Full-endoscopic (bi-portal or uni-portal) versus microscopic lumbar decompression laminectomy in patients with spinal stenosis: systematic review and meta-analysis

• Published in: European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology 2020-05, Vol.30 (4), p.595-611
• Main Authors: Pairuchvej, Saran, Muljadi, Janisa Andrea, Ho, Jei-chen, Arirachakaran, Alisara, Kongtharvonskul, Jatupon
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Back pain; Back surgery; Comparative Effectiveness Research; Decompression, Surgical - adverse effects; Decompression, Surgical - methods; Endoscopy; Endoscopy - adverse effects; Endoscopy - methods; Humans; Laminectomy - adverse effects; Laminectomy - methods; Lumbar Vertebrae - surgery; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Meta-analysis; Microsurgery - adverse effects; Microsurgery - methods; Original Article; Postoperative period; Spinal stenosis; Spinal Stenosis - surgery; Surgical Orthopedics; Systematic review; Traumatic Surgery
• ISSN: 1633-8065; 1432-1068
• DOI: 10.1007/s00590-019-02604-2

Background Lumbar stenosis causes pain in the lower lumbar spine and lower extremities and reduces the patient’s quality of life and walking ability. Thus, these conditions are common surgical indications for spinal stenosis. Previous reports have shown satisfactory clinical outcomes of the full-endoscopic (FE) and MI technique decompressive laminectomy for lumbar stenosis. However, they still remain controversial. Objective We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the postoperative outcomes between FE (bi-portal or uni-portal) and MI technique decompressive laminectomy for lumbar stenosis. Method We searched all comparative studies that compared postoperative outcomes (operative time, VAS for back and leg pain, ODI in 3 months and last follow-up) of full-endoscopic (bi-portal or uni-portal) and microscopic technique decompressive laminectomy for lumbar stenosis from the PubMed and Scopus databases up to October 16, 2019. Results Nine of 1107 studies (five comparative studies and four RCT) ( N  = 994 patients) were eligible; all studies were included in pooling of FE and MI decompression. Five and three studies were included in pooling of bi-portal endoscopic, uni-portal endoscopic and MI decompression. All three techniques were compared in one study. Eight, nine, seven, eight, five, seven, eight and nine studies were included in pooling of VAS for back, leg, ODI in 3 months and last follow-up and operative time, respectively. The UMD of VAS for back, leg, ODI in 3 months and last follow-up of FE group was − 0.63 (95% CI − 1.15, − 0.12), − 0.15 (− 0.42, 0.11), − 2.06 (− 3.76, − 0.39), − 0.07 (− 0.22, 0.08), − 0.16 (− 0.29, − 0.03), − 0.20 (− 1.20, 0.81) scores and − 3.00 (− 12.25, 6.25) minutes when compared to MI in lumbar stenosis. In terms of complication, FE was lower risk of 0.62 (0.40, 0.96) times when compared to MI. After subgroup analysis, BESS had significant lower back and leg pain within 3 months when compared to MI group, while uni-portal FE had significant lower leg pain in the last follow-up and complication when compared to MI group. There had no difference in ODI and operative time between two groups. Conclusion FE had statistically significant lower back pain, lower leg pain and lower risk of having complications when compared to MI decompression in lumbar stenosis, while there is no difference in ODI and operative time between both groups. Comparing to MI, BESS had better early postoperative back pain while uni-porta