Is biportal technique/endoscopic spinal surgery satisfactory for lumbar spinal stenosis patients? A prospective randomized comparative study

Taewook Kang, Si Young Park, Chun Hyung Kang, Soon-Hyuck Lee, Jong Hoon Park, Seung-Woo Suh

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Lumbar decompressive surgery is a standard surgical technique for lumbar spinal stenosis. Many new surgical techniques have been introduced, ranging from open surgery to minimally invasive procedures. Minimally invasive surgical techniques are preferred because patients experience less postoperative pain and shorter hospital stays. However, the success rate of minimally invasive techniques have been controversial. The object of this study was to assess the feasibility of spinal decompression using biportal technique/endoscopic surgery compared with microscopic surgery. METHODS: Seventy lumbar spinal stenosis patients undergoing laminectomy were included in this study. A number table was used to randomize the patients into two groups: a biportal technique/endoscopic surgery group (BG-36) and a microscopic surgery group (OG-34). One surgeon performed either biportal technique/endoscopic decompression or microscopic decompression using a tubular retractor, depending on the group to which the patient was randomized. Perioperative data and clinical outcomes at postoperative 6 months were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: The demographic data and level of surgery were comparable between the two groups. A shorter operation time (36 ± 11 vs 54 ± 9 min), less hemovac drain output (25.5 ± 15.8 vs 53.2 ± 32.1 ml), less opioid usage (2.3 ± 0.6 vs 6.5 ± 2.5 T) and shorter hospital stay (1.2 ± 0.3 vs 3.5 ± 0.8 days) were shown in BG. The BG experienced no significant differences in clinical outcomes compared with OG. Favorable clinical outcomes were shown at 6 months after surgery in both groups. CONCLUSION: Lumbar decompressive surgery using biportal technique/endoscopy showed favorable clinical outcomes, less pain and a shorter hospital stay compared to microscopic surgery in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)e15451
JournalMedicine
Volume98
Issue number18
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2019 May 1

Fingerprint

Spinal Stenosis
Decompression
Length of Stay
Laminectomy
Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures
Postoperative Pain
Opioid Analgesics
Endoscopy
Demography
Pain

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

@article{9d99e722070e43f5a4b1ae5da0210fc5,
title = "Is biportal technique/endoscopic spinal surgery satisfactory for lumbar spinal stenosis patients?: A prospective randomized comparative study",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: Lumbar decompressive surgery is a standard surgical technique for lumbar spinal stenosis. Many new surgical techniques have been introduced, ranging from open surgery to minimally invasive procedures. Minimally invasive surgical techniques are preferred because patients experience less postoperative pain and shorter hospital stays. However, the success rate of minimally invasive techniques have been controversial. The object of this study was to assess the feasibility of spinal decompression using biportal technique/endoscopic surgery compared with microscopic surgery. METHODS: Seventy lumbar spinal stenosis patients undergoing laminectomy were included in this study. A number table was used to randomize the patients into two groups: a biportal technique/endoscopic surgery group (BG-36) and a microscopic surgery group (OG-34). One surgeon performed either biportal technique/endoscopic decompression or microscopic decompression using a tubular retractor, depending on the group to which the patient was randomized. Perioperative data and clinical outcomes at postoperative 6 months were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: The demographic data and level of surgery were comparable between the two groups. A shorter operation time (36 ± 11 vs 54 ± 9 min), less hemovac drain output (25.5 ± 15.8 vs 53.2 ± 32.1 ml), less opioid usage (2.3 ± 0.6 vs 6.5 ± 2.5 T) and shorter hospital stay (1.2 ± 0.3 vs 3.5 ± 0.8 days) were shown in BG. The BG experienced no significant differences in clinical outcomes compared with OG. Favorable clinical outcomes were shown at 6 months after surgery in both groups. CONCLUSION: Lumbar decompressive surgery using biportal technique/endoscopy showed favorable clinical outcomes, less pain and a shorter hospital stay compared to microscopic surgery in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.",
author = "Taewook Kang and Park, {Si Young} and Kang, {Chun Hyung} and Soon-Hyuck Lee and Park, {Jong Hoon} and Seung-Woo Suh",
year = "2019",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/MD.0000000000015451",
language = "English",
volume = "98",
pages = "e15451",
journal = "Medicine; analytical reviews of general medicine, neurology, psychiatry, dermatology, and pediatries",
issn = "0025-7974",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "18",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Is biportal technique/endoscopic spinal surgery satisfactory for lumbar spinal stenosis patients?

T2 - A prospective randomized comparative study

AU - Kang, Taewook

AU - Park, Si Young

AU - Kang, Chun Hyung

AU - Lee, Soon-Hyuck

AU - Park, Jong Hoon

AU - Suh, Seung-Woo

PY - 2019/5/1

Y1 - 2019/5/1

N2 - BACKGROUND: Lumbar decompressive surgery is a standard surgical technique for lumbar spinal stenosis. Many new surgical techniques have been introduced, ranging from open surgery to minimally invasive procedures. Minimally invasive surgical techniques are preferred because patients experience less postoperative pain and shorter hospital stays. However, the success rate of minimally invasive techniques have been controversial. The object of this study was to assess the feasibility of spinal decompression using biportal technique/endoscopic surgery compared with microscopic surgery. METHODS: Seventy lumbar spinal stenosis patients undergoing laminectomy were included in this study. A number table was used to randomize the patients into two groups: a biportal technique/endoscopic surgery group (BG-36) and a microscopic surgery group (OG-34). One surgeon performed either biportal technique/endoscopic decompression or microscopic decompression using a tubular retractor, depending on the group to which the patient was randomized. Perioperative data and clinical outcomes at postoperative 6 months were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: The demographic data and level of surgery were comparable between the two groups. A shorter operation time (36 ± 11 vs 54 ± 9 min), less hemovac drain output (25.5 ± 15.8 vs 53.2 ± 32.1 ml), less opioid usage (2.3 ± 0.6 vs 6.5 ± 2.5 T) and shorter hospital stay (1.2 ± 0.3 vs 3.5 ± 0.8 days) were shown in BG. The BG experienced no significant differences in clinical outcomes compared with OG. Favorable clinical outcomes were shown at 6 months after surgery in both groups. CONCLUSION: Lumbar decompressive surgery using biportal technique/endoscopy showed favorable clinical outcomes, less pain and a shorter hospital stay compared to microscopic surgery in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.

AB - BACKGROUND: Lumbar decompressive surgery is a standard surgical technique for lumbar spinal stenosis. Many new surgical techniques have been introduced, ranging from open surgery to minimally invasive procedures. Minimally invasive surgical techniques are preferred because patients experience less postoperative pain and shorter hospital stays. However, the success rate of minimally invasive techniques have been controversial. The object of this study was to assess the feasibility of spinal decompression using biportal technique/endoscopic surgery compared with microscopic surgery. METHODS: Seventy lumbar spinal stenosis patients undergoing laminectomy were included in this study. A number table was used to randomize the patients into two groups: a biportal technique/endoscopic surgery group (BG-36) and a microscopic surgery group (OG-34). One surgeon performed either biportal technique/endoscopic decompression or microscopic decompression using a tubular retractor, depending on the group to which the patient was randomized. Perioperative data and clinical outcomes at postoperative 6 months were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: The demographic data and level of surgery were comparable between the two groups. A shorter operation time (36 ± 11 vs 54 ± 9 min), less hemovac drain output (25.5 ± 15.8 vs 53.2 ± 32.1 ml), less opioid usage (2.3 ± 0.6 vs 6.5 ± 2.5 T) and shorter hospital stay (1.2 ± 0.3 vs 3.5 ± 0.8 days) were shown in BG. The BG experienced no significant differences in clinical outcomes compared with OG. Favorable clinical outcomes were shown at 6 months after surgery in both groups. CONCLUSION: Lumbar decompressive surgery using biportal technique/endoscopy showed favorable clinical outcomes, less pain and a shorter hospital stay compared to microscopic surgery in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85065518937&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85065518937&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/MD.0000000000015451

DO - 10.1097/MD.0000000000015451

M3 - Article

C2 - 31045817

AN - SCOPUS:85065518937

VL - 98

SP - e15451

JO - Medicine; analytical reviews of general medicine, neurology, psychiatry, dermatology, and pediatries

JF - Medicine; analytical reviews of general medicine, neurology, psychiatry, dermatology, and pediatries

SN - 0025-7974

IS - 18

ER -