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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Farshad, Mazda, Hagel, Vincent, Spirig, José M., Fasser, Marie-Rosa, Widmer, Jonas, Burkhard, Marco D., Calek, Anna-Katharina
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