Comparison of bilateral decompression via unilateral laminotomy and conventional laminectomy for single-level degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis regarding low back pain, functional outcome, and quality of life - A Randomized Controlled, Prospective Trial.

BACKGROUND: Conventional posterior open lumbar surgery is associated with considerable trauma to the paraspinal muscles. Severe damage to the paraspinal muscles could cause low back pain (LBP), resulting in poor functional outcomes. Thus, several studies have proposed numerous surgical techniques that can minimize damage to the paraspinal muscles, particularly unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression. The purpose of this study is to compare the degree of postoperative LBP, functional outcome, and quality of life of patients between bilateral decompression via unilateral laminotomy (BDUL; group U) and conventional laminectomy (CL; group C). METHODS: Of 87 patients who underwent diagnostic and decompression surgery, 50 patients who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and were followed up for > 2 years were enrolled. The patients were asked to record their visual analog scale pain score after 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. BDUL was used for group U, whereas CL was used for group C. The patients were randomly divided based on one of the two techniques, and they were followed up for over 2 years. Functional outcomes were assessed by the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), and SF-36. RESULTS: Operation time was significantly shorter in group U than in group C (p = 0.003). At 6, 12, and 24 months, there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of spine-related pain (all p > 0.05). Functional outcomes using ODI and RMDQ and quality of life using SF-36 were not significantly different between the groups (all p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Regarding single-level decompression for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis, group U had the advantages of shorter operation time than group C, but not in terms of back pain, functional outcome, and quality of life.

The Effectiveness of Oral Corticosteroids for Management of Lumbar Radiating Pain: Randomized, Controlled Trial Study.

BACKGROUND: Although both pregabalin and gabapentin are known to be useful for treating lumbar radiating pain and reducing the incidence of surgery, the oral corticosteroids sometimes offer a dramatic effect on severe radiating pain despite the lack of scientific evidence. METHODS: A total of 54 patients were enrolled among 703 patients who complained of lumbar radiating pain. Twenty patients who received an oral corticosteroid was classified as group A and 20 patients who received the control drugs (pregabalin or gabapentin) as group B. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Revised Roland Morris disability questionnaire (RMDQ), Short Form 36 (SF-36) questionnaire, lumbar radiating pain, objective patient satisfaction, and objective improvement of patients or physicians were assessed at 2, 6, and 12 weeks after medication. RESULTS: No difference in the sex ratio and age was observed between the groups (p = 0.70 and p = 0.13, respectively). Group A showed greater improvement in radiating pain after 2, 6, and 12 weeks than group B (p < 0.001, p = 0.001, and p < 0.001, respectively). No differences were observed between the groups in satisfaction at the beginning and 12 weeks after taking the medication (p = 0.062 and p = 0.061, respectively) and in objective improvement of patients and physicians (p = 0.657 and p = 0.748, respectively). Group A was less disabled and had greater physical health scores than group B (p = 0.014 and p = 0.017, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Oral corticosteroids for the treatment of lumbar radiating pain can be more effective in pain relief than gabapentin or pregabalin. The satisfaction of patients and physicians with the drug and objective improvement status were not inferior to that with gabapentin or pregabalin.