Is biportal technique/endoscopic spinal surgery satisfactory for lumbar spinal stenosis patients?: A prospective randomized comparative study

Taewook Kang; Si Young Park; Chun Hyung Kang; Soon Hyuck Lee; Jong Hoon Park; Seung Woo Suh

doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000015451

Is biportal technique/endoscopic spinal surgery satisfactory for lumbar spinal stenosis patients? A prospective randomized comparative study

Taewook Kang, Si Young Park, Chun Hyung Kang, Soon Hyuck Lee, Jong Hoon Park, Seung Woo Suh

Department of Biomedical Sciences

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

57 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background:Lumbar decompressive surgery is a standard surgical technique for lumbar spinal stenosis. Many new surgical techniques have been introduced, ranging from open surgery to minimally invasive procedures. Minimally invasive surgical techniques are preferred because patients experience less postoperative pain and shorter hospital stays. However, the success rate of minimally invasive techniques have been controversial. The object of this study was to assess the feasibility of spinal decompression using biportal technique/endoscopic surgery compared with microscopic surgery.Methods:Seventy lumbar spinal stenosis patients undergoing laminectomy were included in this study. A number table was used to randomize the patients into two groups: a biportal technique/endoscopic surgery group (BG-36) and a microscopic surgery group (OG-34). One surgeon performed either biportal technique/endoscopic decompression or microscopic decompression using a tubular retractor, depending on the group to which the patient was randomized. Perioperative data and clinical outcomes at postoperative 6 months were collected and analyzed.Results:The demographic data and level of surgery were comparable between the two groups. A shorter operation time (36±11 vs 54±9min), less hemovac drain output (25.5±15.8 vs 53.2±32.1ml), less opioid usage (2.3±0.6 vs 6.5±2.5 T) and shorter hospital stay (1.2±0.3 vs 3.5±0.8 days) were shown in BG. The BG experienced no significant differences in clinical outcomes compared with OG. Favorable clinical outcomes were shown at 6 months after surgery in both groups.Conclusion:Lumbar decompressive surgery using biportal technique/endoscopy showed favorable clinical outcomes, less pain and a shorter hospital stay compared to microscopic surgery in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.

Original language	English
Article number	e15451
Journal	Medicine (United States)
Volume	98
Issue number	18
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000015451
Publication status	Published - 2019 May 1

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
The authors thank Korea University Research Fund (K1132311). The authors have no conflicts of interests to disclose. Department of Orthopaedics, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea. ∗Correspondence: Si Young Park, Department of Orthopaedics, Korea University College of Medicine, Anam Hospital, Inchonro 73, Seongbukgu, Seoul 02841, Republic of Korea (e-mail: drspine90@kumc.or.kr). Copyright © 2019 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial License 4.0 (CCBY-NC), where it is permissible to download, share, remix, transform, and buildup the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be used commercially without permission from the journal. Medicine (2019) 98:18(e15451) Received: 6 August 2018 / Received in final form: 27 February 2019 / Accepted: 7 April 2019 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000015451

Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.

Keywords

biportal technique/endoscopic spinal surgery
decompression
lumbar spinal stenosis
microscopic surgery

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Medicine(all)

Access to Document

10.1097/MD.0000000000015451

Cite this

@article{9d99e722070e43f5a4b1ae5da0210fc5,

title = "Is biportal technique/endoscopic spinal surgery satisfactory for lumbar spinal stenosis patients?: A prospective randomized comparative study",

abstract = "Background:Lumbar decompressive surgery is a standard surgical technique for lumbar spinal stenosis. Many new surgical techniques have been introduced, ranging from open surgery to minimally invasive procedures. Minimally invasive surgical techniques are preferred because patients experience less postoperative pain and shorter hospital stays. However, the success rate of minimally invasive techniques have been controversial. The object of this study was to assess the feasibility of spinal decompression using biportal technique/endoscopic surgery compared with microscopic surgery.Methods:Seventy lumbar spinal stenosis patients undergoing laminectomy were included in this study. A number table was used to randomize the patients into two groups: a biportal technique/endoscopic surgery group (BG-36) and a microscopic surgery group (OG-34). One surgeon performed either biportal technique/endoscopic decompression or microscopic decompression using a tubular retractor, depending on the group to which the patient was randomized. Perioperative data and clinical outcomes at postoperative 6 months were collected and analyzed.Results:The demographic data and level of surgery were comparable between the two groups. A shorter operation time (36±11 vs 54±9min), less hemovac drain output (25.5±15.8 vs 53.2±32.1ml), less opioid usage (2.3±0.6 vs 6.5±2.5 T) and shorter hospital stay (1.2±0.3 vs 3.5±0.8 days) were shown in BG. The BG experienced no significant differences in clinical outcomes compared with OG. Favorable clinical outcomes were shown at 6 months after surgery in both groups.Conclusion:Lumbar decompressive surgery using biportal technique/endoscopy showed favorable clinical outcomes, less pain and a shorter hospital stay compared to microscopic surgery in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.",

keywords = "biportal technique/endoscopic spinal surgery, decompression, lumbar spinal stenosis, microscopic surgery",

author = "Taewook Kang and Park, {Si Young} and Kang, {Chun Hyung} and Lee, {Soon Hyuck} and Park, {Jong Hoon} and Suh, {Seung Woo}",

note = "Funding Information: The authors thank Korea University Research Fund (K1132311). The authors have no conflicts of interests to disclose. Department of Orthopaedics, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea. ∗Correspondence: Si Young Park, Department of Orthopaedics, Korea University College of Medicine, Anam Hospital, Inchonro 73, Seongbukgu, Seoul 02841, Republic of Korea (e-mail: drspine90@kumc.or.kr). Copyright {\textcopyright} 2019 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial License 4.0 (CCBY-NC), where it is permissible to download, share, remix, transform, and buildup the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be used commercially without permission from the journal. Medicine (2019) 98:18(e15451) Received: 6 August 2018 / Received in final form: 27 February 2019 / Accepted: 7 April 2019 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000015451 Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2019 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.",

year = "2019",

month = may,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1097/MD.0000000000015451",

language = "English",

volume = "98",

journal = "Medicine (United States)",

issn = "0025-7974",

publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",

number = "18",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Is biportal technique/endoscopic spinal surgery satisfactory for lumbar spinal stenosis patients?

T2 - A prospective randomized comparative study

AU - Kang, Taewook

AU - Park, Si Young

AU - Kang, Chun Hyung

AU - Lee, Soon Hyuck

AU - Park, Jong Hoon

AU - Suh, Seung Woo

N1 - Funding Information: The authors thank Korea University Research Fund (K1132311). The authors have no conflicts of interests to disclose. Department of Orthopaedics, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea. ∗Correspondence: Si Young Park, Department of Orthopaedics, Korea University College of Medicine, Anam Hospital, Inchonro 73, Seongbukgu, Seoul 02841, Republic of Korea (e-mail: drspine90@kumc.or.kr). Copyright © 2019 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial License 4.0 (CCBY-NC), where it is permissible to download, share, remix, transform, and buildup the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be used commercially without permission from the journal. Medicine (2019) 98:18(e15451) Received: 6 August 2018 / Received in final form: 27 February 2019 / Accepted: 7 April 2019 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000015451 Publisher Copyright: © 2019 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.

PY - 2019/5/1

Y1 - 2019/5/1

N2 - Background:Lumbar decompressive surgery is a standard surgical technique for lumbar spinal stenosis. Many new surgical techniques have been introduced, ranging from open surgery to minimally invasive procedures. Minimally invasive surgical techniques are preferred because patients experience less postoperative pain and shorter hospital stays. However, the success rate of minimally invasive techniques have been controversial. The object of this study was to assess the feasibility of spinal decompression using biportal technique/endoscopic surgery compared with microscopic surgery.Methods:Seventy lumbar spinal stenosis patients undergoing laminectomy were included in this study. A number table was used to randomize the patients into two groups: a biportal technique/endoscopic surgery group (BG-36) and a microscopic surgery group (OG-34). One surgeon performed either biportal technique/endoscopic decompression or microscopic decompression using a tubular retractor, depending on the group to which the patient was randomized. Perioperative data and clinical outcomes at postoperative 6 months were collected and analyzed.Results:The demographic data and level of surgery were comparable between the two groups. A shorter operation time (36±11 vs 54±9min), less hemovac drain output (25.5±15.8 vs 53.2±32.1ml), less opioid usage (2.3±0.6 vs 6.5±2.5 T) and shorter hospital stay (1.2±0.3 vs 3.5±0.8 days) were shown in BG. The BG experienced no significant differences in clinical outcomes compared with OG. Favorable clinical outcomes were shown at 6 months after surgery in both groups.Conclusion:Lumbar decompressive surgery using biportal technique/endoscopy showed favorable clinical outcomes, less pain and a shorter hospital stay compared to microscopic surgery in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.

AB - Background:Lumbar decompressive surgery is a standard surgical technique for lumbar spinal stenosis. Many new surgical techniques have been introduced, ranging from open surgery to minimally invasive procedures. Minimally invasive surgical techniques are preferred because patients experience less postoperative pain and shorter hospital stays. However, the success rate of minimally invasive techniques have been controversial. The object of this study was to assess the feasibility of spinal decompression using biportal technique/endoscopic surgery compared with microscopic surgery.Methods:Seventy lumbar spinal stenosis patients undergoing laminectomy were included in this study. A number table was used to randomize the patients into two groups: a biportal technique/endoscopic surgery group (BG-36) and a microscopic surgery group (OG-34). One surgeon performed either biportal technique/endoscopic decompression or microscopic decompression using a tubular retractor, depending on the group to which the patient was randomized. Perioperative data and clinical outcomes at postoperative 6 months were collected and analyzed.Results:The demographic data and level of surgery were comparable between the two groups. A shorter operation time (36±11 vs 54±9min), less hemovac drain output (25.5±15.8 vs 53.2±32.1ml), less opioid usage (2.3±0.6 vs 6.5±2.5 T) and shorter hospital stay (1.2±0.3 vs 3.5±0.8 days) were shown in BG. The BG experienced no significant differences in clinical outcomes compared with OG. Favorable clinical outcomes were shown at 6 months after surgery in both groups.Conclusion:Lumbar decompressive surgery using biportal technique/endoscopy showed favorable clinical outcomes, less pain and a shorter hospital stay compared to microscopic surgery in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.

KW - biportal technique/endoscopic spinal surgery

KW - decompression

KW - lumbar spinal stenosis

KW - microscopic surgery

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85065518937&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/MD.0000000000015451

DO - 10.1097/MD.0000000000015451

M3 - Article

C2 - 31045817

AN - SCOPUS:85065518937

SN - 0025-7974

VL - 98

JO - Medicine (United States)

JF - Medicine (United States)

IS - 18

M1 - e15451

ER -