Endoscopic and microsurgical decompression for central lumbar spinal stenosis

Objective. To perform comparative analysis of the results of endoscopic and microsurgical decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis.

Material and Methods. Design: Retrospective monocentric intra-cohort comparison of two groups of patients. The study included 99 patients aged 51–88 years with clinically significant lumbar spinal stenosis manifested by neurogenic intermittent claudication syndrome. Endoscopic decompression was performed in 51 patients, and microsurgical decompression – in 48 patients. To objectify and standardize clinical symptoms, walking distance in meters, pain syndrome and quality of life were assessed before and after surgery using standard scales and questionnaires (VAS, ODI). On the first day after surgery, back and lower limb pain were assessed, and during the observation period back and lower limb pain, quality of life and walking distance were assessed. Functional lumbar radiography was performed to exclude instability of the spinal motion segment. Using MRI, the cross-sectional area of the dural sac at the level of stenosis was measured before and after surgery. Clinical efficacy was assessed using the MCID (Minimal Clinical Important Difference) criterion. The results of the operation were followed-up for 12 months after the operation.

Results. Blood loss in the endoscopic intervention group was less than in the microsurgical group. Pain in the lumbar spine and in the lower extremities decreased, and the cross-sectional area of the dural sac increased. In the first days after surgery, patients after endoscopic decompression had less severe back and lower extremity pain than patients after microsurgical decompression due to less soft tissue trauma. Pain syndrome in back 10–12 months after surgery was without statistically significant difference between the groups. Patients after endoscopic decompression had statistically significantly better quality of life according to ODI, lesser pain in the lower extremities according to VAS and longer walking distance than those in the microsurgical decompression group. Surgical treatment in both groups turned out to be effective, which is confirmed by MCID. The time of endoscopic intervention is significantly longer than that of microsurgical intervention. The length of the incision during endoscopic decompression is shorter than that of microsurgical decompression.

Conclusion. A comparative analysis of the results of endoscopic and microsurgical decompression for degenerative central lumbar stenosis showed comparable effectiveness of both methods, including an increase in the spinal canal dimension and ensuring regression of clinical symptoms. The results of the comparison do not allow making a sufficiently substantiated judgment on the advantages of one of the methods, which dictates the need for further research.

1. Staats PS, Chafin TB, Golovac S, Kim CK, Li S, Richardson WB, Vallejo R, Wahezi SE, Washabaugh EP 3rd, Benyamin RM. Long-term safety and efficacy of minimally invasive lumbar decompression procedure for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication: 2-year results of MiDAS ENCORE. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2018;43:789–794. DOI: 10.1097/AAP.0000000000000868.

2. Lurie J, Tomkins-Lane C. Management of lumbar spinal stenosis. BMJ. 2016;352:h6234. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.h6234.

3. Hughes A, Makirov SK, Osadchiy V. Measuring spinal canal size in lumbar spinal stenosis: description of method and preliminary results. Int J Spine Surg. 2015;9:3. DOI: 10.14444/2008.

4. Mamisch N, Brumann M, Hodler J, Held U, Brunner F, Steurer J. Radiologic criteria for the diagnosis of spinal stenosis: results of a Delphi survey. Radiology. 2012;264:174–179. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.12111930.

5. Холодов С.А. Алгоритмы хирургической техники декомпрессии невральных образований при дегенеративных заболеваниях поясничного отдела позвоночника. Нейрохирургия. 2015. № 1. С. 67–74. [Kholodov SA. The surgical technique algorithms for neural structures decompression in case of lumbar degenerative diseases. Russian journal of neurosurgery. 2015;(1):67–74].

6. Ahmed SI, Javed G, Bareeqa SB, Shah A, Zubair M, Avedia RF, Rahman N, Samar SS, Aziz K. Comparison of decompression alone versus decompression with fusion for stenotic lumbar spine: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cureus. 2018;10:e3135. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.3135.

7. Chang F, Zhang T, Gao G, Ding S, Su Y, Li L, Zuo G, Chen B, Wang X, Yu C. Comparison of the minimally invasive and conventional open surgery approach in the treatment of lumbar stenosis: a systematic review and a meta-analysis. Ann Acad Med Singap. 2017;46:124–137.

8. Forsth P, Svedmark P, Noz ME, Maguire GQ Jr, Zeleznik MP, Sanden B. Motion analysis in lumbar spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis: a feasibility study of the 3DCT technique comparing laminectomy versus bilateral laminotomy. Clin Spine Surg. 2018;31:E397–E402. DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000677.

9. Ulrich NH, Burgstaller JM, Gravestock I, Pichierri G, Wertli MM, Steurer J, Farshad M, Porchet F. Outcome of unilateral versus standard open midline approach for bilateral decompression in lumbar spinal stenosis: is “over the top” really better? A Swiss prospective multicenter cohort study. J Neurosurg Spine. 2019;31:236–245. DOI: 10.3171/2019.2.SPINE181309.

10. Song Q, Zhu B, Zhao W, Liang C, Hai B, Liu X. Full-endoscopic lumbar decompression versus open decompression and fusion surgery for the lumbar spinal stenosis: a 3-year follow-up study. J Pain Res. 2021;14:1331–1338. DOI: 10.2147/JPR.S309693.

11. Wu B, Xiong C, Tan L, Zhao D, Xu F, Kang H. Clinical outcomes of MED and iLESSYS® Delta for the treatment of lumbar central spinal stenosis and lateral recess stenosis: A comparison study. Exp Ther Med. 2020;20:252. DOI: 10.3892/etm.2020.9382.

12. Xue J, Chen H, Zhu B, Li X, Ouyang Z, Li S, Xu Z, Xie Y, Yan Y. Percutaneous spinal endoscopy with unilateral interlaminar approach to perform bilateral decompression for central lumbar spinal stenosis: radiographic and clinical assessment. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2021;22:236. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-021-04100-3.

13. Zhang JJ, Zhou CL, Sun C, Xu DR, Bao M, Liu Y. Clinical efficacy study of the quadrant channel and delta large channel technique in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases. Int J Gen Med. 2021;14:2437–2447. DOI: 10.2147/IJGM.S309272.

14. Zhou H, Wang X, Chen Z, Liu W, Luo J. Unilateral biportal endoscopy versus microscopic decompression in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: A meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2023;102:e32756. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000032756.

15. Schizas C, Theumann N, Burn A, Tansey R, Wardlaw D, Smith FW, Kulik G. Qualitative grading of severity of lumbar spinal stenosis based on the morphology of the dural sac on magnetic resonance images. Spine. 2010;35:1919–1924. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181d359bd.

16. Carreon LY, Bratcher KR, Canan CE, Burke LO, Djurasovic M, Glassman SD. Differentiating minimum clinically important difference for primary and revision lumbar fusion surgeries. J Neurosurg Spine. 2013;18:102–106. DOI: 10.3171/2012.10.SPINE12727.

17. Copay AG, Glassman SD, Subach BR, Berven S, Schuler TC, Carreon LY. Minimum clinically important difference in lumbar spine surgery patients: a choice of methods using the Oswestry Disability Index, Medical Outcomes Study questionnaire Short Form 36, and pain scales. Spine J. 2008;8:968–974. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2007.11.006.

18. Макиров С.К., Осадчий В.А., Юз А.А. Методика оценки степени сужения позвоночного канала при поясничном спинальном стенозе // Хирургия позвоночника. 2014. № 4. С. 57–64. [Makirov SK, Osadchy VA, Yuz AA. Assessment of the degree of spinal canal narrowing in lumbar spinal stenosis. Russian Journal of Spine Surgery (Khirurgiya Pozvonochnika). 2014;(4):57–64]. DOI: 10.14531/ss2014.4.57-64.

19. Леонова О.Н., Байков Е.С., Крутько А.В. Минимальная клинически значимая разница как способ оценки эффективности лечения в хирургии позвоночника по шкалам и опросникам: несистематический обзор литературы // Хирургия позвоночника. 2022. Т. 19. № 4. С. 60–67. [Leonova ON, Baikov ES, Krutko AV. Minimal clinically important difference as a method for assessing the effectiveness of spinal surgery using scales and questionnaires: non-systematic literature review. Russian Journal of Spine Surgery (Khirurgiya Pozvonochnika). 2022;19(4):60–67]. DOI: 10.14531/ss2022.4.60-67.

20. Steurer J, Roner S, Gnannt R, Hodler J, LumbSten Research Collaboration. Quantitative radiologic criteria for the diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic literature review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011;12:175. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2474-12-175.

21. Ahn Y. Current techniques of endoscopic decompression in spine surgery. Ann Transl Med. 2019;7(Suppl 5):S169. DOI: 10.21037/atm.2019.07.98.

22. 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;10:476–485. DOI: 10.3171/2008.7.17634.

23. Perez-Roman RJ, Gaztanaga W, Lu VM, Wang MY. Endoscopic decompression for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. J Neurosurg Spine. 2021;36:549–557. DOI: 10.3171/2021.8.SPINE21890.

24. 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;30:491–499. DOI: 10.3171/2018.9.SPINE18689.

25. Komp M, Hahn P, Oezdemir S, Giannakopoulos A, Heikenfeld R, Kasch R, Merk H, Godolias G, Ruetten S. Bilateral spinal decompression of lumbar central stenosis with the full-endoscopic interlaminar versus microsurgical laminotomy technique: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Pain Physician. 2015;18:61–70. DOI: 10.36076/ppj/2015.18.61.

26. Abbas J, Hamoud K, May H, Hay O, Medlej B, Masharawi Y, Peled N, Hershkovitz I. Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis and lumbar spine configuration. Eur Spine J. 2010;19:1865–1873. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-010-1516-5.

27. Panjabi MM, Goel V, Oxland T, Takata K, Duranceau J, Krag M, Price M. Human lumbar vertebrae. Quantitative three-dimensional anatomy. Spine. 1992;17:299–306. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199203000-00010.

28. Panjeton GD, Brown HL, Searcy S, Meroney M, Kumar S. Endoscopic spinal decompression: a retrospective review of pain outcomes at an academic medical center. Cureus. 2021;13:e19112. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.19112.

29. Hahn BS, Park JY. Incorporating new technologies to overcome the limitations of endoscopic spine surgery: navigation, robotics, and visualization. World Neurosurg. 2021;145:712–721. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2020.06.188.