekhailN. The 2-year cost-effectiveness of 3 options to treat lumbar spinal stenosis patients. Pain Pract.15(2), 107–116 (2015).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jassal N . Single center experience of mild procedure evaluating opioid and pain reduction at follow up. Presented at: American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) Annual Meeting.NV, USA, 3–5 May 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Choy DS , AscherPW , RanuHSet.al Percutaneous laser disc decompression. A new therapeutic modality. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)17(8), 949–956 (1992).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cho JH , HwangCJ , KimH , JooYS , LeeDH , LeeCS. Effect of osteoporosis on the clinical and radiological outcomes following one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion. J. Orthop. Sci.23(6), 870–877 (2018).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stromqvist BH , BergS , GerdhemPet.al X-stop versus decompressive surgery for lumbar neurogenic intermittent claudication: randomized controlled trial with 2-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)38(17), 1436–1442 (2013).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weinstein JN , TostesonTD , LurieJDet.al Surgical versus nonsurgical therapy for lumbar spinal stenosis. N. Engl. J. Med.358(8), 794–810 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Irmola TM , HakkinenA , JarvenpaaS , MarttinenI , VihtonenK , NevaM. Reoperation rates following instrumented lumbar spine fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)43(4), 295–301 (2018).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Försth P , ÓlafssonG , CarlssonTet.al A randomized, controlled trial of fusion surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. N. Engl. J. Med.374, 1413–1423 (2016).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choi JM , ChoiMK , KimSB. Perioperative results and complications after posterior lumbar interbody fusion for spinal stenosis in geriatric patients over than 70 years old. J. Korean Neurosurg. Soc.60(6), 684–690 (2017).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ong KL , AuerbachJD , LauE , SchmierJ , OchoaJA. Perioperative outcomes, complications, and costs associated with lumbar spinal fusion in older patients with spinal stenosis and spondylolisthesis. Neurosurg. Focus36(6), E5 (2014).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group . FritzellP , HaggO , WessbergP , NordwallA. 2001 Volvo Award Winner in Clinical Studies: lumbar fusion versus nonsurgical treatment for chronic low back pain: a multicenter randomized controlled trial from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group. Spine (Phila PA 1976)26(23), 2521–2532 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• FDA . Superion® InterSpinous Spacer summary of safety & effectiveness data. (2015). www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf14/P140004b.pdf
   Google Scholar
• ClinicalTrials.gov . The MOTION study - treatment of LSS with the mild procedure. (2020). https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03610737?term=vertos&draw=3&rank=7
   Google Scholar
• ClinicalTrials.gov . mild® percutaneous image-guided lumbar decompression: a Medicare claims study. (2020). https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT03072927?term=vertos&draw=4&rank=11#locn
   Google Scholar