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

Kotheeranurak, Vit; Tangdamrongtham, Thanadol; Lin, Guang‐Xun; Singhatanadgige, Weerasak; Limthongkul, Worawat; Yingsakmongkol, Wicharn; Kim, Jin-Sung; Jitpakdee, Khanathip

doi:10.1007/s00586-023-07678-5

Cited by 13 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Recently, Kotheeranurak et al conducted a randomized controlled study of full-endoscopic (FE) and tubularbased microscopic (TM) decompression in 60 patients (FE, 30; TM, 30) with single-level LSCS [15]. Although they analyzed the ODI, visual analog scale, EQ-5D, walking time, and satisfaction rate (modified MacNab criteria) 24 months postoperatively, the FE group was non-inferior to the TM group.…”

Section: Fess: Full-endoscopic Spine Surgerymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…FEL seems to be more minimally invasive than MEL, not only for small skin incisions but also for reduced damage to surrounding structures such as muscles, facet joints, and interspinous ligaments. Currently, only a small number of comparative studies are available [9,11,[13][14][15][16][17][18][19], and we therefore compared the operative outcomes between MEL and FEL for single-level LSCS in 2020 [11]. In this initial report, we only compared short-term operative outcomes for a small number of patients (MEL 54 cases, FEL 60 cases) using a postoperative NRS score obtained at leaving the hospital and a satisfaction score recorded at 2 points (leaving the hospital and three months after MEL or FEL).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Large-Scale Comparative Study Between Microendoscopic Laminectomy and Full-Endoscopic Laminectomy for the Treatment of Single-Level Lumbar Spinal Canal Stenosis

Takebayashi,

Fujita,

Inui

et al. 2024

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: We previously compared the operative outcomes of microendoscopic laminectomy (MEL) and full-endoscopic laminectomy (FEL) for single-level lumbar spinal canal stenosis (LSCS). In this initial report, the operative outcomes of FEL were not inferior to those of MEL.Objective: The purpose of this study is to compare the outcomes of MEL and FEL for single-level LSCS on a large scale using widely used multiple evaluation methods.Methods: MEL was performed using a 16 mm tubular retractor and an endoscope, while FEL was performed using a 6.4 mm working channel endoscope. A retrospective study was performed on patients with LSCS treated with MEL (n = 355) or FEL (n = 154). Patient background and operative data were also collected. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), and 36-item Short Form Survey (SF-36) scores were recorded preoperatively and 1-year postoperatively.Results: Background data of the two groups and the mean operation time (MEL, 72.1 m; FEL, 74.2 m) were not significant (p>0.2). The mean volumes of intraoperative bleeding (MEL, 25.2 ml; FEL, 10.3 ml) were significantly different (p<0.001). The mean postoperative hospital stays (MEL, 3.9 days; FEL, 2.1 days) were significantly different (p<0.001). Fifteen dural tears (MEL, 11; FEL, 4) and 1 surgical site infection (MEL, 1; FEL, 0) were observed but not significant (p>0.5). Reoperation was required for postoperative hematoma in five patients (MEL,3; FEL,2). Although the ODI, EQ-5D, and SF-36 scores improved significantly at one year postoperatively in the MEL and FEL groups (p<0.001), there were no significant differences between the two groups (p>0.1). Conclusion:The operative outcomes and minimal invasiveness were no statistical difference between the MEL and FEL groups. Further development of the operative techniques and the instruments of FEL are required to shorten the operation time.

show abstract

Section: Fess: Full-endoscopic Spine Surgerymentioning

confidence: 99%