Decompression
elderly
open discectomy
severe degenerative stenosis
unilateral biportal endoscopy
unilateral laminectomy bilateral decompression
Journal
Frontiers in neurology
ISSN: 1664-2295
Titre abrégé: Front Neurol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101546899
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
received:
29
12
2022
accepted:
02
02
2023
entrez:
13
3
2023
pubmed:
14
3
2023
medline:
14
3
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Previous studies have shown that the Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy is an effective and safety surgery for sufficient decompression of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. However, data are lacking in terms of its benefits when compared with conventional open lumbar discectomy (OLD), especially in patients with severe degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS). To compare the clini cal outcomes of two types decompressive surgery: unilateral biportal endoscopy-unilateral laminectomy bilateral decompression (UBE-ULBD) and conventional open lumbar discectomy (OLD) in severe degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS). We retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent UBE-ULBD ( The baseline demographic data of the 2 groups were comparable, including VAS, ODI and ZCQ scores, the cross-sectional area of the thecal sac and paraspinal muscles and creatine kinase levels. The dural sac CSA significantly increased post -operatively in both groups, which confirmed they benefited from comparable decompressive effects. The operative duration in the OLD group was less than the UBE-ULBD group (43.9 ± 5.6 min vs. 74.2 ± 9.3 min, UBE-ULBD and conventional OLD demonstrate comparable short-term clinical outcomes in treating severe DLSS. However, UBE-ULBD surgery was associated with a shorter hospital stay, less EBL and paravertebral muscle injury than OLD surgery.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Previous studies have shown that the Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy is an effective and safety surgery for sufficient decompression of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. However, data are lacking in terms of its benefits when compared with conventional open lumbar discectomy (OLD), especially in patients with severe degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS).
Aim
UNASSIGNED
To compare the clini cal outcomes of two types decompressive surgery: unilateral biportal endoscopy-unilateral laminectomy bilateral decompression (UBE-ULBD) and conventional open lumbar discectomy (OLD) in severe degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS).
Methods
UNASSIGNED
We retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent UBE-ULBD (
Results
UNASSIGNED
The baseline demographic data of the 2 groups were comparable, including VAS, ODI and ZCQ scores, the cross-sectional area of the thecal sac and paraspinal muscles and creatine kinase levels. The dural sac CSA significantly increased post -operatively in both groups, which confirmed they benefited from comparable decompressive effects. The operative duration in the OLD group was less than the UBE-ULBD group (43.9 ± 5.6 min vs. 74.2 ± 9.3 min,
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
UBE-ULBD and conventional OLD demonstrate comparable short-term clinical outcomes in treating severe DLSS. However, UBE-ULBD surgery was associated with a shorter hospital stay, less EBL and paravertebral muscle injury than OLD surgery.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36908592
doi: 10.3389/fneur.2023.1132698
pmc: PMC9994538
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
1132698Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 Tan, Yang, Fan and Xiong.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
Biomed Res Int. 2020 Mar 02;2020:1852070
pubmed: 32190653
World Neurosurg. 2019 Sep;129:e514-e521
pubmed: 31152890
Global Spine J. 2012 Jun;2(2):87-94
pubmed: 24353952
Clin Spine Surg. 2021 Jul 1;34(6):E323-E328
pubmed: 33470660
Spine J. 2015 Oct 1;15(10):2282-9
pubmed: 26165475
Neurosurg Clin N Am. 1996 Jan;7(1):65-76
pubmed: 8835147
Pain Physician. 2018 Jul;21(4):383-406
pubmed: 30045595
Int Orthop. 2018 Dec;42(12):2835-2842
pubmed: 29754188
JAMA. 2022 May 3;327(17):1688-1699
pubmed: 35503342
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Nov 01;11:CD012421
pubmed: 27801521
Neurosurg Focus. 2019 May 1;46(5):E9
pubmed: 31042664
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2023 Jan 1;481(1):145-154
pubmed: 35838602
Bone Joint J. 2021 Aug;103-B(8):1392-1399
pubmed: 34334035
Front Surg. 2022 Jul 25;9:911914
pubmed: 35959116
Neurospine. 2021 Dec;18(4):871-879
pubmed: 35000343
Biomed Res Int. 2022 Apr 11;2022:2227679
pubmed: 35445131
Eur Spine J. 2022 Aug;31(8):2156-2164
pubmed: 35852607
Orthop Surg. 2022 Apr;14(4):635-643
pubmed: 35293686
Int J Surg. 2021 Jan;85:19-28
pubmed: 33253898
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2016 Apr;37(4):742-8
pubmed: 26635285
Neurosurg Focus. 2019 May 1;46(5):E2
pubmed: 31042648