Cargando…
Biomechanics of Transforaminal Endoscopic Approaches
Biomechanical cadaveric study. OBJECTIVE. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of transforaminal endoscopic approaches with open decompression procedures. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA. Clinical studies have repeatedly highlighted the benefits of endoscopic decompression, however, the biomec...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10010693/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36083835 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000004471 |
_version_ | 1784906225776852992 |
---|---|
author | Farshad, Mazda Hagel, Vincent Spirig, José M. Fasser, Marie-Rosa Widmer, Jonas Burkhard, Marco D. Calek, Anna-Katharina |
author_facet | Farshad, Mazda Hagel, Vincent Spirig, José M. Fasser, Marie-Rosa Widmer, Jonas Burkhard, Marco D. Calek, Anna-Katharina |
author_sort | Farshad, Mazda |
collection | PubMed |
description | Biomechanical cadaveric study. OBJECTIVE. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of transforaminal endoscopic approaches with open decompression procedures. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA. Clinical studies have repeatedly highlighted the benefits of endoscopic decompression, however, the biomechanical effects of endoscopic approaches (with and without injury to the disk) have not been studied up to now. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Twelve spinal segments originating from four fresh-frozen cadavers were biomechanically tested in a load-controlled endoscopic transforaminal approach study. Segmental range of motion (ROM) after endoscopic approach was compared with segmental ROM after (1) microsurgical decompression with unilateral laminotomy and (2) midline decompression with bilateral laminotomy. In the intact state and after decompression, the segments were loaded in flexion-extension (FE), lateral shear (LS), lateral bending (LB), anterior shear (AS), and axial rotation (AR). RESULTS. Vertebral segment ROM was comparable between the two endoscopic transforaminal approaches. However, there was a—statistically nonsignificant—trend for a larger ROM after accessing via the inside-out technique: FE: +3% versus +7%, P=0.484; LS: +1% versus +12%, P=0.18; LB: +0.6% versus +9%, P=0.18; AS: +2% versus +11%, P=0.31; AR: −4% versus +5%, P=0.18. No significant difference in vertebral segment ROM was seen between the transforaminal endoscopic approaches and open unilateral decompression. Vertebral segment ROM was significantly smaller with the transforaminal endoscopic approaches compared with midline decompression for almost all loading scenarios: FE: +4% versus +17%, P=0.005; AS: +6% versus 21%, P=0.007; AR: 0% versus +24%, P=0.002. CONCLUSION. The transforaminal endoscopic intracanal technique preserves the native ROM of lumbar vertebral segments and shows a trend toward relative biomechanical superiority over the inside-out technique and open decompression procedures. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10010693 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-100106932023-03-14 Biomechanics of Transforaminal Endoscopic Approaches Farshad, Mazda Hagel, Vincent Spirig, José M. Fasser, Marie-Rosa Widmer, Jonas Burkhard, Marco D. Calek, Anna-Katharina Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Biomechanics Biomechanical cadaveric study. OBJECTIVE. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of transforaminal endoscopic approaches with open decompression procedures. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA. Clinical studies have repeatedly highlighted the benefits of endoscopic decompression, however, the biomechanical effects of endoscopic approaches (with and without injury to the disk) have not been studied up to now. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Twelve spinal segments originating from four fresh-frozen cadavers were biomechanically tested in a load-controlled endoscopic transforaminal approach study. Segmental range of motion (ROM) after endoscopic approach was compared with segmental ROM after (1) microsurgical decompression with unilateral laminotomy and (2) midline decompression with bilateral laminotomy. In the intact state and after decompression, the segments were loaded in flexion-extension (FE), lateral shear (LS), lateral bending (LB), anterior shear (AS), and axial rotation (AR). RESULTS. Vertebral segment ROM was comparable between the two endoscopic transforaminal approaches. However, there was a—statistically nonsignificant—trend for a larger ROM after accessing via the inside-out technique: FE: +3% versus +7%, P=0.484; LS: +1% versus +12%, P=0.18; LB: +0.6% versus +9%, P=0.18; AS: +2% versus +11%, P=0.31; AR: −4% versus +5%, P=0.18. No significant difference in vertebral segment ROM was seen between the transforaminal endoscopic approaches and open unilateral decompression. Vertebral segment ROM was significantly smaller with the transforaminal endoscopic approaches compared with midline decompression for almost all loading scenarios: FE: +4% versus +17%, P=0.005; AS: +6% versus 21%, P=0.007; AR: 0% versus +24%, P=0.002. CONCLUSION. The transforaminal endoscopic intracanal technique preserves the native ROM of lumbar vertebral segments and shows a trend toward relative biomechanical superiority over the inside-out technique and open decompression procedures. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2022-12-15 2022-09-07 /pmc/articles/PMC10010693/ /pubmed/36083835 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000004471 Text en Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) |
spellingShingle | Biomechanics Farshad, Mazda Hagel, Vincent Spirig, José M. Fasser, Marie-Rosa Widmer, Jonas Burkhard, Marco D. Calek, Anna-Katharina Biomechanics of Transforaminal Endoscopic Approaches |
title | Biomechanics of Transforaminal Endoscopic Approaches |
title_full | Biomechanics of Transforaminal Endoscopic Approaches |
title_fullStr | Biomechanics of Transforaminal Endoscopic Approaches |
title_full_unstemmed | Biomechanics of Transforaminal Endoscopic Approaches |
title_short | Biomechanics of Transforaminal Endoscopic Approaches |
title_sort | biomechanics of transforaminal endoscopic approaches |
topic | Biomechanics |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10010693/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36083835 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000004471 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT farshadmazda biomechanicsoftransforaminalendoscopicapproaches AT hagelvincent biomechanicsoftransforaminalendoscopicapproaches AT spirigjosem biomechanicsoftransforaminalendoscopicapproaches AT fassermarierosa biomechanicsoftransforaminalendoscopicapproaches AT widmerjonas biomechanicsoftransforaminalendoscopicapproaches AT burkhardmarcod biomechanicsoftransforaminalendoscopicapproaches AT calekannakatharina biomechanicsoftransforaminalendoscopicapproaches |