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

BioMed Research International

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

Medicine

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