Minimally invasive surgical decompression for lumbosacral extraforaminal stenosis (Far-Out Syndrome)

Acta Neurochirurgica (2025) 167:139

The document discusses a minimally invasive surgical technique for decompressing lumbosacral extraforaminal stenosis, known as “far-out syndrome,” focusing on the L5 nerve root. It highlights the procedure, indications, potential complications, and the importance of specific imaging techniques for accurate diagnosis and effective treatment.

• The study focuses on minimally invasive surgical decompression for lumbosacral extraforaminal stenosis, known as “far-out syndrome”.

Accurate diagnosis is challenging due to unique anatomical characteristics, requiring oblique coronal MR imaging for detection.

• The procedure involves a paraspinal approach using a tubular retractor to decompress the L5 nerve root.

Adequate decompression requires the resection of the L5 lower vertebral body bony spur, transverse process, and sacral ala.

Key surgical landmarks include the transverse process, sacral ala, and superior articular process, which are drilled to relieve nerve compression.

Common symptoms include unilateral leg pain, weakness, and neurogenic claudication, often presenting unilaterally.

Surgical indications involve unilateral radiating leg pain resistant to conservative management and MRI evidence of extraforaminal compression.

Complications can be avoided by ensuring adequate decompression and removing ventral bony spurs.

Total En Bloc Spondylectomy for Lumbar Spinal Tumors by Paraspinal Approach

World Neurosurg. (2018)120:28-35

OBJECTIVE: To report and describe a modified posterioronly
approach (paraspinal approach) for total en bloc
spondylectomy (TES) of lumbar spinal tumors.

METHODS: From February 2013 to June 2014, 5 patients
with lumbar spinal tumors who underwent TES through a
posterior-only paraspinal approach were studied retrospectively;
operative time, blood loss, complications,
neurologic outcomes, and degree of resection were
recorded to evaluate the efficacy of this surgical method.

RESULTS: Patients included 3 men and 2 women with a
mean age of 48.4 years (range, 46e52 years). Two lesions
were located in L2, 2 lesions were located in L3, and 1
lesion was located in L4. Three patients had solitary
metastatic tumors (lung cancer in 2 cases, breast cancer
in 1 case), and 2 patients had primary tumors (osteosarcoma
and plasma cell tumor). According to the surgical
classification of spinal tumors by Tomita et al., 4 cases
were type 4 and 1 case was type 1. Mean operative time
was 464 minutes (range, 420-510 minutes), and mean
blood loss was 1280 mL (range, 1000-1500 mL). One
patient had cerebrospinal fluid leakage, and 1 had transient
motor weakness because of nerve root traction.
Mean follow-up time was 20.6 months (range, 12e30
months), and all patients had improved or stable neurologic
function. No local recurrence was observed at last
follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS: The posterior-only paraspinal approach
is a valid alternative for TES of lumbar spinal tumors,
especially for overweight or muscular patients.