Comparative Analysis of Non-Full and Full Endoscopic Spine Technique via Interlaminar Approach for the Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Retrospective, Single Institute, Propensity Score-Matched Study

• Published in: Global spine journal Vol. 13; no. 6; pp. 1509 - 1521
• Main Authors: Jiang, Qiang, Ding, Yu, Lu, Zhengcao, Cui, Hongpeng, Zhang, Jianjun, Fu, Bensheng, Du, Wei, Cao, Shiqi
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Los Angeles, CA SAGE Publications 01.07.2023; Sage Publications Ltd
• Subjects: Degenerative disc disease; Endoscopy; Original; Radiation; Spinal stenosis; non-full endoscopic spine technique; decompression; laminectomy; interlaminar; degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis; full endoscopic spine technique
• ISSN: 2192-5682; 2192-5690
• DOI: 10.1177/21925682211039181

Study Design: Retrospective study. Objective: To compare the clinical efficacy of posterior lumbar laminectomy decompression under full endoscopic technique (Endo-LOVE) and percutaneous endoscopic medial foraminal decompression (PE-MFD) in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS). Methods: Between April 2017 and April 2018, 96 patients with DLSS underwent Endo-LOVE or PE-MFD, including 58 with Endo-LOVE and 38 with PE-MFD. After propensity score matching (PSM), patient characteristics, operation time, intraoperative fluoroscopy times, postoperative bedridden time, hospital stay and postoperative complications were recorded and compared. The clinical efficacy was evaluated according to Oswestry disability index (ODI), visual analogue scale (VAS), lumbar disease JOA and modified MacNab criteria. Results: A total of 96 patients with DLSS were included in the study. After PSM, the 2 groups were comparable in patient demographic and baseline characteristics. The operation time and intraoperative fluoroscopy times in PE-MFD group were significantly more than those in Endo-LOVE group (P < .05). The operation time in PE-MFD group was significantly less than that in Endo-LOVE group (P < .05). The intraoperative fluoroscopy times in PE-MFD group were significantly more than that in Endo-LOVE group (P < .05). The ODI, VAS and lumbar disease JOA in the 2 groups were significantly improved comparing with those before operation (P < .05). According to the modified MacNab criteria, the excellent and good rates of the 2 groups were 93.5% in Endo-LOVE group and 87.1% in PE-MFD group (P > .05). Conclusion: Endo-LOVE and PE-MFD technique can both effectively treat DLSS, and the short-term follow-up results are positive. Endo-LOVE technique has the advantages of fast puncture positioning, less radiation exposure and wider indications. However, PE-MFD needs more radiation exposure and has the possibility of incomplete decompression for complex multiplanar spinal stenosis.