Comparison of the Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Full-Endoscopic Laminotomy and Conventional Subtotal Laminectomy for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Randomized Controlled Trial

被引:4
|
作者
Kim, Jung-Hoon [1 ]
Kim, Young-Jin [1 ]
Ryu, Kyeong-Sik [1 ]
Kim, Jin-Sung [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Catholic Univ Korea, Seoul St Marys Hosp, Coll Med, Dept Neurosurg, Seoul, South Korea
[2] Catholic Univ Korea, Seoul St Marys Hosp, Coll Med, Dept Neurosurg, 222 Banpo Daero, Seoul 06591, South Korea
关键词
spinal stenosis; laminectomy; spondylolisthesis; decompression; endoscopy; spine; full-endoscopy; UNILATERAL LAMINOTOMY; DECOMPRESSION; INTERLAMINAR; SURGERY; FUSION;
D O I
10.1177/21925682231155846
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
Study Design Randomized controlled trial Objective The primary objective of this study was to compare the short-term clinical and radiological outcomes of full-endoscopic lumbar laminotomy (FEL) with those of subtotal lumbar laminectomy (STL) for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). Methods In this prospective randomized trial a total of 52 patients were enrolled from May 2016 to September 2021 after providing written informed consent. The authors investigated 45 patients who were followed up for more than 6 months. Results There were significant improvements in visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores after the operation in both groups. The FEL group tended to have significantly shorter hospital stay. Interestingly, a statistically significant increase in postoperative lumbar lordosis and segmental angle was observed in the FEL group and both groups, respectively. Spondylolisthesis was exacerbated or newly developed in five of the 21 patients (24%) in the STL group. In contrast, improvement in spondylolisthesis was observed in two of the 24 patients (8%) in the FEL group. There were no complications that resulted in fatal sequelae and no significant difference in the complication rate. Conclusions The clinical results of FEL were similar to those of STL. In addition, the results of FEL were superior to those of STL in terms of a decrease in the postoperative length of stay and radiologic instability, such as iatrogenic spondylolisthesis. The results of this study indicate that FEL is a comparable surgical method to STL for LSS.
引用
下载
收藏
页码:1760 / 1770
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Comparison of clinical and radiological outcomes of full-endoscopic versus microscopic lumbar decompression laminectomy for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Tang, Sheng
    Mok, Tsz Ngai
    He, Qiyu
    Li, Layla
    Lai, Xiaofeng
    Sin, Tat Hang
    Deng, Jialin
    Yu, Shinning
    Li, Jieruo
    Wu, Hao
    ANNALS OF PALLIATIVE MEDICINE, 2021, 10 (10) : 10130 - +
  • [2] Outcome after Surgery of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: a Randomized Comparison of Bilateral Laminotomy, Trumpet Laminectomy, and Conventional Laminectomy
    Haddadi, Kaveh
    Qazvini, Hamid Reza Ganjeh
    FRONTIERS IN SURGERY, 2016, 3
  • [3] Comparison of full-endoscopic and tubular-based microscopic decompression in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized controlled trial
    Kotheeranurak, Vit
    Tangdamrongtham, Thanadol
    Lin, Guang-Xun
    Singhatanadgige, Weerasak
    Limthongkul, Worawat
    Yingsakmongkol, Wicharn
    Kim, Jin-Sung
    Jitpakdee, Khanathip
    EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL, 2023, 32 (08) : 2736 - 2747
  • [4] Comparison of full-endoscopic and tubular-based microscopic decompression in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized controlled trial
    Vit Kotheeranurak
    Thanadol Tangdamrongtham
    Guang-Xun Lin
    Weerasak Singhatanadgige
    Worawat Limthongkul
    Wicharn Yingsakmongkol
    Jin-Sung Kim
    Khanathip Jitpakdee
    European Spine Journal, 2023, 32 : 2736 - 2747
  • [5] Bilateral Spinal Decompression of Lumbar Central Stenosis with the Full-Endoscopic Interlaminar Versus Microsurgical Laminotomy Technique: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Study
    Komp, Martin
    Hahn, Patrick
    Oezdemir, Semih
    Giannakopoulos, Athanasios
    Heikenfeld, Roderich
    Kasch, Richard
    Merk, Harry
    Godolias, Georgios
    Ruetten, Sebastian
    PAIN PHYSICIAN, 2015, 18 (01) : 61 - 70
  • [6] Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of conventional and interlaminar full-endoscopic decompressive laminectomy to treat lumbar spinal stenosis (ENDO-F trial): Protocol for a prospective, randomized, multicenter trial
    Kim, Jin-Sung
    Bae, Junseok
    Lee, Dong Chan
    Shin, Sang-Ha
    Keum, Han Joong
    Choi, Young Soo
    Eun, Sang Soo
    Shin, Seung Ho
    Hong, Hyun Jin
    Kim, Ji Yeon
    Kim, Tae Hyun
    Lim, Woojung
    Kim, Junghoon
    Park, Sang-Min
    Park, Hyun-Jin
    Lee, Hong-Jae
    PLOS ONE, 2023, 18 (04):
  • [7] Comparison of Outcomes of Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Full-endoscopic Laminectomy for L5 Radiculopathy Caused by Lumbar Foraminal Stenosis
    Fujita, Muneyoshi
    Inui, Takahiro
    Oshima, Yasushi
    Iwai, Hiroki
    Inanami, Hirohiko
    Koga, Hisashi
    NEUROLOGIA MEDICO-CHIRURGICA, 2022, 62 (06) : 270 - 277
  • [8] Physical Predictors of Favorable Postoperative Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Laminectomy or Laminotomy for Central Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial
    Marchand, Andree-Anne
    Houle, Marieve
    O'Shaughnessy, Julie
    Chatillon, Claude-edouard
    Descarreaux, Martin
    FRONTIERS IN NEUROLOGY, 2022, 13
  • [9] Biportal endoscopic versus microscopic lumbar decompressive laminectomy in patients with spinal stenosis: a randomized controlled trial
    Park, Sang-Min
    Park, Jiwon
    Jang, Ho Su
    Heo, Young Woo
    Han, Heesoo
    Kim, Ho-Joong
    Chang, Bong-Soon
    Lee, Choon-Ki
    Yeom, Jin S.
    SPINE JOURNAL, 2020, 20 (02): : 156 - 165
  • [10] Outcome after less-invasive decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis:: a randomized comparison of unilateral laminotomy, bilateral laminotomy, and laminectomy
    Thomé, C
    Zevgaridis, D
    Leheta, O
    Bäzner, H
    Pöckler-Schöniger, C
    Wöhrle, J
    Schmiedek, P
    JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY-SPINE, 2005, 3 (02) : 129 - 141