Literature DB >> 19574831

Midterm outcome after microendoscopic decompressive laminotomy for lumbar spinal stenosis: 4-year prospective study.

Manuel Castro-Menéndez1, Jose A Bravo-Ricoy, Roberto Casal-Moro, Moisés Hernández-Blanco, Francisco J Jorge-Barreiro.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of radicular decompression in lumbar spinal stenosis using a microendoscopic technique.
METHODS: This was a longitudinal prospective study of 50 patients with a diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis who were treated by microendoscopic decompression using an 18-mm METRx tubular retractor according to the METRx technique (Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Memphis, TN). Twenty of the patients had an additional disc prolapse, and a microendoscopic discectomy was associated with decompressive laminectomy. The results were evaluated using the visual analog scale pain score, Oswestry Disability Index score, patient satisfaction questionnaire, and modified Macnab classification.
RESULTS: The average age of the patients was 56 years; 29 (58%) were men and 21 (42%) were women. The most commonly affected level was L4-L5 (64%). The mean surgical intervention time was 94.3 (+/- 14.3) minutes. Mean postoperative hospital stay was 3.16 (+/- 2.3) days. The follow-up time after surgery was 4 years (48 +/- 6.6 months; range, 24-72 months). We obtained good or excellent results in 72% of patients, achieving good subjective satisfaction in 68% of the patients. The mean decrease in the Oswestry Disability Index score was 30.23 (+/- 24.29), the mean decrease in the leg pain visual analog scale score was 6.02 (+/- 2.57), and the mean decrease in the lumbar pain visual analog scale score was 0.84 (+/- 2.06). Adjusted mean differences were in all cases statistically significant (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Data indicate that, in our experience, on midterm follow-up, microendoscopic laminectomy decompression is an effective technique for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19574831     DOI: 10.1227/01.NEU.0000347007.95725.6F

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neurosurgery        ISSN: 0148-396X            Impact factor:   4.654


  10 in total

1.  Unilateral tubular approach for bilateral laminotomy: effect on ipsilateral and contralateral buttock and leg pain.

Authors:  Marjan Alimi; Christoph P Hofstetter; Jose M Torres-Campa; Rodrigo Navarro-Ramirez; Guang-Ting Cong; Innocent Njoku; Roger Härtl
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-06-08       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Tubular surgery with the assistance of endoscopic surgery via midline approach for lumbar spinal canal stenosis: a technical note.

Authors:  Yasuo Mikami; Masateru Nagae; Takumi Ikeda; Hitoshi Tonomura; Hiroyoshi Fujiwara; Toshikazu Kubo
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-05-07       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Comparative study of two spinous process (SP) osteotomy techniques for posterior decompression surgery in lumbar spinal stenosis: SP base versus splitting osteotomy.

Authors:  Gun Woo Lee; Myun-Whan Ahn
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2018-02-21       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 4.  The clinical course of pain and disability following surgery for spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies.

Authors:  Carolina G Fritsch; Manuela L Ferreira; Christopher G Maher; Robert D Herbert; Rafael Z Pinto; Bart Koes; Paulo H Ferreira
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-07-21       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Safety and efficacy of a new percutaneously implantable interspinous process device.

Authors:  Sven Rainer Kantelhardt; Elisabeth Török; Jens Gempt; Michael Stoffel; Florian Ringel; Carsten Stüer; Bernhard Meyer
Journal:  Acta Neurochir (Wien)       Date:  2010-07-16       Impact factor: 2.216

6.  Are There Differences Between Patients with Extreme Stenosis and Non-extreme Stenosis in Terms of Pain, Function or Complications After Spinal Decompression Using a Tubular Retractor System?

Authors:  Arvind G Kulkarni; Swaroop Das; Tushar S Kunder
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2020-02       Impact factor: 4.755

7.  Microendoscope-Assisted Versus Open Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study.

Authors:  Masayoshi Fukushima; Nozomu Ohtomo; Michita Noma; Yudai Kumanomido; Hiroyuki Nakarai; Keiichiro Tozawa; Yuichi Yoshida; Ryuji Sakamoto; Junya Miyahara; Masato Anno; Naohiro Kawamura; Akiro Higashikawa; Yujiro Takeshita; Hirohiko Inanami; Sakae Tanaka; Yasushi Oshima
Journal:  Medicina (Kaunas)       Date:  2021-02-08       Impact factor: 2.430

8.  The microendoscopic decompression of lumbar stenosis: a review of the current literature and clinical results.

Authors:  Albert P Wong; Zachary A Smith; Rohan R Lall; Lacey E Bresnahan; Richard G Fessler
Journal:  Minim Invasive Surg       Date:  2012-07-31

Review 9.  Microendoscopic Lumbar Posterior Decompression Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Literature Review.

Authors:  Akinobu Suzuki; Hiroaki Nakamura
Journal:  Medicina (Kaunas)       Date:  2022-03-04       Impact factor: 2.430

10.  Comparision of biportal endoscopic and microscopic decompression in treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: A comparative study protocol.

Authors:  Jun Wu; Tao Guan; Feng Tian; Xueqi Liu
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2020-07-24       Impact factor: 1.817

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.