Comparative Study of the Outcomes of Endoscopic Unilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Decompression (ULBD) With Destandau Technique and Microscopic ULBD: A Randomized Double-Blinded Study of 685 Patients

P. C. Dey, Nishit Palo, Abhishek Shukla
{"title":"Comparative Study of the Outcomes of Endoscopic Unilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Decompression (ULBD) With Destandau Technique and Microscopic ULBD: A Randomized Double-Blinded Study of 685 Patients","authors":"P. C. Dey, Nishit Palo, Abhishek Shukla","doi":"10.21182/jmisst.2023.00829","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: Lumbar canal stenosis is a common finding amongst elderly patients visiting spine surgeons for back pain. Uniportal unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) is an emerging minimally invasive procedure for lumbar canal stenosis. This study compared the clinical outcomes of endoscopic ULBD with Destandau technique and microscopic lumbar canal decompression. Methods: A prospective multicenter study on 685 patients undergoing single-level spinal canal decompression. Patients with axial back pain, lumbar radiculopathy, lumbar canal stenosis & claudication distance <1,000 m were included. Parameters assessed were Dura expansion, thecal sac’s cross-sectional area, horizontal displacement, blood loss, operation time, hospital stay, modified MacNab score, visual analogue score (VAS), side changing (self) status, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the Short-Form 36 for quality of life (QoL). Results: Group 1 (endoscopic ULBD with Destandau technique) had 343 patients and group 2 (microscopic ULBD) had 342 patients. Group 1 had lower horizontal displacement (0.34%±0.21%, p<0.001) and significant improvement of VAS (42.28%±3.20%, p<0.001) at 1-week postsurgery with shorter hospital stay (1±0.2 days vs. 1.8±0.8 days, p<0.01) and significant improvements of ODI and MacNab scores (42.28±3.20 and 85.30%, p<0.001). The 30-second chair test (3.4±0.13 vs. 5.6 ± 2.41, p<0.001), 10-meter walk test (1.0 ± 2.15 vs. 0.55 ± 3.23, p<0.001), and SF-36 physical health component score (48.20±8.46 vs. 74.48±0.54, p<0.001) improved significantly as well. Furthermore, 92% of patients were able to change sides while in bed at 1-week postsur-gery. Claudication distance improved significantly in both groups. Conclusion: Group 1 patients had better clinical and functional outcomes within 3 months of surgery than group 2 patients, with improved QoL, shorter hospital stays, claudication distance, and self-side changing ability.","PeriodicalId":405058,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery and Technique","volume":" 64","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery and Technique","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21182/jmisst.2023.00829","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Lumbar canal stenosis is a common finding amongst elderly patients visiting spine surgeons for back pain. Uniportal unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) is an emerging minimally invasive procedure for lumbar canal stenosis. This study compared the clinical outcomes of endoscopic ULBD with Destandau technique and microscopic lumbar canal decompression. Methods: A prospective multicenter study on 685 patients undergoing single-level spinal canal decompression. Patients with axial back pain, lumbar radiculopathy, lumbar canal stenosis & claudication distance <1,000 m were included. Parameters assessed were Dura expansion, thecal sac’s cross-sectional area, horizontal displacement, blood loss, operation time, hospital stay, modified MacNab score, visual analogue score (VAS), side changing (self) status, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the Short-Form 36 for quality of life (QoL). Results: Group 1 (endoscopic ULBD with Destandau technique) had 343 patients and group 2 (microscopic ULBD) had 342 patients. Group 1 had lower horizontal displacement (0.34%±0.21%, p<0.001) and significant improvement of VAS (42.28%±3.20%, p<0.001) at 1-week postsurgery with shorter hospital stay (1±0.2 days vs. 1.8±0.8 days, p<0.01) and significant improvements of ODI and MacNab scores (42.28±3.20 and 85.30%, p<0.001). The 30-second chair test (3.4±0.13 vs. 5.6 ± 2.41, p<0.001), 10-meter walk test (1.0 ± 2.15 vs. 0.55 ± 3.23, p<0.001), and SF-36 physical health component score (48.20±8.46 vs. 74.48±0.54, p<0.001) improved significantly as well. Furthermore, 92% of patients were able to change sides while in bed at 1-week postsur-gery. Claudication distance improved significantly in both groups. Conclusion: Group 1 patients had better clinical and functional outcomes within 3 months of surgery than group 2 patients, with improved QoL, shorter hospital stays, claudication distance, and self-side changing ability.
内镜下单侧椎板切开双侧减压术(ULBD)与 Destandau 技术和显微镜下 ULBD 的疗效比较研究: 一项针对 685 例患者的随机双盲研究
目的:腰椎管狭窄是一种常见的发现,在老年患者访视脊柱外科背部疼痛。单侧椎板切开术双侧减压(ULBD)是一种新兴的微创手术腰椎管狭窄。本研究比较了内镜下ULBD与Destandau技术和显微腰椎管减压术的临床结果。方法:对685例行单节段椎管减压术的患者进行前瞻性多中心研究。包括腰轴性背痛、腰椎神经根病、腰椎管狭窄和跛行距离< 1000 m的患者。评估的参数包括硬脑膜扩张、鞘囊横截面积、水平位移、出血量、手术时间、住院时间、改良MacNab评分、视觉模拟评分(VAS)、侧变(自我)状态、Oswestry残疾指数(ODI)和生活质量Short-Form 36。结果:1组(内镜下联合Destandau技术)343例,2组(镜下)342例。1组术后1周水平位移较低(0.34%±0.21%,p<0.001), VAS评分显著改善(42.28%±3.20%,p<0.001),住院时间较短(1±0.2天比1.8±0.8天,p<0.01), ODI和MacNab评分显著改善(42.28±3.20和85.30%,p<0.001)。30秒椅子测试(3.4±0.13比5.6±2.41,p<0.001)、10米步行测试(1.0±2.15比0.55±3.23,p<0.001)和SF-36身体健康成分评分(48.20±8.46比74.48±0.54,p<0.001)均显著改善。此外,术后1周,92%的患者能够在床上换侧。两组患者的跛行距离均有明显改善。结论:组1患者术后3个月内的临床和功能情况均优于组2患者,生活质量改善,住院时间缩短,跛行距离缩短,自我侧侧改变能力增强。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信