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.

Comparative Study Between Uniportal Full-Endoscopic Interlaminar and Tubular Approach in the Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Pilot Study.

STUDY DESIGN: Multicenter, prospective, randomized, and double-blinded study. OBJECTIVES: To compare tubular and endoscopic interlaminar approach. METHODS: Patients with lumbar spinal stenosis and neurogenic claudication of were randomized to tubular or endoscopic technique. Enrollment period was 12 months. Clinical follow up at 1, 3, 6 months after surgery with visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score. Radiologic evaluation with magnetic resonance pre- and postsurgery. RESULTS: Twenty patients were enrolled: 10 in tubular approach (12 levels) and 10 in endoscopic approach (11 levels). The percentage of enlargement of the spinal canal was higher in endoscopic approach (202%) compared with tubular approach (189%) but was not statistically significant (P = .777). The enlargement of the dural sac was higher in endoscopic group (209%) compared with tubular group (203%) but no difference was found between the 2 groups (P = .628). A modest significant correlation was found between the percentage of spinal canal decompression and enlargement of the dural sac (r = 0.5, P = .023). Both groups reported a significant clinical improvement postsurgery. However, no significant association was found between the percentage of enlargement of the spinal canal or the dural sac and clinical improvement as determined by scales scores. Endoscopic group had lower intrasurgical bleeding (P < .001) and lower disability at 6 months of follow-up than tubular group (p=0.037). CONCLUSIONS: In the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis, endoscopic technique allows similar decompression of the spinal canal and the dural sac, lower intrasurgical bleeding, similar symptoms improvement, and lower disability at 6 months of follow-up, as compared with the tubular technique.