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
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

e52842

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024, Takebayashi et al.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Auteurs

Kento Takebayashi (K)

Neurosurgery, Iwai Full-Endoscopic Spine Surgery Clinic, Tokyo, JPN.

Muneyoshi Fujita (M)

Orthopaedic Surgery, Teikyo University School of Medicine, Tokyo, JPN.

Takahiro Inui (T)

Orthopaedic Surgery, Teikyo University School of Medicine, Tokyo, JPN.

Yasushi Oshima (Y)

Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, JPN.

Hiroki Iwai (H)

Spine Surgery, Iwai Orthopaedic Hospital, Tokyo, JPN.

Hirohiko Inanami (H)

Orthopaedic Surgery, Inanami Spine and Joint Hospital, Tokyo, JPN.

Hisashi Koga (H)

Neurosurgery, Iwai Orthopaedic Medical Hospital, Tokyo, JPN.

Classifications MeSH