Uniportal Full-Endoscopic versus Minimally Invasive Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Meta-analysis

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuqing Jiang ◽  
Jianjian Yin ◽  
Luming Nong ◽  
Nanwei Xu
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Lumbar Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Epidural Hematoma ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Intraoperative Blood Loss ◽  
Satisfaction Rate ◽  
Stay Time ◽  
Lumbar Spinal

Abstract Background In this study, we systematically analyze the effectiveness of the uniportal full-endoscopic (UPFE) and minimally invasive (MIS) decompression for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis patients. Methods We performed a systematic search in Medline, Embase, Europe PMC, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane databases, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, China national knowledge infrastructure, and Wanfang Data databases for all relevant studies. All statistical analyses were performed using Review Manager version 5.3. Results A total of 9 articles with 522 patients in the UPFE group and 367 patients in the MIS group were included. The results of the meta-analysis showed that the UPFE group had significantly better results in hospital stay time (mean difference [MD]: –2.05; 95% confidence interval [CI]: –2.87 to –1.23), intraoperative blood loss (MD: –36.56; 95% CI: –54.57 to –18.56), and wound-related complications (MD: –36.56; 95%CI: –54.57 to –18.56) compared with the MIS group, whereas the postoperative clinical scores (MD: –0.66; 95%CI: –1.79 to 0.47; MD: –0.75; 95%CI: –1.86 to 0.36; and MD: –4.58; 95%CI: –16.80 to 7.63), satisfaction rate (odds ratio [OR] = 1.24; 95%CI: 0.70–2.20), operation time (MD: 30.31; 95%CI: –12.55 to 73.18), complication rates for dural injury (OR = 0.60; 95%CI: 0.29–1.26), epidural hematoma (OR = 0.60; 95%CI: 0.29–1.26), and postoperative transient dysesthesia and weakness (OR = 0.73; 95%CI: 0.36–1.51) showed no significant differences between the two groups. Conclusions The UPFE decompression is associated with shorter hospital stay time and lower intraoperative blood loss and wound-related complications compared with MIS decompression for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis patients. The postoperative clinical scores, satisfaction rate, operation time, complication rates for dural injury, epidural hematoma, and postoperative transient dysesthesia and weakness did not differ significantly between two groups.

scholarly journals Management for lumbar spinal stenosis: Protocol for a network meta-analysis and systematic review

2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 230949902097521
Author(s):  
Fei-Long Wei ◽  
Ya Liu ◽  
Cheng-Pei Zhou ◽  
Si-Guo Sun ◽  
Kai-Long Zhu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Lumbar Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Evaluation Framework ◽  
Adult Patients ◽  
Leg Pain ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Lumbar Spinal

Introduction: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is caused by structural changes of the spine, which lead to several severe symptoms, including back pain, leg pain, numbness and tingling in the legs, as well as reduced physical function. However, there is little evidence suggesting whether a patient with LSS should be treated with surgery. If surgery is recommended, which type of surgery benefits the patient most? To answer these questions, we will conduct a network meta-analysis and a systematic review to compare surgical and nonsurgical interventions in terms of efficacy as well as safety in adult patients with LSS. Methods and analysis: We will search the PubMed, Cochrane library, and EMBASE databases for articles published prior to October 10, 2019. We will search for randomized controlled trials assessing surgical and nonsurgical interventions for adult patients with degenerative LSS without any language restrictions. The primary outcome measures will be pain and disability. The secondary outcomes will include adverse events (number of events or number of people with each type of adverse event), reoperations, complications, blood loss and operation time. We will obtain the full texts of the potentially relevant studies and independently assess them. The quality of evidence will be evaluated according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. A random-effects network meta-analysis will be performed to analyze all the evidence under the frequentist framework, and the ranking results will be presented. We will generate plots depicting the network geometry using Stata. The network meta-analysis will be performed according to the Bayesian framework. Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval is not required. The research will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

scholarly journals Comparative Analysis of Non-Full and Full Endoscopic Spine Technique via Interlaminar Approach for the Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Retrospective, Single Institute, Propensity Score-Matched Study

2021 ◽  
pp. 219256822110391
Author(s):  
Qiang Jiang ◽  
Yu Ding ◽  
Zhengcao Lu ◽  
Hongpeng Cui ◽  
Jianjun Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Propensity Score ◽  
Radiation Exposure ◽  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Lumbar Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Clinical Efficacy ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Interlaminar Approach ◽  
Intraoperative Fluoroscopy ◽  
Lumbar Spinal

Study Design: Retrospective study. Objective: To compare the clinical efficacy of posterior lumbar laminectomy decompression under full endoscopic technique (Endo-LOVE) and percutaneous endoscopic medial foraminal decompression (PE-MFD) in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS). Methods: Between April 2017 and April 2018, 96 patients with DLSS underwent Endo-LOVE or PE-MFD, including 58 with Endo-LOVE and 38 with PE-MFD. After propensity score matching (PSM), patient characteristics, operation time, intraoperative fluoroscopy times, postoperative bedridden time, hospital stay and postoperative complications were recorded and compared. The clinical efficacy was evaluated according to Oswestry disability index (ODI), visual analogue scale (VAS), lumbar disease JOA and modified MacNab criteria. Results: A total of 96 patients with DLSS were included in the study. After PSM, the 2 groups were comparable in patient demographic and baseline characteristics. The operation time and intraoperative fluoroscopy times in PE-MFD group were significantly more than those in Endo-LOVE group ( P < .05). The operation time in PE-MFD group was significantly less than that in Endo-LOVE group ( P < .05). The intraoperative fluoroscopy times in PE-MFD group were significantly more than that in Endo-LOVE group ( P < .05). The ODI, VAS and lumbar disease JOA in the 2 groups were significantly improved comparing with those before operation ( P < .05). According to the modified MacNab criteria, the excellent and good rates of the 2 groups were 93.5% in Endo-LOVE group and 87.1% in PE-MFD group ( P > .05). Conclusion: Endo-LOVE and PE-MFD technique can both effectively treat DLSS, and the short-term follow-up results are positive. Endo-LOVE technique has the advantages of fast puncture positioning, less radiation exposure and wider indications. However, PE-MFD needs more radiation exposure and has the possibility of incomplete decompression for complex multiplanar spinal stenosis.

scholarly journals Microscopic decompressive laminectomy versus percutaneous endoscopic decompressive laminectomy in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (9) ◽  
pp. e037096
Author(s):  
Rong Wang ◽  
Xiuxia Li ◽  
Xiaogang Zhang ◽  
Daping Qin ◽  
Guodong Yang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Lumbar Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
The Elderly ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Lumbar Degenerative Disease ◽  
Decompressive Laminectomy ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Lumbar Spinal

IntroductionLumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a common lumbar degenerative disease in the elderly, usually requiring surgery if conservative treatment fails. Microscopic decompressive laminectomy (MDL) and percutaneous endoscopic decompressive laminectomy (PEDL) have been widely used to treat LSS. This study aims to provide a protocol for the evaluation and comparison of the efficacy, safety and applicability between MDL and PEDL.Methods and analysisWe will search for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing MDL and PEDL for treating LSS from inception to December 2019 in the following databases: PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase and China Biology Medicine. The quality of included studies will be assessed using the risk of bias tool recommended by the Cochrane Handbook 5.2.0. Subsequently, a meta-analysis will be performed using RevMan 5.3 software.Ethics and disseminationGiven the nature of this study, no ethical approval will be required. The protocol will be disseminated via a peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020164765.

Management for lumbar spinal stenosis: A network meta-analysis and systematic review

2021 ◽  
Vol 85 ◽  
pp. 19-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fei-Long Wei ◽  
Cheng-Pei Zhou ◽  
Rui Liu ◽  
Kai-Long Zhu ◽  
Ming-Rui Du ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Lumbar Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Lumbar Spinal

scholarly journals Revision decompression with fusion as a treatment for same level restenosis after laminotomy for lumbar spinal stenosis

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-9
Author(s):  
Zhuohao Chow Liang ◽  
Wing Ngai Yim ◽  
Chung Ting Martin Wong ◽  
Hung On Cheng ◽  
Ka Kin Cheung
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Lumbar Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Revision Surgery ◽  
Japanese Orthopaedic Association ◽  
Japanese Orthopaedic Association Score ◽  
Leg Pain ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Salvage Procedure ◽  
Lumbar Spinal

Background/Purpose: Laminotomy is an established procedure to relieve symptoms of lumbar spinal stenosis. However, there is a group of patients with symptomatic recurrence. Re-decompression and fusion could be an effective salvage procedure but the results are seldom found in the literature. In this study, we focused on investigating the clinical outcomes and complication rates of revision decompression with fusion in this patient group. Methods: A retrospective study including patients who had undergone revision decompression with fusion for recurrent symptoms due to same level restenosis after primary laminotomy for lumbar spinal stenosis was performed. Patients with recurrent symptoms due to prolapsed intervertebral disc, trauma, infection, and neoplasm were excluded. Demographics, clinical outcomes, and complications were retrieved. Results: Twenty-eight patients with a total number of 42 levels of revision decompression and fusion were included. With a mean follow-up time of 27 months after revision surgery, there were statistically significant improvement of 63, 49, and 13% in Japanese Orthopaedic Association score, visual analog scale for leg pain, and Roland-Morris disability questionnaire score, respectively. There were 6(21%), 2(7%), 0(0%), and 2(7%) cases of dural tear, infection requiring reoperation, new neurological deficit, and other complications, respectively, in these revision cases. Conclusion: Bearing potential complications in mind, re-decompression with fusion is a viable option with reasonable clinical outcomes for patients with recurrent symptoms after laminotomy for lumbar spinal stenosis. As a treatment option for symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis, primary laminotomy could have the potential benefit of lower complication rates in revision surgery.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document