Large-Scale Comparative Study Between Microendoscopic Laminectomy and Full-Endoscopic Laminectomy for the Treatment of Single-Level Lumbar Spinal Canal Stenosis.
full-endoscopic laminectomy
lumbar spinal canal stenosis
microendoscopic laminectomy
minimally invasive
treatment
Journal
Cureus
ISSN: 2168-8184
Titre abrégé: Cureus
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101596737
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2024
Jan 2024
Historique:
accepted:
24
01
2024
medline:
26
2
2024
pubmed:
26
2
2024
entrez:
26
2
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
We previously compared the operative outcomes of microendoscopic laminectomy (MEL) and full-endoscopic laminectomy (FEL) for single-level lumbar spinal canal stenosis (LSCS). In this initial report, the operative outcomes of FEL were not inferior to those of MEL. The purpose of this study is to compare the outcomes of MEL and FEL for single-level LSCS on a large scale using widely used multiple evaluation methods. MEL was performed using a 16 mm tubular retractor and an endoscope, while FEL was performed using a 6.4 mm working channel endoscope. A retrospective study was performed on patients with LSCS treated with MEL (n = 355) or FEL (n = 154). Patient background and operative data were also collected. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), and 36-item Short Form Survey (SF-36) scores were recorded preoperatively and 1-year postoperatively. Background data of the two groups and the mean operation time (MEL, 72.1 m; FEL, 74.2 m) were not significant (p>0.2). The mean volumes of intraoperative bleeding (MEL, 25.2 ml; FEL, 10.3 ml) were significantly different (p<0.001). The mean postoperative hospital stays (MEL, 3.9 days; FEL, 2.1 days) were significantly different (p<0.001). Fifteen dural tears (MEL, 11; FEL, 4) and 1 surgical site infection (MEL, 1; FEL, 0) were observed but not significant (p>0.5). Reoperation was required for postoperative hematoma in five patients (MEL, 3; FEL, 2). Although the ODI, EQ-5D, and SF-36 scores improved significantly at one year postoperatively in the MEL and FEL groups (p<0.001), there were no significant differences between the two groups (p>0.1). The operative outcomes and minimal invasiveness were no statistical difference between the MEL and FEL groups. Further development of the operative techniques and the instruments of FEL are required to shorten the operation time.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
We previously compared the operative outcomes of microendoscopic laminectomy (MEL) and full-endoscopic laminectomy (FEL) for single-level lumbar spinal canal stenosis (LSCS). In this initial report, the operative outcomes of FEL were not inferior to those of MEL.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this study is to compare the outcomes of MEL and FEL for single-level LSCS on a large scale using widely used multiple evaluation methods.
METHODS
METHODS
MEL was performed using a 16 mm tubular retractor and an endoscope, while FEL was performed using a 6.4 mm working channel endoscope. A retrospective study was performed on patients with LSCS treated with MEL (n = 355) or FEL (n = 154). Patient background and operative data were also collected. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), and 36-item Short Form Survey (SF-36) scores were recorded preoperatively and 1-year postoperatively.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Background data of the two groups and the mean operation time (MEL, 72.1 m; FEL, 74.2 m) were not significant (p>0.2). The mean volumes of intraoperative bleeding (MEL, 25.2 ml; FEL, 10.3 ml) were significantly different (p<0.001). The mean postoperative hospital stays (MEL, 3.9 days; FEL, 2.1 days) were significantly different (p<0.001). Fifteen dural tears (MEL, 11; FEL, 4) and 1 surgical site infection (MEL, 1; FEL, 0) were observed but not significant (p>0.5). Reoperation was required for postoperative hematoma in five patients (MEL, 3; FEL, 2). Although the ODI, EQ-5D, and SF-36 scores improved significantly at one year postoperatively in the MEL and FEL groups (p<0.001), there were no significant differences between the two groups (p>0.1).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The operative outcomes and minimal invasiveness were no statistical difference between the MEL and FEL groups. Further development of the operative techniques and the instruments of FEL are required to shorten the operation time.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38406165
doi: 10.7759/cureus.52842
pmc: PMC10884873
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e52842Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2024, Takebayashi et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.