Open AccessPercutaneous Endoscopic Unilateral Laminotomy and Bilateral Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis
Author(s) -
Zhao Xiaobing,
Ma Haijun,
Geng Bin,
Zhou Honggang,
Xia Yayi
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
orthopaedic surgery
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.666
H-Index - 23
eISSN - 1757-7861
pISSN - 1757-7853
DOI - 10.1111/os.12925
Subject(s) - medicine , laminotomy , visual analogue scale , surgery , oswestry disability index , perioperative , lumbar spinal stenosis , percutaneous , lumbar , decompression , spinal stenosis , magnetic resonance imaging , anesthesia , low back pain , radiology , laminectomy , spinal cord , alternative medicine , pathology , psychiatry
To introduce a new surgery, percutaneous endoscopic unilateral laminotomy and bilateral decompression (Endo‐ULBD) using visual trepan, and investigate its efficacy and safety in elderly patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. In our retrospective study, a total of 69 patients were enrolled between March 2018 and September 2018; 31 patients were treated with Endo‐ULBD and 38 patients were treated with posterior lumbar interbody fusion surgery (PLIF). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and hospitalization duration were compared between the two groups. A visual analog scale (VAS) was used to evaluate the degree of pain. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and European Quality of Life‐5 Dimensions (EQ‐5D) were used to evaluate lumbar function and quality of life, respectively. Lumbar X‐ray, computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were performed postoperatively at different time points. MacNab's outcome assessment and perioperative complications were also documented. The surgeon completed all surgeries successfully, and all 69 patients were followed up. The operative time of the Endo‐ULBD group was 60.68 ± 0.47 min, while that of the PLIF group was 120.23 ± 10.24 min. The operative time of the Endo‐ULBD group was shorter than that of the PLIF group, and the difference was statistically significant ( P < 0.001). The volume of intraoperative blood loss was 47.25 ± 0.43 mL in the Endo‐ULBD group and 256.90 ± 20.83 mL in the PILF group ( P < 0.001). The length of hospital stay in the Endo‐ULBD group was 5.12 ± 1.60 days and that in the PILF group was 10.54 ± 1.82 days ( P < 0.001). The VAS scores at postoperative 1 day, 3 months, 6 months, final follow‐up (Endo‐ULBD: 6.58 ± 0.65, 4.55 ± 0.54, 2.78 ± 0.24, 1.31 ± 0.78; PLIF: 7.19 ± 1.14, 4.80 ± 0.13, 2.71 ± 0.83, 1.29 ± 0.56) were significantly improved compared with those before surgery (Endo‐ULBD: 8.63 ± 0.37; PLIF: 8.31 ± 1.34). The ODI and EQ‐5D scores of lumbar function and quality of life at each time point after surgery (Endo‐ULBD ODI: 30.29% ± 0.47%, 23.35% ± 0.95%, 19.45% ± 0.81%, 10.84% ± 0.36%; EQ‐5D: 0.38 ± 0.15, 0.45 ± 0.17, 0.63 ± 0.14, 0.71 ± 0.20; PLIF ODI: 33.56% ± 1.58%, 25.69% ± 2.69%, 20.01% ± 1.49%, 10.72% ± 0.29%; EQ‐5D: 0.33 ± 0.03, 0.39 ± 0.05, 0.62 ± 0.07, 0.72 ± 0.10) were significantly improved compared with those before surgery (Endo‐ULBD: 44.56 ± 1.32, 0.33 ± 0.07; PLIF: 43.79 ± 1.91, 0.31 ± 0.09, respectively), with statistically significant differences ( P < 0.05); however, there was no significant difference between the two groups at the last follow‐up ( P > 0.05). At the last follow‐up, the excellent and good efficacy rate was 90.3% (28/31) in the Endo‐ULBD group and 89.4% (34/38) in the PILF group (χ 2 = 0.089, P = 0.993). No mortality, irreversible nerve injury, or even paralysis occurred in either group. Endo‐ULBD for lumbar spinal stenosis has the advantages of less trauma, a shortened operation time, and rapid recovery and is an effective alternative for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. Strict surgical indications, reasonable surgical plans, and experienced surgeons are important factors to ensure safety and satisfactory postoperative efficacy.