Open AccessEndoscope-Assisted Minimally Invasive Interlaminar Lumbar Decompression for Spinal Stenosis
Author(s) -
Chan Hong Park
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
pain physician
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.31
H-Index - 99
eISSN - 2150-1149
pISSN - 1533-3159
DOI - 10.36076/ppj/2019.22.e573
Subject(s) - medicine , oswestry disability index , lumbar spinal stenosis , decompression , surgery , neurogenic claudication , lumbar , claudication , magnetic resonance imaging , spinal stenosis , back pain , stenosis , retrospective cohort study , neurosurgery , low back pain , anesthesia , radiology , vascular disease , arterial disease , alternative medicine , pathology
Background: Lumbar stenosis is characterized by a narrowing of the spinal canal in associationwith progressive degenerative changes in the lumbar spine and surrounding structures, includinghypertrophy of the ligamentum flavum (LF).Objectives: The aim of this study was to examine the usefulness of endoscope-assistedinterlaminar lumbar decompression (EILD) for patients with lumbar stenosis and hypertrophy ofthe LF.Study Design: Retrospective study.Setting: Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Neurosurgery at Wooridul SpineHospital.Methods: A total of 51 patients were enrolled in this study. Outcomes were evaluated at baselineand at 2 weeks and 6 months postprocedure via the Numeric Rating Scale, Oswestry DisabilityIndex (ODI), and Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ).Results: Mean posttreatment pain scores at 2 weeks and 6 months were significantly lower, andODI scores were significantly decreased compared with baseline. ZCQ scores were also significantlydecreased compared with pretreatment surveys. Two patients required reoperation within onemonth. At postprocedure 6 months, a ≥ 50% reduction in pain score was recorded in 26 (80%)of 51 patients, and there was ≥ 40% reduction in ODI score in 82% of patients. No seriouscomplications including epidural bleeding, dural or neural injuries, or infection were recorded.Limitations: This study lacked secondary outcome substantiation. In addition, the follow-upperiod was short (< 6 months), and no patients had postprocedure magnetic resonance imaging.The number of patients was also small.Conclusions: EILD provided good outcomes and may be a reasonable treatment option forcarefully selected patients with hypertrophy of the LF.