scholarly journals Full-Endoscopic Lumbar Decompression versus Open Decompression and Fusion Surgery for the Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A 3-Year Follow-Up Study

2021 ◽  
Vol Volume 14 ◽  
pp. 1331-1338
Author(s):  
Qingpeng Song ◽  
Bin Zhu ◽  
Wenkui Zhao ◽  
Chen Liang ◽  
Bao Hai ◽  
...  
2000 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. 563-570 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Cornefjord ◽  
G. Byröd ◽  
H. Brisby ◽  
B. Rydevik

Medicine ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 99 (26) ◽  
pp. e20925
Author(s):  
Mengmeng Chen ◽  
Hai Tang ◽  
Jianlin Shan ◽  
Hao Chen ◽  
Pu Jia ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 396-403 ◽  
Author(s):  
Akihito Minamide ◽  
Munehito Yoshida ◽  
Hiroshi Yamada ◽  
Yukihiro Nakagawa ◽  
Hiroshi Hashizume ◽  
...  

2012 ◽  
Vol 6;15 (6;12) ◽  
pp. 451-460
Author(s):  
Timothy R. Deer

Background: Symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) patients often suffer from multiple etiologies, and patient symptoms must be differentiated and identified as either neurogenic claudication, radicular pain, or both. The most common symptom associated with LSS is neurogenic claudication, which has been reported to occur in 91% to 100% of the LSS patient population. Neurogenic claudication symptoms are described as pain radiating to the lower extremities that begins and worsens as the patient ambulates. Neurogenic claudication symptoms worsen over time and can eventually result in significant life-altering functional limitations. Symptomatic LSS patients may also suffer from radicular pain, which is a persistent pain transmitted through neural pathways, and is associated with inflammation of the exiting nerve root. Objective: To assess patient safety, pain reduction, and functional status of patients treated with percutaneous lumbar decompression. Study Design: Single-center, prospective clinical study of 46 consecutive patients with neurogenic claudication symptoms related to lumbar spinal stenosis. Setting: US interventional pain management practice. Methods: From March 2010 to January 2011, 46 LSS patients suffering from neurogenic claudication underwent mild percutaneous lumbar decompression. Of these, 12-week, 6-month and one-year followup was available for 35 patients. Outcome Assessment: Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ). Outcomes were assessed at baseline, 12-week, 6-month and one-year follow-up. Results: One-year follow-up patients in this study experienced statistically and clinically significant improvement in physical function, as well as reduction of pain intensity. The initial improvement in these patients, which was significant, was sustained through one year, with no significant differences among the interim follow-up visit periods. These results demonstrate early improvement following treatment with a high degree of durability over time. There were no serious device or procedure-related complications reported in this study. Limitations: Single-center study with no control group. Conclusions: In this study, the mild procedure was shown to be safe. In addition, patients experienced significant improvement in mobility and reduction of pain one year after the procedure. One-year outcomes were not significantly different from interim results, indicating that the significant improvement following treatment, occurring as early as 12 weeks, was maintained through one year. This high degree of consistency over time indicates the durability of percutaneous lumbar decompression in the treatment of neurogenic claudication in symptomatic LSS. Key words: Spine, lumbar, lumbar spinal stenosis, neurogenic claudication, decompression, ligamentum flavum, mild, percutaneous.


2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (9) ◽  
pp. S31-S32
Author(s):  
Iina Tuomainen ◽  
Janne Pesonen ◽  
Ville Leinonen ◽  
Marinko Rade ◽  
Maarit Pakarinen ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 14 (10) ◽  
pp. 2392-2396 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maarit Pakarinen ◽  
Susanna Vanhanen ◽  
Sanna Sinikallio ◽  
Timo Aalto ◽  
Soili M. Lehto ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (21;1) ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Jie Hao

Background: Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS) is the main cause for chronic low back pain in the elderly. When refractory to conservative treatment, symptomatic patients commonly undergo surgery. However, whether or not fusion is a relatively better surgical option still remains unclear. Objective: The purpose of the present study was to systematically review the clinical outcomes of spinal decompression with or without spinal fusion for DLSS. Study Design: A systematic review of the therapeutic effect for DLSS with or without fusion. Methods: A literature search of 5 electronic databases was performed including PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and CENTRAL from inception to August 2016. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the comparison between decompression and fusion surgery for DLSS were included. Results: A total of 5 RCTs involving 438 patients met the inclusion criteria. Low-quality evidence of the meta-analysis was performed for the heterogeneity of the included studies. Pooled analysis showed no significant differences between decompression alone and fusion groups for the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores at the baseline (P = 0.50) and 2 years follow-up (P = 0.71), and the satisfaction rate of operations was also similar for the groups (P = 0.53). However, operation time (P = 0.002), blood loss (P < 0.00001), and length of hospital stay (P = 0.007) were remarkably higher in the fusion group. Furthermore, there was no difference in the reoperation rate between these 2 groups at the latest follow-up (P = 0.49). Limitation: The methodological criteria and sample sizes were highly variable. The studies were heterogeneous. Conclusion: The present meta-analysis is the first to compare the efficacy of decompression alone and spinal fusion for the treatment of DLSS, including 5 RCTs. Our results demonstrate that additional fusion surgery seems unlikely to result in better outcomes for patients with DLSS, but it may increase additional risks and costs. High-quality homogeneous research is required to provide further evidence about surgical procedures for patients with DLSS. Key words: Decompression, fusion, lumbar spinal stenosis, meta-analysis


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document