Early results of full-endoscopic decompression of lumbar central canal stenosis by outside-in technique: A clinical and radiographic study

Comparison of full-endoscopic and tubular-based microscopic decompression in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

We aimed to demonstrate non-inferiority in terms of functional outcomes in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis who underwent full-endoscopic decompression compared with tubular-based microscopic decompression.

METHODS

This prospective, randomized controlled, non-inferiority trial included 60 patients with single-level lumbar spinal stenosis who required decompression surgery. The patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to the full-endoscopic group (FE group) or the tubular-based microscopic group (TM group). Based on intention-to-treat analysis, the primary outcome was the Oswestry Disability Index score at 24 months postoperative. The secondary outcomes included the visual analog scale (VAS) score for back and leg pain, European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) score, walking time, and patient satisfaction rate according to the modified MacNab criteria. Surgery-related outcomes were also analyzed.

RESULTS

Of the total patients, 92% (n = 55) completed a 24-month follow-up. The primary outcomes were comparable between the two groups (p = 0.748). However, the FE group showed a statistically significant improvement in the mean VAS score for back pain at day 1 and at 6, 12, and 24 months after surgery (p < 0.05). No significant difference was observed in the VAS score for leg pain, EQ-5D score, or walking time (p > 0.05). Regarding the modified MacNab criteria, 86.7% of patients in the FE group and 83.3% in the TM group had excellent or good results at 24 months after surgery (p = 0.261). Despite the similar results in surgery-related outcomes, including operative time, radiation exposure, revision rate, and complication rate, between the two groups (p > 0.05), less blood loss and shorter length of hospital stay were observed in the FE group (p ≤ 0.001 and 0.011, respectively).

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that full-endoscopic decompression is an alternative treatment for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis because it provides non-inferior clinical efficacy and safety compared with tubular-based microscopic surgery. In addition, it offers advantages in terms of less invasive surgery. Trial registration number (TRN): TCTR20191217001.

Current Status and research hotspots in the field of full endoscopic spine surgery: A bibliometric analysis

Purpose

We aimed to comprehensively analyze the current status, hotspots, and trends in full endoscopic spine surgery (FESS) research using bibliometric analysis and knowledge domain mapping.

Methods

The Web of Science database was used to screen FESS-related articles published between January 1, 1993 and June 10, 2022. The evaluation involved the following criteria: total number of articles; H-index; and contributions from countries/regions, institutions, journals, and authors.

Results

A total of 1,064 articles were included. Since 2016, there have been a significant number of publications in the field of FESS. The country/region contributing the largest number of articles was China (37.8%), followed by South Korea (24%), the United States (16.1%), Japan (5.7%), and Germany (5.1%). South Korea (35) had the highest H-index, followed by the United States (27), China (22), Japan (21), and Germany (20). World Neurosurgery (15.7%) published the largest number of FESS-related articles. However, among the top 10 most cited articles, six were published in Spine. The author who contributed the most was S.H. Lee (5.4%), and the largest number of contributions in this field originated from Wooridul Spine Hospital (South Korea; 6.1%). Notably, six of the 10 most published authors in this field were from South Korea. Of the top five productive institutions, three were from South Korea. The keywords with the strongest citation bursts in the field of FESS were “lumbar spine,” “discectomy,” “interlaminar,” “surgical technique,” “follow-up,” “excision,” “thoracic spine,” and “endoscopic surgery.” The 10 clusters generated in this study were: “endoscopic discectomy” (#0), “thoracic myelopathy” (#1), “recurrent lumbar disc herniation” (#2), “low back pain” (#3), “cervical vertebrae” (#4), “lumbar spinal stenosis” (#5), “transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion” (#6), “radiation exposure” (#7), “management” (#8), and “lumbar spine” (#9).

Conclusion

Global research on FESS is mostly concentrated in a few countries/regions and authors. South Korea has made the largest contribution to the field of FESS. Based on the most cited keyword bursts and clusters, the focus of FESS research was found to include its indications, management, and applications.