Cargando…
Comparison of 3 Different Minimally Invasive Surgical Techniques for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Randomized Clinical Trial
IMPORTANCE: Operations for lumbar spinal stenosis is the most often performed surgical procedure in the adult lumbar spine. This study reports the clinical outcome of the 3 most commonly used minimally invasive posterior decompression techniques. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of 3 minimall...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
American Medical Association
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8961320/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35344046 http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.4291 |
_version_ | 1784677572320165888 |
---|---|
author | Hermansen, Erland Austevoll, Ivar Magne Hellum, Christian Storheim, Kjersti Myklebust, Tor Åge Aaen, Jørn Banitalebi, Hasan Anvar, Masoud Rekeland, Frode Brox, Jens Ivar Franssen, Eric Weber, Clemens Solberg, Tore K. Furunes, Håvard Grundnes, Oliver Brisby, Helena Indrekvam, Kari |
author_facet | Hermansen, Erland Austevoll, Ivar Magne Hellum, Christian Storheim, Kjersti Myklebust, Tor Åge Aaen, Jørn Banitalebi, Hasan Anvar, Masoud Rekeland, Frode Brox, Jens Ivar Franssen, Eric Weber, Clemens Solberg, Tore K. Furunes, Håvard Grundnes, Oliver Brisby, Helena Indrekvam, Kari |
author_sort | Hermansen, Erland |
collection | PubMed |
description | IMPORTANCE: Operations for lumbar spinal stenosis is the most often performed surgical procedure in the adult lumbar spine. This study reports the clinical outcome of the 3 most commonly used minimally invasive posterior decompression techniques. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of 3 minimally invasive posterior decompression techniques for lumbar spinal stenosis. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This randomized clinical trial used a parallel group design and included patients with symptomatic and radiologically verified lumbar spinal stenosis without degenerative spondylolisthesis. Patients were enrolled between February 2014 and October 2018 at the orthopedic and neurosurgical departments of 16 Norwegian public hospitals. Statistical analysis was performed in the period from May to June 2021. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to undergo 1 of the 3 minimally invasive posterior decompression techniques: unilateral laminotomy with crossover, bilateral laminotomy, and spinous process osteotomy. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Primary outcome was change in disability measured with Oswestry Disability Index (ODI; range 0-100), presented as mean change from baseline to 2-year follow-up and proportions of patients classified as success (>30% reduction in ODI). Secondary outcomes were mean change in quality of life, disease-specific symptom severity measured with Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ), back pain and leg pain on a 10-point numeric rating score (NRS), patient perceived benefit of the surgical procedure, duration of the surgical procedure, blood loss, perioperative complications, number of reoperations, and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: In total, 437 patients were included with a median (IQR) age of 68 (62-73) years and 230 men (53%). Of the included patients, 146 were randomized to unilateral laminotomy with crossover, 142 to bilateral laminotomy, and 149 to spinous process osteotomy. The unilateral laminotomy with crossover group had a mean change of −17.9 ODI points (95% CI, −20.8 to −14.9), the bilateral laminotomy group had a mean change of −19.7 ODI points (95% CI, −22.7 to −16.8), and the spinous process osteotomy group had a mean change of –19.9 ODI points (95% CI, −22.8 to –17.0). There were no significant differences in primary or secondary outcomes among the 3 surgical procedures, except a longer duration of the surgical procedure in the bilateral laminotomy group. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: No differences in clinical outcomes or complication rates were found among the 3 minimally invasive posterior decompression techniques used to treat patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02007083 |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8961320 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | American Medical Association |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-89613202022-04-11 Comparison of 3 Different Minimally Invasive Surgical Techniques for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Randomized Clinical Trial Hermansen, Erland Austevoll, Ivar Magne Hellum, Christian Storheim, Kjersti Myklebust, Tor Åge Aaen, Jørn Banitalebi, Hasan Anvar, Masoud Rekeland, Frode Brox, Jens Ivar Franssen, Eric Weber, Clemens Solberg, Tore K. Furunes, Håvard Grundnes, Oliver Brisby, Helena Indrekvam, Kari JAMA Netw Open Original Investigation IMPORTANCE: Operations for lumbar spinal stenosis is the most often performed surgical procedure in the adult lumbar spine. This study reports the clinical outcome of the 3 most commonly used minimally invasive posterior decompression techniques. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of 3 minimally invasive posterior decompression techniques for lumbar spinal stenosis. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This randomized clinical trial used a parallel group design and included patients with symptomatic and radiologically verified lumbar spinal stenosis without degenerative spondylolisthesis. Patients were enrolled between February 2014 and October 2018 at the orthopedic and neurosurgical departments of 16 Norwegian public hospitals. Statistical analysis was performed in the period from May to June 2021. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to undergo 1 of the 3 minimally invasive posterior decompression techniques: unilateral laminotomy with crossover, bilateral laminotomy, and spinous process osteotomy. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Primary outcome was change in disability measured with Oswestry Disability Index (ODI; range 0-100), presented as mean change from baseline to 2-year follow-up and proportions of patients classified as success (>30% reduction in ODI). Secondary outcomes were mean change in quality of life, disease-specific symptom severity measured with Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ), back pain and leg pain on a 10-point numeric rating score (NRS), patient perceived benefit of the surgical procedure, duration of the surgical procedure, blood loss, perioperative complications, number of reoperations, and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: In total, 437 patients were included with a median (IQR) age of 68 (62-73) years and 230 men (53%). Of the included patients, 146 were randomized to unilateral laminotomy with crossover, 142 to bilateral laminotomy, and 149 to spinous process osteotomy. The unilateral laminotomy with crossover group had a mean change of −17.9 ODI points (95% CI, −20.8 to −14.9), the bilateral laminotomy group had a mean change of −19.7 ODI points (95% CI, −22.7 to −16.8), and the spinous process osteotomy group had a mean change of –19.9 ODI points (95% CI, −22.8 to –17.0). There were no significant differences in primary or secondary outcomes among the 3 surgical procedures, except a longer duration of the surgical procedure in the bilateral laminotomy group. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: No differences in clinical outcomes or complication rates were found among the 3 minimally invasive posterior decompression techniques used to treat patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02007083 American Medical Association 2022-03-28 /pmc/articles/PMC8961320/ /pubmed/35344046 http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.4291 Text en Copyright 2022 Hermansen E et al. JAMA Network Open. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. |
spellingShingle | Original Investigation Hermansen, Erland Austevoll, Ivar Magne Hellum, Christian Storheim, Kjersti Myklebust, Tor Åge Aaen, Jørn Banitalebi, Hasan Anvar, Masoud Rekeland, Frode Brox, Jens Ivar Franssen, Eric Weber, Clemens Solberg, Tore K. Furunes, Håvard Grundnes, Oliver Brisby, Helena Indrekvam, Kari Comparison of 3 Different Minimally Invasive Surgical Techniques for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Randomized Clinical Trial |
title | Comparison of 3 Different Minimally Invasive Surgical Techniques for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Randomized Clinical Trial |
title_full | Comparison of 3 Different Minimally Invasive Surgical Techniques for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Randomized Clinical Trial |
title_fullStr | Comparison of 3 Different Minimally Invasive Surgical Techniques for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Randomized Clinical Trial |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of 3 Different Minimally Invasive Surgical Techniques for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Randomized Clinical Trial |
title_short | Comparison of 3 Different Minimally Invasive Surgical Techniques for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Randomized Clinical Trial |
title_sort | comparison of 3 different minimally invasive surgical techniques for lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized clinical trial |
topic | Original Investigation |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8961320/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35344046 http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.4291 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT hermansenerland comparisonof3differentminimallyinvasivesurgicaltechniquesforlumbarspinalstenosisarandomizedclinicaltrial AT austevollivarmagne comparisonof3differentminimallyinvasivesurgicaltechniquesforlumbarspinalstenosisarandomizedclinicaltrial AT hellumchristian comparisonof3differentminimallyinvasivesurgicaltechniquesforlumbarspinalstenosisarandomizedclinicaltrial AT storheimkjersti comparisonof3differentminimallyinvasivesurgicaltechniquesforlumbarspinalstenosisarandomizedclinicaltrial AT myklebusttorage comparisonof3differentminimallyinvasivesurgicaltechniquesforlumbarspinalstenosisarandomizedclinicaltrial AT aaenjørn comparisonof3differentminimallyinvasivesurgicaltechniquesforlumbarspinalstenosisarandomizedclinicaltrial AT banitalebihasan comparisonof3differentminimallyinvasivesurgicaltechniquesforlumbarspinalstenosisarandomizedclinicaltrial AT anvarmasoud comparisonof3differentminimallyinvasivesurgicaltechniquesforlumbarspinalstenosisarandomizedclinicaltrial AT rekelandfrode comparisonof3differentminimallyinvasivesurgicaltechniquesforlumbarspinalstenosisarandomizedclinicaltrial AT broxjensivar comparisonof3differentminimallyinvasivesurgicaltechniquesforlumbarspinalstenosisarandomizedclinicaltrial AT fransseneric comparisonof3differentminimallyinvasivesurgicaltechniquesforlumbarspinalstenosisarandomizedclinicaltrial AT weberclemens comparisonof3differentminimallyinvasivesurgicaltechniquesforlumbarspinalstenosisarandomizedclinicaltrial AT solbergtorek comparisonof3differentminimallyinvasivesurgicaltechniquesforlumbarspinalstenosisarandomizedclinicaltrial AT furuneshavard comparisonof3differentminimallyinvasivesurgicaltechniquesforlumbarspinalstenosisarandomizedclinicaltrial AT grundnesoliver comparisonof3differentminimallyinvasivesurgicaltechniquesforlumbarspinalstenosisarandomizedclinicaltrial AT brisbyhelena comparisonof3differentminimallyinvasivesurgicaltechniquesforlumbarspinalstenosisarandomizedclinicaltrial AT indrekvamkari comparisonof3differentminimallyinvasivesurgicaltechniquesforlumbarspinalstenosisarandomizedclinicaltrial |