Cargando…

Biportal endoscopic decompression vs. microscopic decompression for lumbar canal stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Lumbar decompressive surgery is the gold standard treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis. Minimally invasive surgical techniques have been introduced with the aim of reducing the morbidity associated with open surgery. The purpose of the present study was to systematically search the literature and pe...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chen, Tiewu, Zhou, Guoqing, Chen, Zhineng, Yao, Xinmiao, Liu, Dan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: D.A. Spandidos 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7401848/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32765769
http://dx.doi.org/10.3892/etm.2020.9001
_version_ 1783566643307216896
author Chen, Tiewu
Zhou, Guoqing
Chen, Zhineng
Yao, Xinmiao
Liu, Dan
author_facet Chen, Tiewu
Zhou, Guoqing
Chen, Zhineng
Yao, Xinmiao
Liu, Dan
author_sort Chen, Tiewu
collection PubMed
description Lumbar decompressive surgery is the gold standard treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis. Minimally invasive surgical techniques have been introduced with the aim of reducing the morbidity associated with open surgery. The purpose of the present study was to systematically search the literature and perform a meta-analysis of studies comparing the outcomes between biportal endoscopic technique and microscopic technique for lumbar canal stenosis decompression. A comprehensive search of the PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science, Embase and the Cochrane Library databases was performed to identify relevant articles up to 15th of December 2019. Eligible studies were retrieved, data were extracted by two authors independently and risks of bias were assessed. A total of six studies involving 438 patients were selected for review. The results of the pooled analysis indicated similar operative times [mean difference (MD), -3.41; 95% CI, -10.78-3.96; P<0.36], similar complications (MD, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.33-1.46; P=0.34), similar visual analogue scale scores for back and leg pain at the time of the final follow-up and similar Oswestry disability indexes (MD, -0.28; 95% CI, -1.25-0.69; P=0.58) for the two procedures. In conclusion, biportal endoscopic technique is a viable alternative to microscopic technique for lumbar canal stenosis decompression with similar operative time, clinical outcomes and complications.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7401848
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher D.A. Spandidos
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-74018482020-08-05 Biportal endoscopic decompression vs. microscopic decompression for lumbar canal stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis Chen, Tiewu Zhou, Guoqing Chen, Zhineng Yao, Xinmiao Liu, Dan Exp Ther Med Articles Lumbar decompressive surgery is the gold standard treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis. Minimally invasive surgical techniques have been introduced with the aim of reducing the morbidity associated with open surgery. The purpose of the present study was to systematically search the literature and perform a meta-analysis of studies comparing the outcomes between biportal endoscopic technique and microscopic technique for lumbar canal stenosis decompression. A comprehensive search of the PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science, Embase and the Cochrane Library databases was performed to identify relevant articles up to 15th of December 2019. Eligible studies were retrieved, data were extracted by two authors independently and risks of bias were assessed. A total of six studies involving 438 patients were selected for review. The results of the pooled analysis indicated similar operative times [mean difference (MD), -3.41; 95% CI, -10.78-3.96; P<0.36], similar complications (MD, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.33-1.46; P=0.34), similar visual analogue scale scores for back and leg pain at the time of the final follow-up and similar Oswestry disability indexes (MD, -0.28; 95% CI, -1.25-0.69; P=0.58) for the two procedures. In conclusion, biportal endoscopic technique is a viable alternative to microscopic technique for lumbar canal stenosis decompression with similar operative time, clinical outcomes and complications. D.A. Spandidos 2020-09 2020-07-13 /pmc/articles/PMC7401848/ /pubmed/32765769 http://dx.doi.org/10.3892/etm.2020.9001 Text en Copyright: © Chen et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) , which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Articles
Chen, Tiewu
Zhou, Guoqing
Chen, Zhineng
Yao, Xinmiao
Liu, Dan
Biportal endoscopic decompression vs. microscopic decompression for lumbar canal stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title Biportal endoscopic decompression vs. microscopic decompression for lumbar canal stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Biportal endoscopic decompression vs. microscopic decompression for lumbar canal stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Biportal endoscopic decompression vs. microscopic decompression for lumbar canal stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Biportal endoscopic decompression vs. microscopic decompression for lumbar canal stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Biportal endoscopic decompression vs. microscopic decompression for lumbar canal stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort biportal endoscopic decompression vs. microscopic decompression for lumbar canal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7401848/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32765769
http://dx.doi.org/10.3892/etm.2020.9001
work_keys_str_mv AT chentiewu biportalendoscopicdecompressionvsmicroscopicdecompressionforlumbarcanalstenosisasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT zhouguoqing biportalendoscopicdecompressionvsmicroscopicdecompressionforlumbarcanalstenosisasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT chenzhineng biportalendoscopicdecompressionvsmicroscopicdecompressionforlumbarcanalstenosisasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT yaoxinmiao biportalendoscopicdecompressionvsmicroscopicdecompressionforlumbarcanalstenosisasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT liudan biportalendoscopicdecompressionvsmicroscopicdecompressionforlumbarcanalstenosisasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis