Abstract
Background
Lumbar stenosis causes pain in the lower lumbar spine and lower extremities and reduces the patient’s quality of life and walking ability. Thus, these conditions are common surgical indications for spinal stenosis. Previous reports have shown satisfactory clinical outcomes of the full-endoscopic (FE) and MI technique decompressive laminectomy for lumbar stenosis. However, they still remain controversial.
Objective
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the postoperative outcomes between FE (bi-portal or uni-portal) and MI technique decompressive laminectomy for lumbar stenosis.
Method
We searched all comparative studies that compared postoperative outcomes (operative time, VAS for back and leg pain, ODI in 3 months and last follow-up) of full-endoscopic (bi-portal or uni-portal) and microscopic technique decompressive laminectomy for lumbar stenosis from the PubMed and Scopus databases up to October 16, 2019.
Results
Nine of 1107 studies (five comparative studies and four RCT) (N = 994 patients) were eligible; all studies were included in pooling of FE and MI decompression. Five and three studies were included in pooling of bi-portal endoscopic, uni-portal endoscopic and MI decompression. All three techniques were compared in one study. Eight, nine, seven, eight, five, seven, eight and nine studies were included in pooling of VAS for back, leg, ODI in 3 months and last follow-up and operative time, respectively. The UMD of VAS for back, leg, ODI in 3 months and last follow-up of FE group was − 0.63 (95% CI − 1.15, − 0.12), − 0.15 (− 0.42, 0.11), − 2.06 (− 3.76, − 0.39), − 0.07 (− 0.22, 0.08), − 0.16 (− 0.29, − 0.03), − 0.20 (− 1.20, 0.81) scores and − 3.00 (− 12.25, 6.25) minutes when compared to MI in lumbar stenosis. In terms of complication, FE was lower risk of 0.62 (0.40, 0.96) times when compared to MI. After subgroup analysis, BESS had significant lower back and leg pain within 3 months when compared to MI group, while uni-portal FE had significant lower leg pain in the last follow-up and complication when compared to MI group. There had no difference in ODI and operative time between two groups.
Conclusion
FE had statistically significant lower back pain, lower leg pain and lower risk of having complications when compared to MI decompression in lumbar stenosis, while there is no difference in ODI and operative time between both groups. Comparing to MI, BESS had better early postoperative back pain while uni-portal FE had better leg pain and risk of having complications. Larger, prospective randomized controlled studies are needed to confirm these findings as the current literature is still insufficient.
Level of evidence
III.
Abbreviations
- FE:
-
Full-endoscopic
- UPFE:
-
Percutaneous uni-portal full-endoscopic
- BESS:
-
Bi-portal endoscopic spinal surgery
- MI:
-
Microscopic
- VAS:
-
Visual analogue score
- RCT:
-
Randomized controlled trial
- ODI:
-
Oswestry disability index
- SD:
-
Standard deviation
- PRISMA:
-
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses
- UMD:
-
Unstandardized mean difference
- OR:
-
Odds ratio
References
Arai Y, Hirai T, Yoshii T, Sakai K, Kato T, Enomoto M, Matsumoto R, Yamada T, Kawabata S, Shinomiya K, Okawa A (2014) A prospective comparative study of 2 minimally invasive decompression procedures for lumbar spinal canal stenosis: unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) versus muscle-preserving interlaminar decompression (MILD). Spine 39(4):332–340. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000000136
Birkenmaier C, Komp M, Leu HF, Wegener B, Ruetten S (2013) The current state of endoscopic disc surgery: review of controlled studies comparing full-endoscopic procedures for disc herniations to standard procedures. Pain Phys 16(4):335–344
Choi DJ, Kim JE (2019) Efficacy of biportal endoscopic spine surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. CiOS Clin Orthop Surg 11(1):82–88. https://doi.org/10.4055/cios.2019.11.1.82
Demirayak M, Sisman L, Turkmen F, Efe D, Pekince O, Goncu RG, Sever C (2015) Clinical and radiological results of microsurgical posterior lumbar interbody fusion and decompression without posterior instrumentation for lateral recess stenosis. Asian Spine J 9(5):713–720. https://doi.org/10.4184/asj.2015.9.5.713
Deyo RA, Mirza SK, Martin BI, Kreuter W, Goodman DC, Jarvik JG (2010) Trends, major medical complications, and charges associated with surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis in older adults. JAMA 303(13):1259–1265. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2010.338
Dohzono S, Toyoda H, Matsumura A, Terai H, Suzuki A, Nakamura H (2017) Clinical and radiological outcomes after microscopic bilateral decompression via a unilateral approach for degenerative lumbar disease: minimum 5-year follow-up. Asian Spine J 11(2):285–293. https://doi.org/10.4184/asj.2017.11.2.285
Duval S, Tweedie R (2000) Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics 56(2):455–463
Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C (1997) Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 315(7109):629–634
Epstein NE (2016) Commentary on: A randomized controlled trial of fusion surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis (Forsth P, Olafsson G, Carlsson T, Frost A, Borgstrom F, Fritzell P, et al. N Eng J Med 2016; 374:1414–23). Surg Neurol Int 7 (Suppl 25):S641–s643. https://doi.org/10.4103/2152-7806.191060
Fujimoto T, Taniwaki T, Tahata S, Nakamura T, Mizuta H (2015) Patient outcomes for a minimally invasive approach to treat lumbar spinal canal stenosis: Is microendoscopic or microscopic decompressive laminotomy the less invasive surgery? Clin Neurol Neurosurg 131:21–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2015.01.014
Goald HJ (1976) Microlumbar discectomy. Va Med 103(8):568–569
Goald HJ (1980) Microlumbar discectomy: follow-up of 477 patients. J Microsurg 2(2):95–100
Hatta Y, Shiraishi T, Sakamoto A, Yato Y, Harada T, Mikami Y, Hase H, Kubo T (2009) Muscle-preserving interlaminar decompression for the lumbar spine: a minimally invasive new procedure for lumbar spinal canal stenosis. Spine 34(8):E276–E280. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e318195d943
Heo DH, Lee DC, Park CK (2019) Comparative analysis of three types of minimally invasive decompressive surgery for lumbar central stenosis: biportal endoscopy, uniportal endoscopy, and microsurgery. Neurosurg Focus 46(5):E9. https://doi.org/10.3171/2019.2.focus197
Heo DH, Quillo-Olvera J, Park CK (2018) Can percutaneous biportal endoscopic surgery achieve enough canal decompression for degenerative lumbar stenosis? Prospective case-control study. World Neurosurg 120:e684–e689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2018.08.144
Kambin P, Casey K, O’Brien E, Zhou L (1996) Transforaminal arthroscopic decompression of lateral recess stenosis. J Neurosurg 84(3):462–467. https://doi.org/10.3171/jns.1996.84.3.0462
Kambin P, O’Brien E, Zhou L, Schaffer JL (1998) Arthroscopic microdiscectomy and selective fragmentectomy. Clin Orthop Relat Res 347:150–167
Kambin P, Sampson S (1986) Posterolateral percutaneous suction-excision of herniated lumbar intervertebral discs. Report of interim results. Clin Orthop Relat Res 207:37–43
Kambin P, Zhou L (1996) History and current status of percutaneous arthroscopic disc surgery. Spine 21(24 Suppl):57s–61s. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199612151-00006
Kang T, Park SY, Kang CH, Lee SH, Park JH, Suh SW (2019) Is biportal technique/endoscopic spinal surgery satisfactory for lumbar spinal stenosis patients? A prospective randomized comparative study. Medicine (US). https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000015451
Katz JN, Harris MB (2008) Clinical practice. Lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med 358(8):818–825. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmcp0708097
Komp M, Hahn P, Oezdemir S, Giannakopoulos A, Heikenfeld R, Kasch R, Merk H, Godolias G, Ruetten S (2015) Bilateral spinal decompression of lumbar central stenosis with the full-endoscopic interlaminar versus microsurgical laminotomy technique: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Pain Phys 18(1):61–70
Lee CW, Yoon KJ, Ha SS (2019) Comparative analysis between three different lumbar decompression techniques (microscopic, tubular, and endoscopic) in lumbar canal and lateral recess stenosis: preliminary report. Biomed Res Int 2019:6078469. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/6078469
Lee SH, Lee SJ, Park KH, Lee IM, Sung KH, Kim JS, Yoon SY (1996) Comparison of percutaneous manual and endoscopic laser diskectomy with chemonucleolysis and automated nucleotomy. Der Orthop 25(1):49–55
Mathews HH (1996) Transforaminal endoscopic microdiscectomy. Neurosurg Clin N Am 7(1):59–63
Mayer HM, Brock M (1993) Percutaneous endoscopic discectomy: surgical technique and preliminary results compared to microsurgical discectomy. J Neurosurg 78(2):216–225. https://doi.org/10.3171/jns.1993.78.2.0216
Min WK, Kim JE, Choi DJ, Park EJ, Heo J (2019) Clinical and radiological outcomes between biportal endoscopic decompression and microscopic decompression in lumbar spinal stenosis. J Orthop Sci. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jos.2019.05.022
Mobbs RJ, Li J, Sivabalan P, Raley D, Rao PJ (2014) 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 21(2):179–186. https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.4.spine13420
Palmer TM, Peter JL, Sutton AJ, Moreno SG (2018) Contour-enhanced funnel plots for meta-analysis. STATA J 8(2):242–254
Park SM, Park J, Jang HS, Heo YW, Han H, Kim HJ, Chang BS, Lee CK, Yeom JS (2019) Biportal endoscopic versus microscopic lumbar decompressive laminectomy in patients with spinal stenosis: a randomized controlled trial. Spine J Off J N Am Spine Soc. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2019.09.015
Peters JL, Sutton AJ, Jones DR, Abrams KR, Rushton L (2008) Contour-enhanced meta-analysis funnel plots help distinguish publication bias from other causes of asymmetry. J Clin Epidemiol 61(10):991–996
Polikandriotis JA, Hudak EM, Perry MW (2013) Minimally invasive surgery through endoscopic laminotomy and foraminotomy for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. J Orthop 10(1):13–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jor.2013.01.006
Ruetten S, Komp M, Godolias G (2005) An extreme lateral access for the surgery of lumbar disc herniations inside the spinal canal using the full-endoscopic uniportal transforaminal approach-technique and prospective results of 463 patients. Spine 30(22):2570–2578. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000186327.21435.cc
Ruetten S, Komp M, Merk H, Godolias G (2008) Full-endoscopic cervical posterior foraminotomy for the operation of lateral disc herniations using 5.9-mm endoscopes: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Spine 33(9):940–948. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0b013e31816c8b67
Ruetten S, Komp M, Merk H, Godolias G (2009) Surgical treatment for lumbar lateral recess stenosis with the full-endoscopic interlaminar approach versus conventional microsurgical technique: a prospective, randomized, controlled study—clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 10(5):476–485. https://doi.org/10.3171/2008.7.17634
Ruetten S, Komp U, Merk H, Godolias G (2007) A new full-endoscopic technique for cervical posterior foraminotomy in the treatment of lateral disc herniations using 6.9-mm endoscopes: prospective 2-year results of 87 patients. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 50(4):219–226. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2007-985860
Sairyo K, Sakai T, Higashino K, Inoue M, Yasui N, Dezawa A (2010) Complications of endoscopic lumbar decompression surgery. Minim Invasive Neurosurg MIN 53(4):175–178. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0030-1262814
Savitz MH (1994) Same-day microsurgical arthroscopic lateral-approach laser-assisted (SMALL) fluoroscopic discectomy. J Neurosurg 80(6):1039–1045. https://doi.org/10.3171/jns.1994.80.6.1039
StataCorp (2015) Stata statistical software: release 14. StataCorp LP, College Station
Uehara M, Takahashi J, Hashidate H, Mukaiyama K, Kuraishi S, Shimizu M, Ikegami S, Futatsugi T, Ogihara N, Hirabayashi H, Kato H (2014) Comparison of spinous process-splitting laminectomy versus conventional laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis. Asian Spine J 8(6):768–776. https://doi.org/10.4184/asj.2014.8.6.768
Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, Tosteson AN, Blood E, Hanscom B, Herkowitz H, Cammisa F, Albert T, Boden SD, Hilibrand A, Goldberg H, Berven S, An H (2008) Surgical versus nonsurgical therapy for lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med 358(8):794–810. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0707136
Wong AP, Smith ZA, Lall RR, Bresnahan LE, Fessler RG (2012) The microendoscopic decompression of lumbar stenosis: a review of the current literature and clinical results. Minim Invasive Surg 2012:325095. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/325095
Yeung AT, Tsou PM (2002) Posterolateral endoscopic excision for lumbar disc herniation: surgical technique, outcome, and complications in 307 consecutive cases. Spine 27(7):722–731. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200204010-00009
Acknowledgements
All authors declare no funding source or sponsor involvement in the study design, collection, analysis and interpretation of the data, in writing the manuscript and in submission of the manuscript for publication.
Funding
This study has no funding support.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
SP was responsible for the conception and design, collection and assembly of data, analysis and interpretation of the data, drafting of the manuscript and final approval of the article. JAM was responsible for the conception and design, collection and assembly of data, critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content and final approval of the article. JH was responsible for manuscript writing. AA was responsible for manuscript writing, critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual contents and final approval of the article. JK was responsible for the conception and design, collection and assembly of data, supervision of analysis and interpretation of the data, writing the manuscript, critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual contents, final approval of the article and statistical expertise.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interests.
Ethical standards
This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Appendices
Appendix 1
Search term and search strategy
#1 lumbar stenosis.
#2 micro.
#3 endoscopic.
#4 minimally invasive.
#5 lumbar decompression.
#6 lumbar laminectomy.
#7 lumbar spine surgery.
#8 #2 or #3 or #4.
#9 #5 or #6 or #7.
#10 #1 and #8 and #9.
Appendix 2
See Table 6.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pairuchvej, S., Muljadi, J.A., Ho, Jc. et al. 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 30, 595–611 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-019-02604-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-019-02604-2