Study Design: Multicenter, prospective, randomized, and double-blinded study. Objectives: To compare tubular and endoscopic interlaminar approach. Methods: Patients with lumbar spinal stenosis and neurogenic claudication of were randomized to tubular or endoscopic technique. Enrollment period was 12 months. Clinical follow up at 1, 3, 6 months after surgery with visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score. Radiologic evaluation with magnetic resonance pre- and postsurgery. Results: Twenty patients were enrolled: 10 in tubular approach (12 levels) and 10 in endoscopic approach (11 levels). The percentage of enlargement of the spinal canal was higher in endoscopic approach (202%) compared with tubular approach (189%) but was not statistically significant ( P = .777). The enlargement of the dural sac was higher in endoscopic group (209%) compared with tubular group (203%) but no difference was found between the 2 groups ( P = .628). A modest significant correlation was found between the percentage of spinal canal decompression and enlargement of the dural sac ( r = 0.5, P = .023). Both groups reported a significant clinical improvement postsurgery. However, no significant association was found between the percentage of enlargement of the spinal canal or the dural sac and clinical improvement as determined by scales scores. Endoscopic group had lower intrasurgical bleeding ( P < .001) and lower disability at 6 months of follow-up than tubular group (p=0.037). Conclusions: In the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis, endoscopic technique allows similar decompression of the spinal canal and the dural sac, lower intrasurgical bleeding, similar symptoms improvement, and lower disability at 6 months of follow-up, as compared with the tubular technique.
Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Decompression by 30° Arthroscopy in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Minimum 2-Year Follow-up
