Endoscopic decompression for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida
Restricted access

Purchase Now

USD  $45.00

Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $376.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $612.00
Print or Print + Online

OBJECTIVE

Lumbar stenosis treatment has evolved with the introduction of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) techniques. Endoscopic methods take the concepts applied to MIS a step further, with multiple studies showing that endoscopic techniques have outcomes that are similar to those of more traditional approaches. The aim of this study was to perform an updated meta-analysis and systematic review of studies comparing the outcomes between endoscopic (uni- and biportal) and microscopic techniques for the treatment of lumbar stenosis.

METHODS

Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic search was performed using the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Ovid Embase, and PubMed databases from their dates of inception to December 14, 2020. All identified articles were then systematically screened against the following inclusion criteria: 1) studies comparing endoscopic (either uniportal or biportal) with minimally invasive approaches, 2) patient age ≥ 18 years, and 3) diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis. Bias was assessed using quality assessment criteria and funnel plots. Meta-analysis using a random-effects model was used to synthesize the metadata.

RESULTS

From a total of 470 studies, 14 underwent full-text assessment. Of these 14 studies, 13 comparative studies were included for quantitative analysis, totaling 1406 procedures satisfying all criteria for selection. Regarding postoperative back pain, 9 studies showed that endoscopic methods resulted in significantly lower pain scores compared with MIS (mean difference [MD] −1.0, 95% CI −1.6 to −0.4, p < 0.01). The length of stay data were reported by 7 studies, with endoscopic methods associated with a significantly shorter length of stay versus the MIS technique (MD −2.1 days, 95% CI −2.7 to −1.4, p < 0.01). There was no significant difference with respect to leg visual analog scale scores, Oswestry Disability Index scores, blood loss, surgical time, and complications, and there were not any significant quality or bias concerns.

CONCLUSIONS

Both endoscopic and MIS techniques are safe and effective methods for treating patients with symptomatic lumbar stenosis. Patients who undergo endoscopic surgery seem to report less postoperative low-back pain and significantly reduced hospital stay with a trend toward less perioperative blood loss. Future large prospective randomized trials are needed to confirm the findings in this study.

ABBREVIATIONS

BESS = biportal endoscopic system; MD = mean difference; MIS = minimally invasive surgery; MOOSE = Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology; ODI = Oswestry Disability Index; UPFE = uniportal full-endoscopic system; VAS = visual analog scale.

Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $376.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $612.00
  • 1

    Parker SL, Godil SS, Mendenhall SK, Zuckerman SL, Shau DN, McGirt MJ. Two-year comprehensive medical management of degenerative lumbar spine disease (lumbar spondylolisthesis, stenosis, or disc herniation): a value analysis of cost, pain, disability, and quality of life: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014;21(2):143149.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    Katz JN, Harris MB. Clinical practice. Lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(8):818825.

  • 3

    Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, Tosteson AN, Blood E, Hanscom B, et al. Surgical versus nonsurgical therapy for lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(8):794810.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, Tosteson A, Blood E, Herkowitz H, et al. Surgical versus nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis four-year results of the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).2010;35(14):13291338.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    Guha D, Heary RF, Shamji MF. Iatrogenic spondylolisthesis following laminectomy for degenerative lumbar stenosis: systematic review and current concepts. Neurosurg Focus. 2015;39(4):E9.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    Mobbs RJ, Li J, Sivabalan P, Raley D, Rao PJ. Outcomes after decompressive laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis: comparison between minimally invasive unilateral laminectomy for bilateral decompression and open laminectomy: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014;21(2):179186.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    Yang F, Chen R, Gu D, Ye Q, Liu W, Qi J, et al. Clinical comparison of full-endoscopic and microscopic unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression in the treatment of elderly lumbar spinal stenosis: a retrospective study with 12-month follow-up. J Pain Res. 2020;13:13771384.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Heo DH, Quillo-Olvera J, Park CK. Can Percutaneous biportal endoscopic surgery achieve enough canal decompression for degenerative lumbar stenosis? Prospective case-control study. World Neurosurg. 2018;120:e684e689.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Lee CW, Yoon KJ, Ha SS. Comparative analysis between three different lumbar decompression techniques (microscopic, tubular, and endoscopic) in lumbar canal and lateral recess stenosis: preliminary report. BioMed Res Int. 2019;2019:6078469.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    McGrath LB, White-Dzuro GA, Hofstetter CP. Comparison of clinical outcomes following minimally invasive or lumbar endoscopic unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression. J Neurosurg Spine. 2019;30(4):491499.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    Kang T, Park SY, Kang CH, Lee SH, Park JH, Suh SW. Is biportal technique/endoscopic spinal surgery satisfactory for lumbar spinal stenosis patients? A prospective randomized comparative study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019;98(18):e15451.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    Min WK, Kim JE, Choi DJ, Park EJ, Heo J. Clinical and radiological outcomes between biportal endoscopic decompression and microscopic decompression in lumbar spinal stenosis. J Orthop Sci. 2020;25(3):371378.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Kim HS, Choi SH, Shim DM, Lee IS, Oh YK, Woo YH. Advantages of new endoscopic unilateral laminectomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) over conventional microscopic ULBD. Clin Orthop Surg. 2020;12(3):330336.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Pairuchvej S, Muljadi JA, Ho JC, Arirachakaran A, Kongtharvonskul J. Full-endoscopic (bi-portal or uni-portal) versus microscopic lumbar decompression laminectomy in patients with spinal stenosis: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2020;30(4):595611.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    Ahn Y. Current techniques of endoscopic decompression in spine surgery. Ann Transl Med. 2019;7(5)(suppl 5):S169.

  • 16

    Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA. 2000;283(15):20082012.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17

    Pranata R, Lim MA, Vania R, July J. Biportal endoscopic spinal surgery versus microscopic decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World Neurosurg. 2020;138:e450e458.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18

    Chen T, Zhou G, Chen Z, Yao X, Liu D. Biportal endoscopic decompression vs. microscopic decompression for lumbar canal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Exp Ther Med. 2020;20(3):27432751.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

    Hasan S, McGrath LB, Sen RD, Barber JK, Hofstetter CP. Comparison of full-endoscopic and minimally invasive decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis in the setting of degenerative scoliosis and spondylolisthesis. Neurosurg Focus. 2019;46(5):E16.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20

    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21

    Ruetten S, Komp M, Merk H, Godolias G. Surgical treatment for lumbar lateral recess stenosis with the full-endoscopic interlaminar approach versus conventional microsurgical technique: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. J Neurosurg Spine. 2009;10(5):476485.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22

    Komp M, Hahn P, Oezdemir S, Giannakopoulos A, Heikenfeld R, Kasch R, et al. Bilateral spinal decompression of lumbar central stenosis with the full-endoscopic interlaminar versus microsurgical laminotomy technique: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Pain Physician. 2015;18(1):6170.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23

    Heo DH, Lee DC, Park CK. Comparative analysis of three types of minimally invasive decompressive surgery for lumbar central stenosis: biportal endoscopy, uniportal endoscopy, and microsurgery. Neurosurg Focus. 2019;46(5):E9.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24

    Choi DJ, Kim JE. Efficacy of biportal endoscopic spine surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. Clin Orthop Surg. 2019;11(1):8288.

  • 25

    Park SM, Park J, Jang HS, Heo YW, Han H, Kim HJ, et al. Biportal endoscopic versus microscopic lumbar decompressive laminectomy in patients with spinal stenosis: a randomized controlled trial. Spine J. 2020;20(2):156165.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26

    Wang MY, Chang HK, Grossman J. Reduced acute care costs with the ERAS® minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion compared with conventional minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Neurosurgery. 2018;83(4):827834.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27

    Jain A, Menga E, Mesfin A. Outcomes following surgical management of cauda equina syndrome: does race matter? J Racial Ethn Health Disparities. 2018;5(2):287292.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28

    Lu VM, Graffeo CS, Mikula AL, Perry A, Carlstrom LP, Elder BD, et al. Making the most of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in spine surgery: a primer for the practicing spine surgeon. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).2020;45(13):E808E812.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 1009 1009 1009
Full Text Views 143 143 143
PDF Downloads 176 176 176
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0