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:Lumbar spinal stenosis is a common spinal degenerative condition. Minimally invasive interlaminar full-endoscopic decompressive laminectomy provides greater patient satisfaction and faster recovery than open decompressive laminectomy. The aim of our randomized controlled trial will be to compare the safety and efficacy of interlaminar full-endoscopic laminectomy and open decompressive laminectomy. Our trial will include 120 participants (60 per group) who will undergo surgical treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis. The primary outcome will be the Oswestry Disability Index measured at 12 months postoperatively. Secondary patient-reported outcomes will include back and radicular leg pain measured via a visual analog scale; the Oswestry Disability Index; the Euro-QOL-5 Dimensions score measured at 2 weeks and at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively; and patient satisfaction. The functional measures will include time to return to daily activities postoperatively and walking distance/time. The surgical outcomes will include postoperative drainage, operation time, duration of hospital stay, postoperative creatine kinase (an indicator of muscle injury) level, and postoperative surgical scarring. Magnetic resonance and computed tomography images and simple radiographs will be obtained for all patients. The safety outcomes will include surgery-related complications and adverse effects. All evaluations will be performed by a single assessor at each participating hospital who will be blinded to group allocation. The evaluations will be conducted preoperatively and at 2 weeks and 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. The randomized, multicenter design of the trial, blinding, and justification of the sample size will reduce the risk of bias in our trial. The results of the trial will provide data regarding the use of interlaminar full-endoscopic laminectomy as an alternative to open decompressive laminectomy that results in similar surgical findings with less invasiveness. Trial registration: This trial is registered at cris.nih.go.kr. (KCT0006198; protocol version 1; 27 May 2021).

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:BackgroundLumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is one of the most frequent indications for spine surgery. Open decompression and fusion surgery was the most common treatment and used to be regarded as the golden standard treatment for LSS. In recent years, percutaneous endoscopic decompression surgery was also used for LSS. However, the effectiveness and safety of percutaneous endoscopic decompression in the treatment of LSS have not been supported by high-level evidence. Our aim is to 1) compare the effectiveness of percutaneous endoscopic decompression surgery and open decompression and fusion for the treatment of LSS. 2) Investigate the prognosis risk factors for LSS. 3) Evaluate the influence of percutaneous endoscopic decompression for the stability of operative level, and degeneration of adjacent level.MethodsIt's a prospective, multicenter cohort study. The study is performed at 4 centers in Beijing. This study plans to enroll 600 LSS patients (300 patients in the percutaneous endoscopic decompression group, and 300 patients in the open decompression and fusion group). The demographic variables, healthcare variables, symptom related variables, clinical assessment (Visual analogue score (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), Japanese Orthopaedic Association score (JOA)), and radiological assessment (dynamic X-ray, CT, MRI) will be collected at baseline visit. Patients will follow up at 3, 6, 12 months. The primary outcome is the difference of improvement of ODI between baseline and 12-month follow-up between the two groups. The secondary outcome is the score changes of preoperative and postoperative VAS, the recovery rate of JOA, MacNab criteria, patient satisfaction, degeneration grade of adjacent level, ROM of operative level and adjacent level, complication rate.DiscussionIn this study, we propose to conduct a prospective registry study to address the major controversies of LSS decompression under percutaneous spinal endoscopy, and investigate the clinical efficacy and safety of percutaneous endoscopic decompression and open decompression in the treatment of LSS.Trial registrationThis study has been registered on clinicaltrials.gov in January 15, 2020 ( NCT04254757 ). (SPIRIT 2a).

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