Dataset Information

Microscopic decompressive laminectomy versus percutaneous endoscopic decompressive laminectomy in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a common lumbar degenerative disease in the elderly, usually requiring surgery if conservative treatment fails. Microscopic decompressive laminectomy (MDL) and percutaneous endoscopic decompressive laminectomy (PEDL) have been widely used to treat LSS. This study aims to provide a protocol for the evaluation and comparison of the efficacy, safety and applicability between MDL and PEDL. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:We will search for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing MDL and PEDL for treating LSS from inception to December 2019 in the following databases: PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase and China Biology Medicine. The quality of included studies will be assessed using the risk of bias tool recommended by the Cochrane Handbook 5.2.0. Subsequently, a meta-analysis will be performed using RevMan 5.3 software. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Given the nature of this study, no ethical approval will be required. The protocol will be disseminated via a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42020164765.

SUBMITTER: Wang R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7482472 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Microscopic decompressive laminectomy versus percutaneous endoscopic decompressive laminectomy in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Wang Rong R Li Xiuxia X Zhang Xiaogang X Qin Daping D Yang Guodong G Gao Guodong G Zhang Hua H

BMJ open 20200909 9

<h4>Introduction</h4>Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a common lumbar degenerative disease in the elderly, usually requiring surgery if conservative treatment fails. Microscopic decompressive laminectomy (MDL) and percutaneous endoscopic decompressive laminectomy (PEDL) have been widely used to treat LSS. This study aims to provide a protocol for the evaluation and comparison of the efficacy, safety and applicability between MDL and PEDL.<h4>Methods and analysis</h4>We will search for randomised ...[more]

PMID: 32907901

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:One advantage of an endoscopic approach to treating lumbar spinal stenosis is preservation of spine stability and the adjacent anatomy, and there is a decrease in adjacent segment disc degeneration. The purpose of this study was to discuss the clinical efficacy of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic decompression for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). METHODS:This is a retrospective study. From September 2012 to June 2017, 45 patients who were diagnosed with LSS underwent the treatment of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic decompression (PTED) and were followed up at 1 week, 3 months and 1 year postoperatively. Low back pain and leg pain were measured by Visual Analogue Scale scoring methods (VAS-back and VAS-leg), while functional outcomes were assessed by using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). All patients had one-level lumbar spinal stenosis. RESULTS:The most common type of stenosis was lateral recess stenosis (n?=?22; 48.9%), followed by central stenosis (n?=?13; 28.9%) and foraminal stenosis (n?=?10: 22.2%). Regarding comparisons of VAS-back, VAS-leg, and ODI scores before and after operation, VAS and ODI scores significantly improved. The average leg VAS score improved from 7.01?±?0.84 to 2.28?±?1.43 (P?<?0.001). The average ODI improved from 46.18?±?10.11 to 14.40?±?9.59 (P?<?0.001). We also examined changes in ODI and VAS scores from baseline according to types of spinal stenosis, stenosis grade, spinal instability, and revision surgery in the same segment. The improvement percentage of leg VAS score was significantly less in patients with severe stenosis at both 3 months and 1 year postoperatively. The improvement percentages of ODI and leg VAS scores were significantly less in patients who had spinal instability and patients who had undergone revision surgery. CONCLUSION:The PTED approach seems to give good results for the treatment of LSS. However, this approach may be less effective for LSS patients who have lumbar instability or require revision surgery in the same segment.

Project description:PurposeThis prospective cohort study reports on a modified technique, namely precise safety decompression via double percutaneous lumbar foraminoplasty (DPLF) and percutaneous endoscopic lumbar decompression (PELD) for lateral lumbar spinal canal (LLSC) stenosis, and its short-term clinical outcomes.MethodsThe study analyzed 69 patients with single-level LLSC stenosis simultaneously occurring in both zones 1 and 2 (defined as retrodiscal space and upper bony lateral recess respectively by new LLSC classification) who underwent DPLF-PELD from November 2018 to April 2019. Clinical outcomes were evaluated according to preoperative, 3 months postoperatively, and last follow-up, via leg pain/low back pain (LBP) visual analog scale (VAS) scores, Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores, and the Macnab criteria. The postoperative MRI and CT were used to confirm the complete decompression, and flexion-extension x-rays at the last follow-up were used to observe lumbar stability.ResultsAll patients successfully underwent DPLF-PELD, and the stenosis was completely decompressed, confirmed by postoperative MRI and CT. The mean follow-up duration was 13 months (range: 8-17 months). The mean preoperative leg pain VAS score is 7.05 ± 1.04 (range 5-9), which decreased to 1.03 ± 0.79(range: 0-3) at 3 months postoperatively and to 0.75 ± 0.63 (range: 0-2) by the last follow-up visit (p < 0.05). The mean preoperative ODI was 69.8 ± 9.05 (range: 52-85), which decreased to 20.3 ± 5.52 (range: 10-35) at the third month postoperatively and to 19.6 ± 5.21 (range: 10-34) by the final follow-up visit (p < 0.05). The satisfactory (excellent or good) results were 94.2%. There was one patient with aggravated symptoms, which were relieved after an open surgery. Two patients had a dural tear, and two patients suffered postoperative LBP. No recurrence or segmental instability was observed at the final follow-up.ConclusionDPLF-PELD could be a good alternative for the treatment of LLSC stenosis patients whose stenosis occurred in both zones 1 and 2.Trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry ( ChiCTR1800019551 ). Registered 18 November 2018.

Project description:Retrospective cohort.To identify factors that were independently associated with increased postoperative length of stay (LOS) and readmission in patients who underwent elective laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis.Lumbar spinal stenosis is a common pathology that is traditionally treated with decompressive laminectomy. Risk factors associated with increased LOS and readmission have not been fully characterized for laminectomy.Patients who underwent laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis during 2011 and 2012 were identified from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Patient characteristics were tested for association with LOS and readmission using bivariate and multivariate analyses. Patients with LOS more than 10 days were excluded from the readmission analysis as the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program only captures readmissions within 30 postoperative days, and the window for potential readmission was deemed too short for patients staying longer than 10 days.A total of 2358 patients who underwent laminectomy met inclusion criteria. The average age was 66.4 ± 11.7 years (mean ± standard deviation). Average postoperative LOS was 2.1 ± 2.6 days. Of those meeting criteria for readmission analysis, 3.7% of patients (86 of 2339) were readmitted within 30 days postoperatively.Independent risk factors for prolonged LOS were increased age (P < 0.001), increased body mass index (P = 0.004), American Society of Anesthesiologists class 3-4 (P = 0.005), and preoperative hematocrit less than 36.0 (P = 0.001). Independent risk factors for readmission were increased age (P = 0.013), increased body mass index (P = 0.040), American Society of Anesthesiologists class 3-4 (P < 0.001), and steroid use (P = 0.001). The most common reason for readmission was surgical site-related infections (25.0% of patients readmitted in 2012).The identified factors associated with LOS and readmission after lumbar laminectomy may be useful for optimizing patient care.

Dataset Information

Microscopic decompressive laminectomy versus percutaneous endoscopic decompressive laminectomy in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Microscopic decompressive laminectomy versus percutaneous endoscopic decompressive laminectomy in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets