Comparative Analysis between Three Different Lumbar Decompression Techniques (Microscopic, Tubular, and Endoscopic) in Lumbar Canal and Lateral Recess Stenosis: Preliminary Report
Joint Authors
Lee, Chul-Woo
Yoon, Kang-Jun
Ha, Sang-Soo
Source
Issue
Vol. 2019, Issue 2019 (31 Dec. 2019), pp.1-11, 11 p.
Publisher
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Publication Date
2019-03-24
Country of Publication
Egypt
No. of Pages
11
Main Subjects
Abstract EN
Purpose.
The purpose of our study is to compare the results of spinal decompression using the full-endoscopic interlaminar technique, tubular retractor, and a conventional microsurgical laminotomy technique and evaluate the advantages and clinical feasibility of minimally invasive spinal (MIS) lumbar decompression technique in the lumbar canal and lateral recess stenosis.
Methods.
The authors retrospectively reviewed clinical and radiological data from 270 patients who received microsurgical (group E: 72 patients), tubular (group T: 34 patients), or full-endoscopic decompression surgery (group E: 164 patients) for their lumbar canal and lateral recess stenosis from June 2016 to August 2017.
Clinical (VAS, ODI, and Mcnab criteria), radiologic (spinal canal diameter, segmental dynamic angle, and disc height), and surgical outcome parameters (CPK level, Operative time, blood loss, and hospital stay) were evaluated pre- and postoperatively and compared among the three groups by means of statistical analysis.
Failed cases and complications were reviewed in all groups.
Results.
The mean follow-up period was 6.38 months.
The Overall clinical success rate was 89.4%.
All groups showed favorable clinical outcome.
The clinical and radiologic results were similar in all groups.
Regarding surgical outcome, group E showed longer operation time than group M and T (group E: 84.17 minutes/level, group M: 52.22 minutes/level, and group T: 66.12 minutes/level) (p<0.05).
However, groups E and T showed minimal surgical invasiveness compared with group M.
Groups E and T showed less immediate postoperative back pain (VAS) (group E: 3.13, group M: 4.28, group T: 3.54) (p<0.05), less increase of serum CPK enzyme (group E: 66.38 IU/L, group M: 120 IU/L, and group T: 137.5 IU/L) (p<0.05), and shorter hospital stay (group E: 2.12 days, group M: 4.85 days, and group T: 2.83 days) (p<0.05).
The rates of complications and revisions were not significantly different among the three groups.
Conclusions.
MIS decompression technique is clinically feasible and safe to treat the lumbar canal and lateral recess stenosis, and it has many surgical advantages such as less muscle trauma, minimal postoperative back pain, and fast recovery of the patient compared to traditional open microscopic technique.
American Psychological Association (APA)
Lee, Chul-Woo& Yoon, Kang-Jun& Ha, Sang-Soo. 2019. Comparative Analysis between Three Different Lumbar Decompression Techniques (Microscopic, Tubular, and Endoscopic) in Lumbar Canal and Lateral Recess Stenosis: Preliminary Report. BioMed Research International،Vol. 2019, no. 2019, pp.1-11.
https://search.emarefa.net/detail/BIM-1126454
Modern Language Association (MLA)
Lee, Chul-Woo…[et al.]. Comparative Analysis between Three Different Lumbar Decompression Techniques (Microscopic, Tubular, and Endoscopic) in Lumbar Canal and Lateral Recess Stenosis: Preliminary Report. BioMed Research International No. 2019 (2019), pp.1-11.
https://search.emarefa.net/detail/BIM-1126454
American Medical Association (AMA)
Lee, Chul-Woo& Yoon, Kang-Jun& Ha, Sang-Soo. Comparative Analysis between Three Different Lumbar Decompression Techniques (Microscopic, Tubular, and Endoscopic) in Lumbar Canal and Lateral Recess Stenosis: Preliminary Report. BioMed Research International. 2019. Vol. 2019, no. 2019, pp.1-11.
https://search.emarefa.net/detail/BIM-1126454
Data Type
Journal Articles
Language
English
Notes
Includes bibliographical references
Record ID
BIM-1126454