Bilateral Spinal Decompression: Lumbar Central Stenosis with the Full-Endoscopic Interlaminar versus Microsurgical Laminotomy Technique

Primary tabs

SCIENCE
Bilateral Spinal Decompression: Lumbar Central Stenosis with the Full-Endoscopic Interlaminar versus Microsurgical Laminotomy Technique
Key Take-Away: 

Conventional laminotomy techniques are widely used for the treatment of spinal decompression but offer several surgical disadvantages. In this study, the investigators have successfully explored full-endoscopic laminar technique as a safe alternative to the conventional techniques. 

Extensive decompression with laminectomy, where appropriate, is often still described as the method of choice when operating on degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. 

ABSTRACT: 
Background: 

Extensive decompression with laminectomy, where appropriate, is often still described as the method of choice when operating on degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.

Extensive decompression with laminectomy, where appropriate, is often still described as the method of choice when operating on degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Nonetheless, tissue-sparing procedures are becoming more common. Endoscopic techniques have become the standard in many areas because of the surgical advantages they offer and the benefits for rehabilitation. One key issue when operating on the spine was the development of instruments to provide sufficient bone resection under continuous visual control. This was achieved by using endoscopes for operations carried out in cases of spinal canal stenosis. This study of patients with degenerative lumbar central spinal stenosis compares the results of spinal decompression using the full-endoscopic interlaminar technique (FI) with a conventional microsurgical laminotomy technique (MI).

Methods: 

Prospective, randomized, controlled study 135 patients with microsurgical or full-endoscopic decompression were followed up for 2 years.

Prospective, randomized, controlled study 135 patients with microsurgical or full-endoscopic decompression were followed up for 2 years. Alongside general and specific parameters, the following measuring instruments were also used for the investigation: Visual Analog Scale (VAS), German version of the North American Spine Society Instrument (NASS), Oswestry Low-Back-Pain-Disability Questionnaire (ODI).

Results: 

Postoperatively 72 % of the patients no longer had leg pain or the pain was almost completely reduced and 21.2 % experienced occasional pain. The clinical results were the same in both groups.

Postoperatively 72 % of the patients no longer had leg pain or the pain was almost completely reduced and 21.2 % experienced occasional pain. The clinical results were the same in both groups. The rate of complications and revisions was significantly reduced in the FI Group. The full-endoscopic techniques brought advantages in the following areas: operation, complications, traumatization and rehabilitation. There was lack of placebo control group.

Conclusion: 

The recorded results demonstrate that the full-endoscopic interlaminar bilateral decompression adopting a unilateral approach provides an adequate and safe supplement and alternative to the conventional microsurgical bilateral laminotomy technique when the indication criteria are fulfilled.

The recorded results demonstrate that the full-endoscopic interlaminar bilateral decompression adopting a unilateral approach provides an adequate and safe supplement and alternative to the conventional microsurgical bilateral laminotomy technique when the indication criteria are fulfilled. At the same time, it offers the advantages of a minimally invasive intervention.

Log in or register to post comments