Endoscopic and Microscopic Segmental Decompression via Translaminar Crossover Spinal Approach in Elderly Patients

Efficacy of Biportal Endoscopic Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Meta-Analysis With Single-Arm Analysis and Comparative Analysis With Microscopic Decompression and Uniportal Endoscopic Decompression

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Biportal endoscopic decompression is a minimally invasive surgical technique for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of biportal endoscopic decompression through both a single-arm analysis and a comparative analysis.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify eligible studies reporting the outcomes of biportal endoscopic decompression for LSS. Single-arm analysis and comparisons with microscopic and uniportal endoscopic decompression were performed. Evaluated outcomes included visual analog scale (VAS) scores for back pain and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, operation time, estimated blood loss, duration of hospital stay, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Single-arm analysis demonstrated significant improvements in VAS back pain, VAS leg pain, and ODI scores after biportal endoscopic decompression at postoperative 1-day to 36-month follow-up (all P < .001), compared with preoperative levels. The pooled mean single-level operation time was 71.44 min, and the pooled mean hospital stay was 3.63 days. The overall adverse event rate was 4.0%, with dural tear being the most common complication (3.0%). Compared with microscopic decompression, biportal endoscopic decompression showed significantly lower VAS back pain at 1-month ( P < .001) and 6-month ( P < .001) follow-up; lower VAS leg pain at 1-month ( P = .045) follow-up; lower ODI scores at 3-month ( P < .001), 12-month ( P = .017), and >12-month ( P = .007) follow-up; lower estimated blood loss ( P = .003); and shorter hospital stay ( P < .001). Adverse event rates did not differ between the techniques. No significant differences were observed between biportal endoscopic and uniportal endoscopic decompression groups for most efficacy and safety outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Biportal endoscopic decompression emerges as a safe and effective alternative for LSS, presenting potential advantages over the microscopic technique and comparable efficacy with the uniportal endoscopic technique.

Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Discectomy versus Microendoscopic Discectomy for the Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective

In minimally invasive spinal surgery, the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with microendoscopic discectomy (MED) or unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBED) shows effective results, but which is more effective is controversial. Our study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of UBED versus MED in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis by a systematic review and meta-analysis, so as to provide reference for the promotion of UBED in clinical practice.

Methods

The multiple databases like PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Chinese National Knowledge Databases, Chinese BioMedical Database, and Wanfang Database were used to search for the relevant studies. Review Manager 5.4 was adopted to estimate the effects of the results among selected articles. Odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to estimate the overall pooled effect. Subgroup analysis, forest plots, funnel plots and Egger's test for the articles included were also conducted.

Results

Three randomized clinical trials and seven cohort studies were finally retrieved, these studies included 685 and 829 patients in the UBED and MED groups, respectively. There were no differences in terms of operation time (MD = -0.92, P =0.72), estimated blood loss (MD = -26.31, P =0.08), complications (MD =0.81, P =0.38) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score (P >0.05 in four subgroup) between the two groups. The visual analog scale (VAS) score of back pain in the UBED group was better than MED group only at 6 months (MD = -0.23, P =0.006) after operation, the VAS score of leg pain in the UBED group was better than that of MED group at 3 mouths (MD = -0.22, P =0.002) and 6 months (MD = -0.24, P =0.006) after operation, the UBED group had a less postoperative length of stay than the MED group (MD = -1.85, P <0.001). The bias analysis showed that there was no potential publication bias in the included literature.

Conclusion

This study showed that compared with MED, UBED has the advantages of short hospital stay and good short-term curative effect, but there is no significant difference in long-term efficacy and safety, they can be replaced by each other in clinical application.

Endoscopic modified total laminoplasty for symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis

Context/objective: At present, there is no consensus on the most effective surgical method for treating symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). Total laminectomy, which is frequently used at this time, destroys the posterior midline structure, causing many postoperative complications. We have designed a new surgical approach instead of total laminectomy. In this paper, we aimed to describe the surgical method of endoscopic modified total laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis as well as to explore its early efficacy.Participants: Patients with symptomatic LSS who underwent endoscopic modified total laminoplasty between August 2016 and August 2017 were eligible for our study.Outcome measures: Before surgery and one year after surgery, we measured lower limb pain and back pain by visual analog scale (VAS), disability via Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and severity of back pain according to the Japanese Orthopedic Association Score for Back Pain (JOA), while any complications were also assessed.Results: Endoscopic modified total laminoplasty was performed on 22 LSS patients, including eight males and 14 females(mean age = 59.3 ± 9.6 years). We found statistically significant differences before and one year after surgery for VAS lower limb pain and back pain, ODI and JOA scores(P < 0.001). Complications included intraoperative dural tears(n = 1),and weak fusion between the lamina and the vertebral body (n = 1).Conclusion: Endoscopic modified total laminectomy is a promising surgical approach which reduces patient suffering and improves patient quality of life.

Is Endoscopic Discectomy the Next Gold Standard in the Management of Lumbar Disc Disease? Systematic Review and Superiority Analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES

We performed this meta-analysis to evaluate whether endoscopic discectomy (ED) shows superiority compared with the current gold standard of microdiscectomy (MD) in management of lumbar disc disease.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted independent and duplicate electronic database search including PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library from 1990 till April 2020 for studies comparing ED and MD in the management of lumbar disc disease. Analysis was performed in R platform using OpenMeta[Analyst] software.

RESULTS

We included 27 studies, including 11 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 7 nonrandomized prospective, and 9 retrospective studies involving 4018 patients in the meta-analysis. We stratified the results based on the study design. Considering the heterogeneity in some results between study designs, we weighed our conclusion essentially based on results of RCTs. On analyzing the RCTs, superiority was established at 95% confidence interval for ED compared with MD in terms of functional outcomes like Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score (P = .008), duration of surgery (P = .023), and length of hospital stay (P < .001) although significant heterogeneity was noted. Similarly, noninferiority to MD was established by ED in other outcomes like visual analogue scale score for back pain (P = .860) and leg pain (P = .495), MacNab classification (P = .097), recurrences (P = .993), reoperations (P = .740), and return-to-work period (P = .748).

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis established the superiority of endoscopic discectomy in outcome measures like ODI score, duration of surgery, overall complications, length of hospital stay and noninferiority in other measures analyzed. With recent advances in the field of ED, the procedure has the potential to take over the place of MD as the gold standard of care in management of lumbar disc disease.

Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy Versus Microdiscectomy for the Treatment of Lumbar Disc Herniation: Pain, Disability, and Complication Rate-A Randomized Clinical Trial

Purpose

The objective was to compare the traditional microdiscectomy with percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for the treatment of disc herniations regarding pain, disability, and complications.

Methods

Randomized clinical trial with 47 patients with disc herniations treated with 2 different surgical techniques: traditional microdiscectomy or percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy. Forty-seven patients were divided into 2 groups and monitored for 12 months. Irradiated and low back pain were evaluated with the visual analog scale. Surgery complications were recorded.

Results

After surgery, the sciatica and disability improved significantly but without significant differences between the groups. Improvements in back pain were significant until the third month. There were no statistical differences between groups regarding recurrence, infection, and the need for reoperation.

Conclusions

Endoscopic discectomy results are similar to those of conventional microdiscectomy regarding pain and disability improvement. Postoperative lumbar pain is less intense with endoscopic discectomy than conventional microdiscectomy only during the first 3 months. Endoscopic discectomy is a safe and efficient alternative to microdiscectomy.

Clinical Trials

Trial protocol registration number: RBR-5symrd (http://www.ensaiosclinicos.gov.br).