Aims. To report the development of the technique for minimally invasive lumbar decompression using robotic-assisted navigation. Methods. Robotic planning software was used to map out bone removal for a laminar decompression after registration of CT scan images of one cadaveric specimen. A specialized acorn-shaped bone removal robotic drill was used to complete a robotic lumbar laminectomy. Post-procedure advanced imaging was obtained to compare actual bony decompression to the surgical plan. After confirming accuracy of the technique, a minimally invasive robotic-assisted laminectomy was performed on one 72-year-old female patient with lumbar spinal stenosis. Postoperative advanced imaging was obtained to confirm the decompression. Results. A workflow for robotic-assisted lumbar laminectomy was successfully developed in a human cadaveric specimen, as excellent decompression was confirmed by postoperative CT imaging. Subsequently, the workflow was applied clinically in a patient with severe spinal stenosis. Excellent decompression was achieved intraoperatively and preservation of the dorsal midline structures was confirmed on postoperative MRI. The patient experienced improvement in symptoms postoperatively and was discharged within 24 hours. Conclusion. Minimally invasive robotic-assisted lumbar decompression utilizing a specialized robotic bone removal instrument was shown to be accurate and effective both in vitro and in vivo. The robotic bone removal technique has the potential for less invasive removal of laminar bone for spinal decompression, all the while preserving the spinous process and the posterior ligamentous complex. Spinal robotic surgery has previously been limited to the insertion of screws and, more recently, cages; however, recent innovations have expanded robotic capabilities to decompression of neurological structures. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(9):809–817

Informed consent is a very important part of surgical treatment. In this paper, we report a number of legal judgements in spinal surgery where there was no criticism of the surgical procedure itself. The fault that was identified was a failure to inform the patient of alternatives to, and material risks of, surgery, or overemphasizing the benefits of surgery. In one case, there was a promise that a specific surgeon was to perform the operation, which did not ensue. All of the faults in these cases were faults purely of the consenting process. In many cases, the surgeon claimed to have explained certain risks to the patient but was unable to provide proof of doing so. We propose a checklist that, if followed, would ensure that the surgeon would take their patients through the relevant matters but also, crucially, would act as strong evidence in any future court proceedings that the appropriate discussions had taken place. Although this article focuses on spinal surgery, the principles and messages are applicable to the whole of orthopaedic surgery.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:355–360.

Surgical decision-making in lumbar spinal stenosis involves assessment of clinical parameters and the severity of the radiological stenosis. We suspected that surgeons based surgical decisions more on dural sac cross-sectional area (DSCA) than on the morphology of the dural sac. We carried out a survey among members of three European spine societies. The axial T2-weighted MR images from ten patients with varying degrees of DSCA and morphological grades according to the recently described morphological classification of lumbar spinal stenosis, with DSCA values disclosed in half the assessed images, were used for evaluation. We provided a clinical scenario to accompany the images, which were shown to 142 responding physicians, mainly orthopaedic surgeons but also some neurosurgeons and others directly involved in treating patients with spinal disorders. As the primary outcome we used the number of respondents who would proceed to surgery for a given DSCA or morphological grade. Substantial agreement among the respondents was observed, with severe or extreme stenosis as defined by the morphological grade leading to surgery. This decision was not dependent on the number of years in practice, medical density or specialty. Disclosing the DSCA did not alter operative decision-making. In all, 40 respondents (29%) had prior knowledge of the morphological grading system, but their responses showed no difference from those who had not. This study suggests that the participants were less influenced by DSCA than by the morphological appearance of the dural sac.

Classifying lumbar spinal stenosis according to morphology rather than surface measurements appears to be consistent with current clinical practice.

Recurrence of back or leg pain after discectomy is a well-recognised problem with an incidence of up to 28%. Once conservative measures have failed, several surgical options are available and have been tried with varying degrees of success. In this study, 42 patients with recurrent symptoms after discectomy underwent less invasive posterior lumbar interbody fusion (LI-PLIF). Clinical outcome was measured using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Short Form 36 (SF-36) questionnaires and visual analogue scales for back (VAS-BP) and leg pain (VAS-LP). There was a statistically significant improvement in all outcome measures (p < 0.001). The debate around which procedure is the most effective for these patients remains controversial.

Our results show that LI-PLIF is as effective as any other surgical procedure. However, given that it is less invasive, we feel that it should be considered as the preferred option.

In order to identify the risk factors and the incidence of post-operative spinal epidural haematoma, we analysed the records of 14 932 patients undergoing spinal surgery between 1984 and 2002. Of these, 32 (0.2%) required re-operation within one week of the initial procedure and had an International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9 code for haematoma complicating a procedure (998.12). As controls, we selected those who had undergone a procedure of equal complexity by the same surgeon but who had not developed this complication. Risks identified before operation were older than 60 years of age, the use of pre-operative non-steroidal anti-inflammatories and Rh-positive blood type. Those during the procedure were involvement of more than five operative levels, a haemoglobin < 10 g/dL, and blood loss > 1 L, and after operation an international normalised ratio > 2.0 within the first 48 hours. All these were identified as significant (p < 0.03). Well-controlled anticoagulation and the use of drains were not associated with an increased risk of post-operative spinal epidural haematoma.

We have developed criteria to determine the appropriate indications for lumbar laminectomy, using the standard procedure developed at the RAND corporation and the University of California at Los Angeles (RAND-UCLA). A panel of five surgeons and four physicians individually assessed 1000 hypothetical cases of sciatica, back pain only, symptoms of spinal stenosis, spondylolisthesis, miscellaneous indications or the need for repeat laminectomy. For the first round each member of the panel used a scale ranging from 1 (extremely inappropriate) to 9 (extremely appropriate). After discussion and condensation of the results into three categories laminectomy was considered appropriate in 11% of the 1000 theoretical scenarios, equivocal in 26% and inappropriate in 63%. There was some variation between the six categories of malalignment, but full agreement in 64% of the hypothetical cases. We applied these criteria retrospectively to the records of 196 patients who had had surgical treatment for herniated discs in one Swiss University hospital. We found that 48% of the operations were for appropriate indications, 29% for equivocal reasons and that 23% were inappropriate. The RAND-UCLA method is a feasible, useful and coherent approach to the study of the indications for laminectomy and related procedures, providing a number of important insights. Our conclusions now require validation by carefully designed prospective clinical trials, such as those which are used for new medical techniques

1 . Standard lumbar laminectomy was performed at multiple levels in thirty dogs, and manipulations were carried out in the spinal canal to observe their effects on periradicular adhesion formation. The canal was scarified, packed with Gelfoam, or treated with three varieties of Silastic membranes. The results were serially assessed from three days to twelve weeks by gross observation, nerve conduction studies, histological examination of transverse sections of the spine, myelin study of lumbar roots and micropaque study of the arterial supply to the roots. 2. The results were consistent biologically. The principal source of scar is dorsally in the fibrous tissue elements of the erector spinae muscle mass. This scar, the laminectomy membrane, covers the laminectomy defect and extends into the canal bilaterally to adhere to the dura and nerve roots. 3. Gelfoam does not contribute to scar formation, but instead acts as an effective interposing membrane. Silastic membranes are capable of providing protection against nerve root adhesions without interfering with the anatomical or physiological integrity of the nerves. 4. Certain clinical implications of the study are discussed