Tag: mild

Posted on

Minimally invasive lumbar decompression versus open decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: a propensity score–matched analysis

J Neurosurg Spine 44:55–61, 2026

This propensity score–matched retrospective study compares minimally invasive lumbar decompression (mild) with open decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis at a tertiary multisite center from 2005–2024. Primary outcomes included pain change (NRS), reoperation, and perioperative complications, with MCID defined as 30% NRS improvement.

Results show open decompression yielded greater pain improvement, higher MCID attainment, and lower overall reoperation rates, while mild had fewer durotomies but more neurological deficits. The authors recommend independent prospective studies to validate comparative efficacy and cost-effectiveness and note limitations including retrospective design and incomplete radiographic severity data.

Open decompression is more effective than the mild (minimally invasive lumbar decompression) procedure for achieving clinically significant pain improvement in patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis (43.1% vs 22.2% reached MCID; p < 0.001).

Reoperation rates are higher after the mild procedure compared to open decompression (46.2% vs 29.3%; p = 0.008), indicating less durable symptom relief with mild.

Pain outcomes favor open decompression, with patients reporting lower pain scores at last follow-up (mean NRS 2.3 vs 5.4; p < 0.001) and greater overall improvement from baseline.

Complication profiles are similar overall, but mild is associated with higher rates of postoperative neurological deficits (6.3% vs 0.6%; p = 0.003), while open decompression has a higher rate of durotomy (2.9% vs 0%; p = 0.024).

Procedure characteristics: The mild procedure is performed percutaneously through a small incision, typically by pain medicine physicians, and targets debulking the ligamentum flavum without muscle dissection.

Study limitations include retrospective design, incomplete matching for stenosis severity and baseline pain, and missing data on some outcomes, suggesting a need for prospective studies.

Existing literature on mild is often industry-sponsored and lacks direct comparison to open decompression; independent studies show mild may be less effective and more likely to require further surgery.

Clinical recommendation: Open decompression remains the gold standard for patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis who fail conservative management, while the mild procedure may offer less pain relief and higher reoperation risk.

Posted on

Failure of Percutaneous Remodeling of the Ligamentum Flavum and Lamina for Neurogenic Claudication

Neurosurgery 71:86–92, 2012 DOI: 10.1227/NEU.0b013e31825356f5

Percutaneous remodeling of the ligamentum flavum and lamina (PRLL), commercially known as minimally invasive lumbar decompression (mild technique), relies on fluoroscopy and epidural contrast to direct surgical instruments via a 6-mm cannula.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of PRLL and present, to our knowledge, the first reported imaging findings after PRLL.

METHODS: We performed a prospective study of PRLL for neurogenic claudication. Primary outcomes were Oswestry Disability Index, Short-Form 12 version 2.0 health survey, and visual analog scale for pain at 26 weeks. Analgesic use was also assessed. Postoperative magnetic resonance imaging was performed at 12 weeks. Long-term failure, defined as the poststudy need for secondary surgery, was assessed up to 18 months.

RESULTS: Ten subjects with an average age of 64 years (range, 41-81 years) were treated between September 2008 and January 2009. There were no major adverse events. Mean postoperative visual analog scale score remained significantly reduced throughout 26 weeks (P =.015, analysis of variance). Mean postoperative Oswestry Disability Index was also improved by 1 week and remained significant throughout 26 weeks (P = .024; analysis of variance). However, there was a trend toward increased reliance on narcotic type medications postoperatively. Imaging studies did not show significant decompression of the spinal canal in any patient. In the poststudy period, recurrent claudication requiring laminectomy developed in 6 patients (60%).

CONCLUSION: Throughout 26 weeks, pain and disability scores were decreased; however, PRLL did not improve the degree of stenosis on imaging studies. Although PRLL appears to be safe in this small cohort of patients, poststudy outcomes indicate that the failure rate is unacceptably high.

 

Proudly powered by WordPress