[Treatment of stable degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with percutaneous endoscopic surgery through two different...

To assess the clinical effects of percutaneous endoscopic surgery through two different approaches for stable degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.

Sixty-four patients with stable degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis who underwent percutaneous endoscopic procedures between January 2016 and December 2019 were divided into transforaminal approach group and interlaminar approach group according to surgical approaches, 32 patients in each group. There were 16 males and 16 females in transforaminal approach group, aged from 52 to 84 years old with an average of (66.03±9.60) years, L₂ slippage in 4 cases, L₃ slippage in 5, and L₄ slippage in 23. There were 17 males and 15 females in interlaminar approach group, aged from 46 to 81 years old with an average of (61.38±9.88) years, L₃ slippage in 3 cases, L₄ slippage in 15, and L₅ slippage in 14. Operative time, intraoperative fluoroscopy times, and postoperative bedtime were compared between two groups. Anteroposterior displacement values, interbody opening angles, and the percentage of slippage were measured on preoperative and postoperative 12-month dynamic radiographs. Visual analogue scale (VAS) of low back pain and lower extremity pain, and the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score before and after surgery were observed, and clinical effects were evaluated according to the modified MACNAB criteria.

All operations were successfully completed, and patients in both groups were followed up for more than 1 year, and without complications during follow-up period. ①There was no significant difference in operation time between two groups(P>0.05). Intraoperative fluoroscopy times were longer in transforaminal approach group than that in intervertebral approach group(P<0.05). Postoperative bedtime was shorter in transforaminal approach group than that in intervertebral approach group (P<0.05).② No lumbar instability was found on dynamic radiography at 12 months postoperatively in both groups. There were no significant differences in anteroposterior displacement values, interbody opening angles, and the percentage of slippage between two groups postoperative 12 months and preoperative 1 day(P>0.05). ③There was no significant difference between two groups in VAS of low back pain at 3 days and 1, 12 months after the operation compared with the preoperative(P>0.05), but the VAS of the lower extremity pain was significantly improved compared with the preoperative(P<0.05). Both of groups showed significant improvement in JOA score at 12 months compared with preoperatively(P<0.05). There was no significant difference in VAS of low back pain, lower extremity pain and JOA scores between two groups during the same period after surgery(P>0.05). According to modified Macnab criteria, excellent, good, fair and poor outcomes were 21, 7, 3 and 1 in transforaminal approach group respectively, and which in intervertebral approach group were 20, 7, 5 and 0, there was no significant difference in clinical effect between the groups(P>0.05).

Intervertebral approach may reduce intraoperative fluoroscopy times and transforaminal approach can shorten postoperative bedtime, both approaches achieve satisfactory results in the treatment of stable degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with no progression of short-term slippage.