Download PDF
J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg 2023; 84(05): 419-427
DOI: 10.1055/a-1698-6384
Original Article

Surgically Relevant Morphological Parameters of the L5–S1 Interlaminar Window: A Statistical Analysis Based on 3D Reconstruction of CT Data

Dongdong Wang‡   *
1   Department of Orthopaedics, Shanghai General Hospital, Shanghai, China
2   Department of Orthopaedic Trauma, Shanghai East Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
,
Guoxin Fan‡   *
3   Department of Pain Medicine, Huazhong University of Science and Technology Union Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen, China
4   Guangdong Key Laboratory for Biomedical Measurements and Ultrasound Imaging, School of Biomedical Engineering, Shenzhen University Health Science Center, Shenzhen, China
,
Bangde Yin 
5   Department of Orthopaedics, Shanghai Tenth People’s Hospital, Shanghai, China
,
Zhi Zhou
5   Department of Orthopaedics, Shanghai Tenth People’s Hospital, Shanghai, China
,
Minfei Qiang
6   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital Fudan University, Shanghai, China
,
Jin Wang
7   Department of Clinical Medicine, Tongji University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
,
Yanxi Chen
6   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital Fudan University, Shanghai, China
,
Hailong Zhang 
8   Department of Orthopedics, Shanghai Putuo People’s Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
› Author Affiliations Funding Guangdong Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation (2019A1515111171), National Natural Science Foundation of China (82102640) and Characteristic Special Disease Project of Shanghai Putuo District (2020tszb04) were received in support of this work.
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background The interlaminar window is the most important anatomical corridor during the posterior approach for lumbar and lumbosacral pathologies. Three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction of the L5–S1 interlaminar window including accurate measurements may be beneficial for the surgeon. The aim of this study was to measure relevant surgical parameters of the L5–S1 interlaminar window based on 3D reconstruction of lumbar computed tomography (CT).

Methods Fifty thin-layer CT data were retrospectively collected, segmented, and reconstructed. Relevant surgical parameters included the width, left height, right height, interpedicular distance (IPD), area, and suitable approach area of the L5–S1 interlaminar window. Morphological measurements were performed independently by two experienced experts. Patients with disk herniation at L5–S1 were regarded as group A (n = 28) and those without L5–S1 disk herniation were regarded as group B (n = 22).

Results The average left height, right height, width, and area of the L5–S1 interlaminar window were 9.14 ± 2.45 mm, 9.55 ± 2.46 mm, 23.55 ± 4.91 mm, and 144.57 ± 57.05 mm2, respectively. The average IPD at the superior, middle, and inferior pedicle levels was 29.29 ± 3.39, 27.96 ± 3.38, and 37.46 ± 4.23 mm, respectively, with significant differences among these three parameters (p < 0.05). The average suitable approach areas of the L5–S1 interlaminar window were the following: left axilla—24.52 ± 15.91 mm2; left shoulder—27.14 ± 15.48 mm2; right axilla—29.95 ± 17.17 mm2; and right shoulder—31.12 ± 16.40 mm2 (p > 0.05). There were no significant differences between groups A and B in these parameters (p > 0.05), except the inferior IPD (36.69 ± 3.73 vs. 39.23 ± 3.01 mm, p = 0.017 < 0.05).

Conclusion The morphological measurement of the L5–S1 interlaminar window based on 3D reconstruction provided accurate and reliable reference data for posterior microsurgical and endoscopic approaches as well as percutaneous infiltrations.

Keywords

interlaminar window - percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar diskectomy - unilateral biportal endoscopy spinal surgery - 3D reconstruction

* The two authors contributed equally to this work.




Publication History

Received: 03 May 2022

Accepted: 15 November 2021

Accepted Manuscript online:
16 November 2021

Article published online:
11 February 2022

© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Iwanaga J, Ishak B, Saga T. et al. The lumbar ligamentum flavum does not have two layers and is confluent with the interspinous ligament: anatomical study with application to surgical and interventional pain procedures. Clin Anat 2020; 33 (01) 34-40
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Reina MA, Lirk P, Puigdellívol-Sánchez A, Mavar M, Prats-Galino A. Human lumbar ligamentum flavum anatomy for epidural anesthesia: reviewing a 3D MR-based interactive model and postmortem samples. Anesth Analg 2016; 122 (03) 903-907
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Sakçı Z, Önen MR, Fidan E, Yaşar Y, Uluğ H, Naderi S. Radiologic anatomy of the lumbar interlaminar window and surgical considerations for lumbar interlaminar endoscopic and microsurgical disc surgery. World Neurosurg 2018; 115: e22-e26
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Chen KT, Tseng C, Sun LW, Chang KS, Chen CM. Technical considerations of interlaminar approach for lumbar disc herniation. World Neurosurg 2021; 145: 612-620
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Kawaguchi Y, Kanamori M, Ishihara H. et al. Clinical and radiographic results of expansive lumbar laminoplasty in patients with spinal stenosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005; 87 (Pt 2, Suppl 1): 292-299
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Zhang Y, Chong F, Feng C, Wang Y, Zhou Y, Huang B. Comparison of endoscope-assisted and microscope-assisted tubular surgery for lumbar laminectomies and discectomies: minimum 2-year follow-up results. BioMed Res Int 2019; 2019: 5321580
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Boon JM, Prinsloo E, Raath RP. A paramedian approach for epidural block: an anatomic and radiologic description. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2003; 28 (03) 221-227
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Hameed F, Hunter DJ, Rainville J, Li L, Suri P. Prevalence of anatomic impediments to interlaminar lumbar epidural steroid injection. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2012; 93 (02) 339-343
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Choi KC, Shim HK, Hwang JS. et al. Comparison of surgical invasiveness between microdiscectomy and 3 different endoscopic discectomy techniques for lumbar disc herniation. World Neurosurg 2018; 116: e750-e758
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Ruetten S, Komp M, Godolias G. A New full-endoscopic technique for the interlaminar operation of lumbar disc herniations using 6-mm endoscopes: prospective 2-year results of 331 patients. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 2006; 49 (02) 80-87
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Akbary K, Kim JS, Park CW, Jun SG, Hwang JH. Biportal endoscopic decompression of exiting and traversing nerve roots through a single interlaminar window using a contralateral approach: technical feasibilities and morphometric changes of the lumbar canal and foramen. World Neurosurg 2018; 117: 153-161
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Lee JS, Kim HS, Jang JS, Jang IT. Structural preservation percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interlaminar discectomy for L5-S1 herniated nucleus pulposus. BioMed Res Int 2016; 2016: 6250247
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Nakamura JI, Yoshihara K. Initial clinical outcomes of percutaneous full-endoscopic lumbar discectomy using an interlaminar approach at the L4-L5. Pain Physician 2017; 20 (04) E507-E512
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Kim CH, Chung CK, Sohn S, Lee S, Park SB. The surgical outcome and the surgical strategy of percutaneous endoscopic discectomy for recurrent disk herniation. J Spinal Disord Tech 2014; 27 (08) 415-422
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Kim CH, Chung CK, Woo JW. Surgical outcome of percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar lumbar discectomy for highly migrated disk herniation. Clin Spine Surg 2016; 29 (05) E259-E266
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Ahn Y. Endoscopic spine discectomy: indications and outcomes. Int Orthop 2019; 43 (04) 909-916
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Heo DH, Lee N, Park CW, Kim HS, Chung HJ. Endoscopic unilateral laminotomy with bilateral discectomy using biportal endoscopic approach: technical report and preliminary clinical results. World Neurosurg 2020; 137: 31-37
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Heo DH, Lee DC, Park CK. Comparative analysis of three types of minimally invasive decompressive surgery for lumbar central stenosis: biportal endoscopy, uniportal endoscopy, and microsurgery. Neurosurg Focus 2019; 46 (05) E9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Heo DH, Son SK, Eum JH, Park CK. Fully endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion using a percutaneous unilateral biportal endoscopic technique: technical note and preliminary clinical results. Neurosurg Focus 2017; 43 (02) E8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Heo DH, Sharma S, Park CK. Endoscopic treatment of extraforaminal entrapment of l5 nerve root (far out syndrome) by unilateral biportal endoscopic approach: technical report and preliminary clinical results. Neurospine 2019; 16 (01) 130-137
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Kang SS, Lee SC, Kim SK. A novel percutaneous biportal endoscopic technique for symptomatic spinal epidural lipomatosis: technical note and case presentations. World Neurosurg 2019; 129: 49-54
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Hirayama J, Hashimoto M. Percutaneous endoscopic diskectomy using an interlaminar approach based on 3D CT/MR fusion imaging. J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg 2019; 80 (02) 88-95
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Qiang M, Zhang K, Chen Y. et al. Computer-assisted virtual surgical technology in pre-operative design for the reconstruction of calcaneal fracture malunion. Int Orthop 2019; 43 (07) 1669-1677
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Zhang Y, Chen Y, Qiang M. et al. Morphometry of the tibial plateau at the surface and resected levels. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32 (08) 2563-2567
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Fedorov A, Beichel R, Kalpathy-Cramer J. et al. 3D Slicer as an image computing platform for the Quantitative Imaging Network. Magn Reson Imaging 2012; 30 (09) 1323-1341
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Choi G, Lee SH, Deshpande K, Choi H. Working channel endoscope in lumbar spine surgery. J Neurosurg Sci 2014; 58 (02) 77-85
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Dabo X, Ziqiang C, Yinchuan Z. et al. The clinical results of percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) in the treatment of calcified lumbar disc herniation: a case-control study. Pain Physician 2016; 19 (02) 69-76
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Fan G, Liu H, Wu Z. et al. Deep learning-based automatic segmentation of lumbosacral nerves on CT for spinal intervention: a translational study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2019; 40 (06) 1074-1081
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar