Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Advance Online Publication
    • Archive
  • About Us
    • About ISASS
    • About the Journal
    • Author Instructions
    • Editorial Board
    • Reviewer Guidelines & Publication Criteria
  • More
    • Advertise
    • Subscribe
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Join Us
  • Reprints & Permissions
  • Sponsored Content
  • Other Publications
    • ijss

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
International Journal of Spine Surgery
  • My alerts
International Journal of Spine Surgery

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Advance Online Publication
    • Archive
  • About Us
    • About ISASS
    • About the Journal
    • Author Instructions
    • Editorial Board
    • Reviewer Guidelines & Publication Criteria
  • More
    • Advertise
    • Subscribe
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Join Us
  • Reprints & Permissions
  • Sponsored Content
  • Follow ijss on Twitter
  • Visit ijss on Facebook
Research ArticleEndoscopy

Difficulties, Challenges, and the Learning Curve of Avoiding Complications in Lumbar Endoscopic Spine Surgery

Kai-Uwe Lewandrowski, Albert E. Telfeian, Stefan Hellinger, Jorge Felipe Ramírez León, Paulo Sérgio Teixeira de Carvalho, Max R.F. Ramos, Hyeun Sung Kim, Daniel W. Hanson, Nimar Salari and Anthony Yeung
International Journal of Spine Surgery December 2021, 15 (suppl 3) S21-S37; DOI: https://doi.org/10.14444/8161
Kai-Uwe Lewandrowski
1 Staff Orthopaedic Spine Surgeon Center for Advanced Spine Care of Southern Arizona and Surgical Institute of Tucson, Tuscon, Arizona
2 Department of Orthopaedics, Fundación Universitaria Sanitas, Bogotá, D.C., Colombia
3 Department of Orthopedics, Hospital Universitário Gaffre e Guinle, Universidade Federal do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Albert E. Telfeian
4 Department of Neurosurgery, Rhode Island Hospital, The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Stefan Hellinger
5 Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Arabellaklinik, Munich, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jorge Felipe Ramírez León
6 Centro de Columna – Cirugía Mínima Invasiva, Clínica Reina Sofía – Clínica Colsanitas, Bogotá, D.C., Colombia
7 Fundación Universitaria Sanitas. Bogotá, D.C., Colombia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Paulo Sérgio Teixeira de Carvalho
8 Federal University of the State of Rio de Janeiro UNIRIO, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
9 Gaffre e Guinle University Hospital, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Max R.F. Ramos
8 Federal University of the State of Rio de Janeiro UNIRIO, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
9 Gaffre e Guinle University Hospital, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Hyeun Sung Kim
10 Department of Neurosurgery, Nanoori Hospital, Seoul City, Republic of Korea
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Daniel W. Hanson
11 Minnesota Spine Institute, Roseville, Minnesota
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nimar Salari
12 Desert Institute for Spine Care, Phoenix, Arizona
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Anthony Yeung
12 Desert Institute for Spine Care, Phoenix, Arizona
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Figure 1
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1

    Endoscopic working cannulas resemble small tubular retractors with either 8.0- or 7.5-mm outer diameters and 7.1- or 6.5-mm inner diameters and are 165 mm in length. The endoscopic working sheath is offered with a straight (A), 40° beveled (B), or fenestrated tip. Several options are available in a standard lumbar transforaminal endoscopy tray (C). The beveled or fenestrated tip may be used to visualize and retract the exiting nerve root (D). Hydrostatic pressure and irrigation flow can be managed by attaching a plastic seal (blue cap) or by covering the end of the working cannula with the endoscopist’s thumb or a Luer lock stopcock when available. Trephines and rasps (E) can be used for a foraminoplasty when needed.

  • Figure 2
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2

    (A) Oval spinal endoscope (6.9 × 6.3 mm, length of 177 mm, 20° with one 4.1-mm oval working channel). A high-definition charge-coupled video camera can be attached to the HD-TV adapter (B). The light cable is connected via a standard coupler (C). Several configurations of the spinal endoscope with small and larger working channels are available, ranging from 3.7 to 6.9 mm. Typically, the lens between the light carriers is embedded in the sidewall of the endoscope (D). The ergonomic design of the lumbar foraminoscopes shown (E) allows the surgeon to rotate the endoscope easily without tangling up light and video cables when attempting to target painful spinal pathology.

  • Figure 3
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3

    Commonly used grasping forceps designs: (A) 3.0-mm upbiter. (B) 3.5-mm downbiter. (C) 3.5-mm micro spoon upbiter. (D) 3.5-mm micro spoon downbiter. (E) 3.5-mm endoscopic punch. (F) Articulating grasping forceps with ratchet with a 5-mm jaw.

  • Figure 4
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 4

    The initial step of the transforaminal endoscopic approach to the lateral spinal canal is to place a guidewire into the triangular safe zone between the exiting and traversing nerve root (A). The optimum access trajectories angles for the L3-4, L4-5, and L5-S1 levels are shown in the axial (B), sagittal (C), and coronal plane (D). It is best to measure these trajectory angles on the patient in the posterior-anterior plane (E, F) and in the lateral plane (G, H). These determined access lines should be drawn on the patient in both the posterior-anterior and lateral fluoroscopic projection (F, H).

  • Figure 5
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 5

    The assessment of cranial-caudal localization of a pathology such as a herniated disc may dictate whether the surgeon should choose a steep or shallow craniocaudal angle (A). Lee et al published a magnetic resonance imaging classification system of herniated discs to direct the endoscopic access. This classification categorizes the disc migration into 4 zones, depending on the direction and distance from the disc space (Table 1). Lee’s classification of foraminal stenosis (B) can be used to define the location of the offending bony pathology within the neuroforamen by dividing it from medial to lateral into entry (dura to pedicle), middle (medial pedicle wall to center pedicle), and exit zones (center pedicle to the lateral border of the facet joint). Bony foraminal stenosis in the entry, middle, and exit zones is frequently due to hypertrophy of the superior articular facet, an osteophytic process underneath the pars interarticularis, and a subluxed and hypertrophic facet joint, respectively (Table 2). The skin entry point can be chosen from the midline depending on the location of the herniation in the entry, middle, or exit zone of the neuroforamen (B, C). Assessing the pathology on axial views allows the distance of the entry point from the midline to be determined (C).

  • Figure 6
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 6

    Foraminal decompression can be facilitated with endoscopic dissecting tools (A). Facet raspers (B, C) and Kerrison rongeurs (D, F) are helpful to remove bone and soft tissue. Trephines (E) may also be beneficial. Typically, these maneuvers play out at the superior articular process or the inferior pedicle. Finally, the removal of disc tissue may commence once the intervertebral disc is sufficiently exposed (H). The lateral recess decompression may involve bony resection (F, G) from the superior articular process or the ring apophysis below the traversing nerve root to accomplish adequate decompression.

  • Figure 7
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 7

    Several challenging case scenarios are shown that the novice spine surgeon should not attempt until a sufficient level of proficiency has been achieved: (A) A paracentral disc herniation should be treated with a targeted fragmentectomy. (B) An upward-migrated disc herniation should be tackled with the exiting nerve root approach, employing a round working channel to protect the exiting root. The axilla should be carefully inspected. (C) A downward-migrated disc herniation is best treated with a targeted fragmentectomy by accessing the epidural space via aggressive foraminoplasty. (D) For far-lateral herniated decompression, the exiting nerve root approach is preferred with a round working channel to protect the exiting root. (E) A facet cyst should be treated via the transforaminal approach with foraminoplasty to identify and remove the stalk of the cyst. (F) A large central herniated disc causing severe central canal compromise should be treated via the outside-in transforaminal approach. Expect multiple fragments. (G) A foraminal herniated disc is also best approached via the exiting nerve root, employing a round working channel. The decompression is complete once the remnant disc behind it is identified. (H) Focally calcified lumbar disc herniation should be removed using the punch and rongeur. Very large calcified disc herniations may have to be drilled down with a shaver or burr.

  • Figure 8
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 8

    Intraoperative complications are rare during lumbar endoscopic decompression surgery. The interlaminar approach (D) has a higher risk of incidental durotomy (A–C). It typically occurs with the use of power burrs. During the interlaminar approach, care must be taken not to cause an incidental durotomy when perforating the ligamentum flavum (A). During the transforaminal approach, small incidental durotomies typically occur in the axilla between the exiting and traversing nerve root, the hidden zone of Macnab (B, C). Rarely, true rootlet herniations may occur. Power burrs or drills are notorious for wrapping up rootlets around the spinning tip of the instrument (E). Other examples of postoperative complications include recurrent disc herniation (F) and retroperitoneal hematoma from accidentally severing the segmental vessels located in the lateral aspect of the vertebral bodies of the surgical level (G).

  • Figure 9
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 9

    Interlaminar decompression is associated with a high risk of tears in the posterior dural sac (A). The durotomy may occur during the medial facet resection of a hemilaminectomy (B). Durotomies may be treated with a sealant (C), approximated with a bipolar probe (D), and secured with clips (E, F) or stuffed with sealant foam that can be shrunk into the durotomy site (G, H).

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1

    Radiological classification of migrated disc herniation according to Lee et al.55

    ZoneDirectionRange of Distance
    Zone 1Far-upwardFrom the inferior margin of the upper pedicle to 3 mm below the inferior margin of the upper pedicle
    Zone 2Near-upwardFrom 3 mm below the inferior margin of the upper pedicle to the inferior margin of the upper vertebral body
    Zone 3Near-downwardFrom the superior margin of the lower vertebral body to the center of the lower pedicle
    Zone 4Far-downwardFrom the center of the lower pedicle of the lower vertebral body to the inferior margin of the lower pedicle
    • View popup
    Table 2

    Radiological classification of lumbar neuroforaminal and lateral recess stenosis according to Lee et al55 and Hasegawa et al.57

    ZoneLocationRange of Distance
    Zone 1EntryFrom dura to pedicle
    Zone 2MiddleFrom medial pedicle wall to center pedicle
    Zone 3ExitFrom center pedicle to the lateral border of the facet joint
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

International Journal of Spine Surgery
Vol. 15, Issue suppl 3
1 Dec 2021
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on International Journal of Spine Surgery.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Difficulties, Challenges, and the Learning Curve of Avoiding Complications in Lumbar Endoscopic Spine Surgery
(Your Name) has sent you a message from International Journal of Spine Surgery
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the International Journal of Spine Surgery web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Difficulties, Challenges, and the Learning Curve of Avoiding Complications in Lumbar Endoscopic Spine Surgery
Kai-Uwe Lewandrowski, Albert E. Telfeian, Stefan Hellinger, Jorge Felipe Ramírez León, Paulo Sérgio Teixeira de Carvalho, Max R.F. Ramos, Hyeun Sung Kim, Daniel W. Hanson, Nimar Salari, Anthony Yeung
International Journal of Spine Surgery Dec 2021, 15 (suppl 3) S21-S37; DOI: 10.14444/8161

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Difficulties, Challenges, and the Learning Curve of Avoiding Complications in Lumbar Endoscopic Spine Surgery
Kai-Uwe Lewandrowski, Albert E. Telfeian, Stefan Hellinger, Jorge Felipe Ramírez León, Paulo Sérgio Teixeira de Carvalho, Max R.F. Ramos, Hyeun Sung Kim, Daniel W. Hanson, Nimar Salari, Anthony Yeung
International Journal of Spine Surgery Dec 2021, 15 (suppl 3) S21-S37; DOI: 10.14444/8161
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • DISCUSSION
    • CONCLUSIONS
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Durability of Endoscopes Used During Routine Lumbar Endoscopy: An Analysis of Use Patterns, Common Failure Modes, Impact on Patient Care, and Contingency Plans
  • Biportal Endoscopic Technique for Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Review of Current Research
  • A Review of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Decompression for Degenerative Lumbar Canal Stenosis
Show more Endoscopy

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • Lumbar endoscopic surgery
  • complications
  • sequalae
  • difficulties
  • Learning curve

Content

  • Current Issue
  • Latest Content
  • Archive

More Information

  • About IJSS
  • About ISASS
  • Privacy Policy

More

  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Feedback

Other Services

  • Author Instructions
  • Join ISASS
  • Reprints & Permissions

© 2025 International Journal of Spine Surgery

International Journal of Spine Surgery Online ISSN: 2211-4599

Powered by HighWire