Comparison between microendoscopic laminectomy and open posterior decompression surgery for single-level lumbar spinal stenosis: a multicenter retrospective cohort study.
Complications
Microendoscopic laminectomy
Multicenter retrospective cohort study
Patient-reported outcomes
Journal
BMC musculoskeletal disorders
ISSN: 1471-2474
Titre abrégé: BMC Musculoskelet Disord
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968565
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
20 Dec 2021
20 Dec 2021
Historique:
received:
09
11
2021
accepted:
13
12
2021
entrez:
21
12
2021
pubmed:
22
12
2021
medline:
24
12
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Microendoscopic laminectomy (MEL), in which a 16-mm tubular retractor with an internal scope is used, has shown excellent surgical results for patients with lumbar spinal canal stenosis. However, no reports have directly compared MEL with open laminectomy. This study aimed to elucidate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and perioperative complications in patients undergoing MEL versus open laminectomy. This is a multicenter retrospective cohort study of prospectively registered patients who underwent lumbar spinal surgery at one of the six high-volume spine centers between April 2017 and September 2018. A total of 258 patients who underwent single posterior lumbar decompression at L4/L5 were enrolled in the study. With regard to demographic data, we prospectively used chart sheets to evaluate the diagnosis, operative procedure, operation time, estimated blood loss, and complications. The follow-up period was 1-year. PROs included a numerical rating scale (NRS) for lower back pain and leg pain, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), EuroQol 5 Dimension (EQ-5D), and patient satisfaction with the treatment. Of the 258 patients enrolled, 252 (97%) completed the 1-year follow-up. Of the 252, 130 underwent MEL (MEL group) and 122 underwent open decompression (open group). The MEL group required a significantly shorter operating time and sustained lesser intraoperative blood loss compared with the open group. The MEL group showed shorter length of postoperative hospitalization than the open group. The overall complication rate was similar (8.2% in the MEL group versus 7.7% in the open group), and the revision rate did not significantly differ. As for PROs, both preoperative and postoperative values did not significantly differ between the two groups. However, the satisfaction rate was higher in the MEL group (74%) than in the open group (53%) (p = 0.02). MEL required a significantly shorter operating time and resulted in lesser intraoperative blood loss compared with laminectomy. Postoperative PROs and complication rates were not significantly different between the procedures, although MEL demonstrated a better satisfaction rate.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Microendoscopic laminectomy (MEL), in which a 16-mm tubular retractor with an internal scope is used, has shown excellent surgical results for patients with lumbar spinal canal stenosis. However, no reports have directly compared MEL with open laminectomy. This study aimed to elucidate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and perioperative complications in patients undergoing MEL versus open laminectomy.
METHODS
METHODS
This is a multicenter retrospective cohort study of prospectively registered patients who underwent lumbar spinal surgery at one of the six high-volume spine centers between April 2017 and September 2018. A total of 258 patients who underwent single posterior lumbar decompression at L4/L5 were enrolled in the study. With regard to demographic data, we prospectively used chart sheets to evaluate the diagnosis, operative procedure, operation time, estimated blood loss, and complications. The follow-up period was 1-year. PROs included a numerical rating scale (NRS) for lower back pain and leg pain, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), EuroQol 5 Dimension (EQ-5D), and patient satisfaction with the treatment.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Of the 258 patients enrolled, 252 (97%) completed the 1-year follow-up. Of the 252, 130 underwent MEL (MEL group) and 122 underwent open decompression (open group). The MEL group required a significantly shorter operating time and sustained lesser intraoperative blood loss compared with the open group. The MEL group showed shorter length of postoperative hospitalization than the open group. The overall complication rate was similar (8.2% in the MEL group versus 7.7% in the open group), and the revision rate did not significantly differ. As for PROs, both preoperative and postoperative values did not significantly differ between the two groups. However, the satisfaction rate was higher in the MEL group (74%) than in the open group (53%) (p = 0.02).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
MEL required a significantly shorter operating time and resulted in lesser intraoperative blood loss compared with laminectomy. Postoperative PROs and complication rates were not significantly different between the procedures, although MEL demonstrated a better satisfaction rate.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34930238
doi: 10.1186/s12891-021-04963-6
pii: 10.1186/s12891-021-04963-6
pmc: PMC8690517
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1053Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Medicine (Baltimore). 2019 Aug;98(35):e17021
pubmed: 31464962
Eur Spine J. 2018 Mar;27(3):700-708
pubmed: 29080002
Zhongguo Gu Shang. 2019 Oct 25;32(10):941-946
pubmed: 32512967
Eur Spine J. 2015 Feb;24(2):396-403
pubmed: 25341804
Spine J. 2019 Sep;19(9):1559-1565
pubmed: 31009767
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999 Aug 1;24(15):1533-7
pubmed: 10457572
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016 Jan;41(2):E91-E100
pubmed: 26555839
J Neurosurg Spine. 2013 Dec;19(6):664-71
pubmed: 24093466
Eur Spine J. 2013 Sep;22(9):2105-12
pubmed: 23649957
J Neurosurg Spine. 2005 May;2(5):624-33
pubmed: 15945442
Clin Spine Surg. 2019 Feb;32(1):E20-E26
pubmed: 30222618
Minim Invasive Surg. 2012;2012:325095
pubmed: 22900163
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1989 May;14(5):534-8
pubmed: 2727798
Spine J. 2018 Oct;18(10):1815-1821
pubmed: 29567515
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000 Mar 1;25(5):556-62
pubmed: 10749631
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996 Jan 1;21(1):92-8
pubmed: 9122770
Global Spine J. 2017 Feb;7(1):54-58
pubmed: 28451510
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000 Jul 15;25(14):1754-9
pubmed: 10888941
Global Spine J. 2012 Jun;2(2):87-94
pubmed: 24353952
Neurosurgery. 2002 Nov;51(5 Suppl):S146-54
pubmed: 12234442
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1991 Jul;73(6):809-16
pubmed: 2071616
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2019 Oct 25;20(1):471
pubmed: 31651296
Neurosurg Focus. 1999 Nov 15;7(5):e5
pubmed: 16918212
Neurosurgery. 2002 Nov;51(5 Suppl):S129-36
pubmed: 12234440
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1989 Jun;14(6):591-3
pubmed: 2749373