Comparison of the Tubular Approach and Uniportal Interlaminar Full-Endoscopic Approach in the Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Our 3-Year Results.

BACKGROUND: To report the long-term results of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), for whom we applied the tubular and endoscopic approaches and previously published the short-term results. METHODS: A multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-blind study was carried out to evaluate 2 groups of patients with LSS who underwent microsurgery via a tubular retractor with a unilateral approach (T group) and bilateral spinal decompression using uniportal interlaminar endoscopic approaches (E group). Dural sac cross-sectional and spinal canal cross-sectional areas were measured with the patients' preoperative and postoperative magnetic resonance images. The visual analog scale, Oswestry Disability Index, and Japanese Orthopedic Association scores in the preoperative period and the first, second, and third years after surgery were evaluated. RESULTS: Twenty patients met the inclusion criteria for the research (T group; n = 10, E group; n = 10). The groups' visual analog scale (respectively; P = 0.315, P = 0.529, and P = 0.853), Oswestry Disability Index (respectively; P = 0.529, P = 0.739, and P = 0.912), and Japanese Orthopedic Association (respectively; P = 0.436, P =0.853, and P = 0.684) scores from the first, second, and third postoperative years were quite good compared with the preoperative period, but there was no statistically significant difference. A significant difference was found in the E group, with less blood loss (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The long-term results of the patients with LSS treated with tubular and endoscopic approaches were similar and very good. Bilateral decompression with minimally invasive spinal surgery methods can be completed with less tissue damage, complications, and blood loss with the unilateral approach.

Sedación administrada por médicos generales para procedimientos endoscópicos de baja complejidad: experiencia en una unidad de endoscopia de una clínica de alta complejidad en Cali / Sedation Administered by General Practitioners for Low Complexity Endoscopic Procedures: Experience in an Endoscopy Unit of a Tertiary Referral Hospital in Cali

Resumen Objetivos: en Colombia se ha venido implementando la sedación por médicos no anestesiólogos para procedimientos endoscópicos fuera del quirófano. Se describió la experiencia en la unidad de gastroenterología de una clínica de alto nivel de atención en Cali, Colombia. Materiales y métodos: estudio observacional, de tipo cohorte analítica para describir la frecuencia y el tipo de eventos adversos asociados a los procedimientos de sedación por médicos generales, y evaluar los factores asociados a su ocurrencia en pacientes que acudieron a la unidad de endoscopia de la Fundación Valle del Lili para la realización de estudios endoscópicos bajo sedación intravenosa que, por ser de bajo riesgo, fue aplicada por un médico no anestesiólogo entre noviembre de 2018 y junio de 2019. Se realizó análisis descriptivo, se calcularon mediana y rango intercuartílico para las variables numéricas, y frecuencias para las variables cualitativas. Resultados: se incluyeron 1506 participantes, 59,4 % ASA I y 40,6 % ASA II. En promedio, la dosis inicial de propofol fue de 60 mg y la dosis total, de 140 mg. Se registraron eventos adversos no serios en 46 pacientes (3,05 %) y el más común fue la desaturación transitoria (80,4 %). Ningún paciente presentó eventos adversos serios. El puntaje inicial promedio de la escala de Aldrete fue 8, mientras que al alta el puntaje promedio fue de 10. Conclusiones: la sedación para procedimientos endoscópicos dada por médicos no anestesiólogos es segura, siempre y cuando sea realizado por personal entrenado que realice una adecuada valoración de los antecedentes (cardiovasculares, gastrointestinales y neurológicos) y factores de riesgo del paciente dentro del marco de los lineamientos institucionales vigentes.

Abstract Objectives: in Colombia, sedation by non-anesthesiologists for endoscopic procedures outside the operating room has been implemented. A description of an experience in the gastroenterology unit of a tertiary referral hospital in Cali, Colombia, was conducted. Materials and methods: an analytical cohort observational study to describe the frequency and type of adverse events associated with sedation procedures performed by general practitioners and evaluate the factors related to their occurrence in patients who attended the endoscopy unit of Fundación Valle del Lili for endoscopic studies under intravenous sedation. Between November 2018 and June 2019, non-anesthesiologist physicians performed this procedure due to the minimal risk implied. A descriptive analysis was completed, and the median and interquartile range were calculated for numerical variables and frequencies for qualitative variables. Results: There were 1506 participants, 59.4% ASA I and 40.6% ASA II in this study. On average, the starting dose of propofol was 60 mg, and the total dose was 140 mg. Forty-six patients (3.05%) reported non-severe adverse events; the most common occurrence was transient desaturation (80.4%). No patients experienced severe adverse events. The average initial Aldrete scale score was 8, while at discharge, the average score was 10. Conclusions: sedation for endoscopic procedures performed by non-anesthesiologists is safe provided that it is performed by trained personnel conducting a correct assessment of the patient's (cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, and neurological) history and risk factors within the framework of the current institutional guidelines.