Cargando…
The effectiveness of percutaneous endoscopic decompression compared with open decompression and fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis: protocol for a multicenter, prospective, cohort study
BACKGROUND: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is one of the most frequent indications for spine surgery. Open decompression and fusion surgery was the most common treatment and used to be regarded as the golden standard treatment for LSS. In recent years, percutaneous endoscopic decompression surgery was...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9137062/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35624443 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-022-05440-4 |
_version_ | 1784714298971389952 |
---|---|
author | Zhai, Shuheng Zhao, Wenkui Zhu, Bin Huang, Xin Liang, Chen Hai, Bao Ding, Lixiang Zhu, Hongwei Wang, Xianhai Wei, Feng Chu, Hongling Liu, Xiaoguang |
author_facet | Zhai, Shuheng Zhao, Wenkui Zhu, Bin Huang, Xin Liang, Chen Hai, Bao Ding, Lixiang Zhu, Hongwei Wang, Xianhai Wei, Feng Chu, Hongling Liu, Xiaoguang |
author_sort | Zhai, Shuheng |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is one of the most frequent indications for spine surgery. Open decompression and fusion surgery was the most common treatment and used to be regarded as the golden standard treatment for LSS. In recent years, percutaneous endoscopic decompression surgery was also used for LSS. However, the effectiveness and safety of percutaneous endoscopic decompression in the treatment of LSS have not been supported by high-level evidence. Our aim is to 1) compare the effectiveness of percutaneous endoscopic decompression surgery and open decompression and fusion for the treatment of LSS. 2) Investigate the prognosis risk factors for LSS. 3) Evaluate the influence of percutaneous endoscopic decompression for the stability of operative level, and degeneration of adjacent level. METHODS: It’s a prospective, multicenter cohort study. The study is performed at 4 centers in Beijing. This study plans to enroll 600 LSS patients (300 patients in the percutaneous endoscopic decompression group, and 300 patients in the open decompression and fusion group). The demographic variables, healthcare variables, symptom related variables, clinical assessment (Visual analogue score (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), Japanese Orthopaedic Association score (JOA)), and radiological assessment (dynamic X-ray, CT, MRI) will be collected at baseline visit. Patients will follow up at 3, 6, 12 months. The primary outcome is the difference of improvement of ODI between baseline and 12-month follow-up between the two groups. The secondary outcome is the score changes of preoperative and postoperative VAS, the recovery rate of JOA, MacNab criteria, patient satisfaction, degeneration grade of adjacent level, ROM of operative level and adjacent level, complication rate. DISCUSSION: In this study, we propose to conduct a prospective registry study to address the major controversies of LSS decompression under percutaneous spinal endoscopy, and investigate the clinical efficacy and safety of percutaneous endoscopic decompression and open decompression in the treatment of LSS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study has been registered on clinicaltrials.gov in January 15, 2020 (NCT04254757). (SPIRIT 2a). |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9137062 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-91370622022-05-28 The effectiveness of percutaneous endoscopic decompression compared with open decompression and fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis: protocol for a multicenter, prospective, cohort study Zhai, Shuheng Zhao, Wenkui Zhu, Bin Huang, Xin Liang, Chen Hai, Bao Ding, Lixiang Zhu, Hongwei Wang, Xianhai Wei, Feng Chu, Hongling Liu, Xiaoguang BMC Musculoskelet Disord Study Protocol BACKGROUND: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is one of the most frequent indications for spine surgery. Open decompression and fusion surgery was the most common treatment and used to be regarded as the golden standard treatment for LSS. In recent years, percutaneous endoscopic decompression surgery was also used for LSS. However, the effectiveness and safety of percutaneous endoscopic decompression in the treatment of LSS have not been supported by high-level evidence. Our aim is to 1) compare the effectiveness of percutaneous endoscopic decompression surgery and open decompression and fusion for the treatment of LSS. 2) Investigate the prognosis risk factors for LSS. 3) Evaluate the influence of percutaneous endoscopic decompression for the stability of operative level, and degeneration of adjacent level. METHODS: It’s a prospective, multicenter cohort study. The study is performed at 4 centers in Beijing. This study plans to enroll 600 LSS patients (300 patients in the percutaneous endoscopic decompression group, and 300 patients in the open decompression and fusion group). The demographic variables, healthcare variables, symptom related variables, clinical assessment (Visual analogue score (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), Japanese Orthopaedic Association score (JOA)), and radiological assessment (dynamic X-ray, CT, MRI) will be collected at baseline visit. Patients will follow up at 3, 6, 12 months. The primary outcome is the difference of improvement of ODI between baseline and 12-month follow-up between the two groups. The secondary outcome is the score changes of preoperative and postoperative VAS, the recovery rate of JOA, MacNab criteria, patient satisfaction, degeneration grade of adjacent level, ROM of operative level and adjacent level, complication rate. DISCUSSION: In this study, we propose to conduct a prospective registry study to address the major controversies of LSS decompression under percutaneous spinal endoscopy, and investigate the clinical efficacy and safety of percutaneous endoscopic decompression and open decompression in the treatment of LSS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study has been registered on clinicaltrials.gov in January 15, 2020 (NCT04254757). (SPIRIT 2a). BioMed Central 2022-05-27 /pmc/articles/PMC9137062/ /pubmed/35624443 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-022-05440-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Study Protocol Zhai, Shuheng Zhao, Wenkui Zhu, Bin Huang, Xin Liang, Chen Hai, Bao Ding, Lixiang Zhu, Hongwei Wang, Xianhai Wei, Feng Chu, Hongling Liu, Xiaoguang The effectiveness of percutaneous endoscopic decompression compared with open decompression and fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis: protocol for a multicenter, prospective, cohort study |
title | The effectiveness of percutaneous endoscopic decompression compared with open decompression and fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis: protocol for a multicenter, prospective, cohort study |
title_full | The effectiveness of percutaneous endoscopic decompression compared with open decompression and fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis: protocol for a multicenter, prospective, cohort study |
title_fullStr | The effectiveness of percutaneous endoscopic decompression compared with open decompression and fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis: protocol for a multicenter, prospective, cohort study |
title_full_unstemmed | The effectiveness of percutaneous endoscopic decompression compared with open decompression and fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis: protocol for a multicenter, prospective, cohort study |
title_short | The effectiveness of percutaneous endoscopic decompression compared with open decompression and fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis: protocol for a multicenter, prospective, cohort study |
title_sort | effectiveness of percutaneous endoscopic decompression compared with open decompression and fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis: protocol for a multicenter, prospective, cohort study |
topic | Study Protocol |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9137062/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35624443 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-022-05440-4 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT zhaishuheng theeffectivenessofpercutaneousendoscopicdecompressioncomparedwithopendecompressionandfusionforlumbarspinalstenosisprotocolforamulticenterprospectivecohortstudy AT zhaowenkui theeffectivenessofpercutaneousendoscopicdecompressioncomparedwithopendecompressionandfusionforlumbarspinalstenosisprotocolforamulticenterprospectivecohortstudy AT zhubin theeffectivenessofpercutaneousendoscopicdecompressioncomparedwithopendecompressionandfusionforlumbarspinalstenosisprotocolforamulticenterprospectivecohortstudy AT huangxin theeffectivenessofpercutaneousendoscopicdecompressioncomparedwithopendecompressionandfusionforlumbarspinalstenosisprotocolforamulticenterprospectivecohortstudy AT liangchen theeffectivenessofpercutaneousendoscopicdecompressioncomparedwithopendecompressionandfusionforlumbarspinalstenosisprotocolforamulticenterprospectivecohortstudy AT haibao theeffectivenessofpercutaneousendoscopicdecompressioncomparedwithopendecompressionandfusionforlumbarspinalstenosisprotocolforamulticenterprospectivecohortstudy AT dinglixiang theeffectivenessofpercutaneousendoscopicdecompressioncomparedwithopendecompressionandfusionforlumbarspinalstenosisprotocolforamulticenterprospectivecohortstudy AT zhuhongwei theeffectivenessofpercutaneousendoscopicdecompressioncomparedwithopendecompressionandfusionforlumbarspinalstenosisprotocolforamulticenterprospectivecohortstudy AT wangxianhai theeffectivenessofpercutaneousendoscopicdecompressioncomparedwithopendecompressionandfusionforlumbarspinalstenosisprotocolforamulticenterprospectivecohortstudy AT weifeng theeffectivenessofpercutaneousendoscopicdecompressioncomparedwithopendecompressionandfusionforlumbarspinalstenosisprotocolforamulticenterprospectivecohortstudy AT chuhongling theeffectivenessofpercutaneousendoscopicdecompressioncomparedwithopendecompressionandfusionforlumbarspinalstenosisprotocolforamulticenterprospectivecohortstudy AT liuxiaoguang theeffectivenessofpercutaneousendoscopicdecompressioncomparedwithopendecompressionandfusionforlumbarspinalstenosisprotocolforamulticenterprospectivecohortstudy AT zhaishuheng effectivenessofpercutaneousendoscopicdecompressioncomparedwithopendecompressionandfusionforlumbarspinalstenosisprotocolforamulticenterprospectivecohortstudy AT zhaowenkui effectivenessofpercutaneousendoscopicdecompressioncomparedwithopendecompressionandfusionforlumbarspinalstenosisprotocolforamulticenterprospectivecohortstudy AT zhubin effectivenessofpercutaneousendoscopicdecompressioncomparedwithopendecompressionandfusionforlumbarspinalstenosisprotocolforamulticenterprospectivecohortstudy AT huangxin effectivenessofpercutaneousendoscopicdecompressioncomparedwithopendecompressionandfusionforlumbarspinalstenosisprotocolforamulticenterprospectivecohortstudy AT liangchen effectivenessofpercutaneousendoscopicdecompressioncomparedwithopendecompressionandfusionforlumbarspinalstenosisprotocolforamulticenterprospectivecohortstudy AT haibao effectivenessofpercutaneousendoscopicdecompressioncomparedwithopendecompressionandfusionforlumbarspinalstenosisprotocolforamulticenterprospectivecohortstudy AT dinglixiang effectivenessofpercutaneousendoscopicdecompressioncomparedwithopendecompressionandfusionforlumbarspinalstenosisprotocolforamulticenterprospectivecohortstudy AT zhuhongwei effectivenessofpercutaneousendoscopicdecompressioncomparedwithopendecompressionandfusionforlumbarspinalstenosisprotocolforamulticenterprospectivecohortstudy AT wangxianhai effectivenessofpercutaneousendoscopicdecompressioncomparedwithopendecompressionandfusionforlumbarspinalstenosisprotocolforamulticenterprospectivecohortstudy AT weifeng effectivenessofpercutaneousendoscopicdecompressioncomparedwithopendecompressionandfusionforlumbarspinalstenosisprotocolforamulticenterprospectivecohortstudy AT chuhongling effectivenessofpercutaneousendoscopicdecompressioncomparedwithopendecompressionandfusionforlumbarspinalstenosisprotocolforamulticenterprospectivecohortstudy AT liuxiaoguang effectivenessofpercutaneousendoscopicdecompressioncomparedwithopendecompressionandfusionforlumbarspinalstenosisprotocolforamulticenterprospectivecohortstudy |