nach oben

Erschienen in:

03.04.2023 | Supplement article

Comparison of full-endoscopic and tubular-based microscopic decompression in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized controlled trial

verfasst von: Vit Kotheeranurak, Thanadol Tangdamrongtham, Guang-Xun Lin, Weerasak Singhatanadgige, Worawat Limthongkul, Wicharn Yingsakmongkol, Jin-Sung Kim, Khanathip Jitpakdee

Erschienen in: European Spine Journal | Ausgabe 8/2023

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

We aimed to demonstrate non-inferiority in terms of functional outcomes in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis who underwent full-endoscopic decompression compared with tubular-based microscopic decompression.

Methods

This prospective, randomized controlled, non-inferiority trial included 60 patients with single-level lumbar spinal stenosis who required decompression surgery. The patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to the full-endoscopic group (FE group) or the tubular-based microscopic group (TM group). Based on intention-to-treat analysis, the primary outcome was the Oswestry Disability Index score at 24 months postoperative. The secondary outcomes included the visual analog scale (VAS) score for back and leg pain, European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) score, walking time, and patient satisfaction rate according to the modified MacNab criteria. Surgery-related outcomes were also analyzed.

Results

Of the total patients, 92% (n = 55) completed a 24-month follow-up. The primary outcomes were comparable between the two groups (p = 0.748). However, the FE group showed a statistically significant improvement in the mean VAS score for back pain at day 1 and at 6, 12, and 24 months after surgery (p < 0.05). No significant difference was observed in the VAS score for leg pain, EQ-5D score, or walking time (p > 0.05). Regarding the modified MacNab criteria, 86.7% of patients in the FE group and 83.3% in the TM group had excellent or good results at 24 months after surgery (p = 0.261). Despite the similar results in surgery-related outcomes, including operative time, radiation exposure, revision rate, and complication rate, between the two groups (p > 0.05), less blood loss and shorter length of hospital stay were observed in the FE group (p ≤ 0.001 and 0.011, respectively).

Conclusion

This study suggests that full-endoscopic decompression is an alternative treatment for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis because it provides non-inferior clinical efficacy and safety compared with tubular-based microscopic surgery. In addition, it offers advantages in terms of less invasive surgery.

Trial registration number (TRN): TCTR20191217001.

Waldrop R, Cheng J, Devin C, McGirt M, Fehlings M, Berven S (2015) The burden of spinal disorders in the elderly. Neurosurgery 77(Suppl 4):S46-50. https://doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0000000000000950CrossRefPubMed

Yabe Y, Hagiwara Y, Ando A, Tsuchiya M, Minowa T, Takemura T et al (2015) Chondrogenic and fibrotic process in the ligamentum flavum of patients with lumbar spinal canal stenosis. Spine 40(7):429–435. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000000795CrossRefPubMed

Chad DA (2007) Lumbar spinal stenosis. Neurol Clin 25(2):407–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ncl.2007.01.003CrossRefPubMed

Benoist M (2002) The natural history of lumbar degenerative spinal stenosis. Joint Bone Spine 69(5):450–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1297-319x(02)00429-3CrossRefPubMed

Sengupta DK, Herkowitz HN (2003) Lumbar spinal stenosis: treatment strategies and indications for surgery. Orthop Clin North Am 34(2):281–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0030-5898(02)00069-xCrossRefPubMed

Tsai RY, Yang RS, Bray RS Jr (1998) Microscopic laminotomies for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. J Spinal Disord 11(5):389–394CrossRefPubMed

Ikuta K, Arima J, Tanaka T, Oga M, Nakano S, Sasaki K et al (2005) Short-term results of microendoscopic posterior decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis. J Neurosurg Spine 2(5):624–633. https://doi.org/10.3171/spi.2005.2.5.0624CrossRefPubMed

Yagi M, Okada E, Ninomiya K, Kihara M (2009) Postoperative outcome after modified unilateral-approach microendoscopic midline decompression for degenerative spinal stenosis. J Neurosurg Spine 10(4):293–299. https://doi.org/10.3171/2009.1.SPINE08288CrossRefPubMed

Choi CM, Chung JT, Lee SJ, Choi DJ (2016) How I do it? Biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (BESS) for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. Acta Neurochir 158(3):459–463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-015-2670-7CrossRefPubMed

10.

Komp M, Hahn P, Merk H, Godolias G, Ruetten S (2011) Bilateral operation of lumbar degenerative central spinal stenosis in full-endoscopic interlaminar technique with unilateral approach: prospective 2-year results of 74 patients. J Spinal Disord Tech 24(5):281–287. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0b013e3181f9f55eCrossRefPubMed

11.

Phan K, Mobbs RJ (2016) Minimally invasive versus open laminectomy for lumbar stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine 41(2):E91–E100. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001161CrossRefPubMed

12.

Lee CW, Yoon KJ, Ha SS (2019) Comparative analysis between three different lumbar decompression techniques (microscopic, tubular, and endoscopic) in lumbar canal and lateral recess stenosis: preliminary report. Biomed Res Int 2019:6078469. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/6078469CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Rahman M, Summers LE, Richter B, Mimran RI, Jacob RP (2008) Comparison of techniques for decompressive lumbar laminectomy: the minimally invasive versus the “classic” open approach. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 51(2):100–105. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2007-1022542CrossRefPubMed

14.

Asgarzadie F, Khoo LT (2007) Minimally invasive operative management for lumbar spinal stenosis: overview of early and long-term outcomes. Orthop Clin North Am 38(3):387–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocl.2007.02.006CrossRefPubMed

15.

Kim HS, Sharma SB, Raorane HD, Kim KR, Jang IT (2021) Early results of full-endoscopic decompression of lumbar central canal stenosis by outside-in technique: a clinical and radiographic study. Medicine 100(39):e27356. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000027356CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Phan K, Teng I, Schultz K, Mobbs RJ (2017) Treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis by microscopic unilateral laminectomy for bilateral decompression: a technical note. Orthop Surg 9(2):241–246. https://doi.org/10.1111/os.12335CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Mobbs RJ, Li J, Sivabalan P, Raley D, Rao PJ (2014) Outcomes after decompressive laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis: comparison between minimally invasive unilateral laminectomy for bilateral decompression and open laminectomy: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 21(2):179–186. https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.4.SPINE13420CrossRefPubMed

18.

Toyoda H, Nakamura H, Konishi S, Dohzono S, Kato M, Matsuda H (2011) Clinical outcome of microsurgical bilateral decompression via unilateral approach for lumbar canal stenosis: minimum five-year follow-up. Spine 36(5):410–415. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181d25829CrossRefPubMed

19.

Kim YB, Hyun SJ (2007) Clinical applications of the tubular retractor on spinal disorders. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 42(4):245–250. https://doi.org/10.3340/jkns.2007.42.4.245CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Palmer S, Turner R, Palmer R (2002) Bilateral decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis involving a unilateral approach with microscope and tubular retractor system. J Neurosurg 97(2 Suppl):213–217. https://doi.org/10.3171/spi.2002.97.2.0213CrossRefPubMed

21.

Hasan S, Hartl R, Hofstetter CP (2019) The benefit zone of full-endoscopic spine surgery. J Spine Surg 5(Suppl 1):S41–S56. https://doi.org/10.21037/jss.2019.04.19CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Komp M, Hahn P, Oezdemir S, Giannakopoulos A, Heikenfeld R, Kasch R et al (2015) Bilateral spinal decompression of lumbar central stenosis with the full-endoscopic interlaminar versus microsurgical laminotomy technique: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Pain Physician 18(1):61–70CrossRefPubMed

23.

Ruetten S, Komp M, Merk H, Godolias G (2009) Surgical treatment for lumbar lateral recess stenosis with the full-endoscopic interlaminar approach versus conventional microsurgical technique: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. J Neurosurg Spine 10(5):476–485. https://doi.org/10.3171/2008.7.17634CrossRefPubMed

24.

Lee CH, Choi M, Ryu DS, Choi I, Kim CH, Kim HS et al (2018) Efficacy and safety of full-endoscopic decompression via interlaminar approach for central or lateral recess spinal stenosis of the lumbar spine: a meta-analysis. Spine 43(24):1756–1764. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000002708CrossRefPubMed

25.

Chen KT, Choi KC, Shim HK, Lee DC, Kim JS (2022) Full-endoscopic versus microscopic unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis at L4–L5: comparative study. Int Orthop. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-022-05549-0CrossRefPubMed

26.

Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Pocock SJ, Evans SJ, Altman DG, C Group (2012) Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement. JAMA 308(24):2594–2604. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2012.87802CrossRefPubMed

27.

Copay AG, Glassman SD, Subach BR, Berven S, Schuler TC, Carreon LY (2008) Minimum clinically important difference in lumbar spine surgery patients: a choice of methods using the oswestry disability index, medical outcomes study questionnaire short form 36, and pain scales. Spine J 8(6):968–974. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2007.11.006CrossRefPubMed

28.

White AA, Panjabi MM (1990) Clinical biomechanics of the spine, 2nd edn. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia

29.

Xue J, Chen H, Zhu B, Li X, Ouyang Z, Li S et al (2021) Percutaneous spinal endoscopy with unilateral interlaminar approach to perform bilateral decompression for central lumbar spinal stenosis: radiographic and clinical assessment. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 22(1):236. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-021-04100-3CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

30.

Turner JA, Ersek M, Herron L, Deyo R (1992) Surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis attempted meta-analysis of the literature. Spine 17(1):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199201000-00001CrossRefPubMed

31.

Guha D, Heary RF, Shamji MF (2015) Iatrogenic spondylolisthesis following laminectomy for degenerative lumbar stenosis: systematic review and current concepts. Neurosurg Focus 39(4):E9. https://doi.org/10.3171/2015.7.FOCUS15259CrossRefPubMed

32.

Spetzger U, Bertalanffy H, Naujokat C, von Keyserlingk DG, Gilsbach JM (1997) Unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis. Part I: anatomical and surgical considerations. Acta Neurochir 139(5):392–396. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01808872CrossRefPubMed

33.

Mayer HM, Brock M (1993) Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD). Neurosurg Rev 16(2):115–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00258242CrossRefPubMed

34.

Ahn Y, Lee SH, Park WM, Lee HY (2003) Posterolateral percutaneous endoscopic lumbar foraminotomy for L5–S1 foraminal or lateral exit zone stenosis. J Neurosurg 99(3 Suppl):320–323. https://doi.org/10.3171/spi.2003.99.3.0320CrossRefPubMed

35.

Ruetten S, Komp M, Hahn P, Oezdemir S (2013) Decompression of lumbar lateral spinal stenosis: full-endoscopic, interlaminar technique. Oper Orthop Traumatol 25(1):31–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00064-012-0195-2CrossRefPubMed

36.

Torudom Y, Dilokhuttakarn T (2016) Two portal percutaneous endoscopic decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: preliminary study. Asian Spine J 10(2):335–342. https://doi.org/10.4184/asj.2016.10.2.335CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

37.

Sun DD, Lv D, Wu WZ, Ren HF, Bao BH, Liu Q et al (2020) Estimation and influence of blood loss under endoscope for percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD): a clinical observational study combined with in vitro experiment. J Orthop Surg Res 15(1):281. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-020-01797-1CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

38.

Ahn J, Iqbal A, Manning BT, Leblang S, Bohl DD, Mayo BC et al (2016) Minimally invasive lumbar decompression-the surgical learning curve. Spine J 16(8):909–916. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2015.07.455CrossRefPubMed

39.

Park SM, Kim HJ, Kim GU, Choi MH, Chang BS, Lee CK et al (2019) Learning curve for lumbar decompressive laminectomy in biportal endoscopic spinal surgery using the cumulative summation test for learning curve. World Neurosurg 122:e1007–e1013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2018.10.197CrossRefPubMed

40.

Heo DH, Lee DC, Park CK (2019) Comparative analysis of three types of minimally invasive decompressive surgery for lumbar central stenosis: biportal endoscopy, uniportal endoscopy, and microsurgery. Neurosurg Focus 46(5):E9. https://doi.org/10.3171/2019.2.FOCUS197CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Comparison of full-endoscopic and tubular-based microscopic decompression in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized controlled trial
verfasst von: Vit Kotheeranurak
Thanadol Tangdamrongtham
Guang-Xun Lin
Weerasak Singhatanadgige
Worawat Limthongkul
Wicharn Yingsakmongkol
Jin-Sung Kim
Khanathip Jitpakdee
Publikationsdatum: 03.04.2023
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: European Spine Journal / Ausgabe 8/2023
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-023-07678-5

Arthropedia

Grundlagenwissen der Arthroskopie und Gelenkchirurgie. Erweitert durch Fallbeispiele, Videos und Abbildungen.
» Jetzt entdecken

Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Ein Drittel der jungen Ärztinnen und Ärzte erwägt abzuwandern

07.05.2024 Klinik aktuell Nachrichten

Extreme Arbeitsverdichtung und kaum Supervision: Dr. Andrea Martini, Sprecherin des Bündnisses Junge Ärztinnen und Ärzte (BJÄ) über den Frust des ärztlichen Nachwuchses und die Vorteile des Rucksack-Modells.

Aquatherapie bei Fibromyalgie wirksamer als Trockenübungen

03.05.2024 Fibromyalgiesyndrom Nachrichten

Bewegungs-, Dehnungs- und Entspannungsübungen im Wasser lindern die Beschwerden von Patientinnen mit Fibromyalgie besser als das Üben auf trockenem Land. Das geht aus einer spanisch-brasilianischen Vergleichsstudie hervor.

Endlich: Zi zeigt, mit welchen PVS Praxen zufrieden sind

IT für Ärzte Nachrichten

Darauf haben viele Praxen gewartet: Das Zi hat eine Liste von Praxisverwaltungssystemen veröffentlicht, die von Nutzern positiv bewertet werden. Eine gute Grundlage für wechselwillige Ärztinnen und Psychotherapeuten.

Proximale Humerusfraktur: Auch 100-Jährige operieren?

01.05.2024 DCK 2024 Kongressbericht

Mit dem demographischen Wandel versorgt auch die Chirurgie immer mehr betagte Menschen. Von Entwicklungen wie Fast-Track können auch ältere Menschen profitieren und bei proximaler Humerusfraktur können selbst manche 100-Jährige noch sicher operiert werden.

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Klimawandel und Gesundheit: Was Sie in der Hausarztpraxis wissen müssen und tun können

Springer Medizin

Comparison of full-endoscopic and tubular-based microscopic decompression in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized controlled trial