Comparative Effects and Safety of Full-Endoscopic Versus Microscopic Spinal Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Meta-Analysis and Statistical Power Analysis of 6 Randomized Controlled Trials

被引:10
作者
Yang, Zechuan [1 ]
Wang, Huan [1 ]
Li, Wenkai [1 ]
Hu, Weihua [1 ]
机构
[1] Huazhong Univ Sci & Technol, Tongji Hosp, Tongji Med Coll, Dept Orthoped, Wuhan, Peoples R China
关键词
Full-endoscopic spinal decompression; Microscopic spinal decompression; Lumbar stenosis; Meta-analysis; CANAL STENOSIS; INVASIVE DECOMPRESSION; CONSERVATIVE TREATMENT; UNILATERAL-LAMINOTOMY; SURGERY; INTERLAMINAR; DISABILITY; MANAGEMENT; THERAPY; PAIN;
D O I
10.14245/ns.2244600.300
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
Objective: This meta-analysis with statistical power analysis aimed to evaluate the difference between full-endoscopic and microscopic spinal decompression in treating spinal stenosis. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), and CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure) for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding the comparison of full-endoscopic versus microscopic spinal decompression in treating lumbar spinal stenosis through February 28, 2022. Two independent investigators selected studies, extracted information, and appraised methodological quality. Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.4 and STATA 14.0, and statistical power analysis was performed using G*Power 3.1. Results: Six RCTs involving 646 patients met selection criteria. Meta-analysis suggested that, compared with microscopic decompression, full-endoscopic spinal decompression achieved more leg pain improvement (mean difference [MD], -0.20; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.30 to -0.10; p= 0.001), shortened operative time (MD, -12.71; 95% CI, -18.27 to -7.15; p< 0.001), and decreased the incidence of complications (risk ratio, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.22-0.82; p= 0.01), which was supported by a statistical power of 98.57%, 99.97%, and 81.88%, respectively. Conclusion: Full-endoscopic spinal decompression is a better treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis, showing more effective leg pain improvement, shorter operative time, and fewer complications than microscopic decompression.
引用
收藏
页码:996 / +
页数:15
相关论文
共 53 条
[21]   Effect and Possible Mechanism of Muscle-Splitting Approach on Multifidus Muscle Injury and Atrophy After Posterior Lumbar Spine Surgery [J].
Hu, Zhi-Jun ;
Fang, Xiang-Qian ;
Zhou, Zhi-Jie ;
Wang, Ji-Ying ;
Zhao, Feng-Dong ;
Fan, Shun-Wu .
JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME, 2013, 95A (24) :2203-2203
[22]  
Kalff Rolf, 2013, Dtsch Arztebl Int, V110, P613, DOI 10.3238/arztebl.2013.0613
[23]   Is biportal technique/endoscopic spinal surgery satisfactory for lumbar spinal stenosis patients? A prospective randomized comparative study [J].
Kang, Taewook ;
Park, Si Young ;
Kang, Chun Hyung ;
Lee, Soon Hyuck ;
Park, Jong Hoon ;
Suh, Seung Woo .
MEDICINE, 2019, 98 (18)
[24]   Effectiveness of Physical Therapy and Epidural Steroid Injections in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis [J].
Koc, Zarife ;
Ozcakir, Suheda ;
Sivrioglu, Koncuy ;
Gurbet, Alp ;
Kucukoglu, Selcuk .
SPINE, 2009, 34 (10) :985-989
[25]  
Komp M, 2015, PAIN PHYSICIAN, V18, P61
[26]   Lumbar Stenosis: A Recent Update by Review of Literature [J].
Lee, Seung Yeop ;
Kim, Tae-Hwan ;
Oh, Jae Keun ;
Lee, Seung Jin ;
Park, Moon Soo .
ASIAN SPINE JOURNAL, 2015, 9 (05) :818-828
[27]  
Li C, 2021, MEDICINE, V100
[28]  
Liang J, 2022, WORLD NEUROSURG, V159, P91
[29]   Letter to the editor regarding "Full-endoscopic (bi-portal or uni-portal) versus microscopic lumbar decompression laminectomy in patients with spinal stenosis: systematic review and meta-analysis" [J].
Lin, Guang-Xun ;
Hu, Bao-Shan ;
Rui, Gang .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY AND TRAUMATOLOGY, 2023, 33 (04) :1439-1440
[30]   Letter to the Editor Regarding "Biportal Endoscopic Spinal Surgery versus Microscopic Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" [J].
Lin, Guang-Xun ;
Rui, Gang ;
Jhang, Shang-Wun ;
Chen, Chien-Min .
WORLD NEUROSURGERY, 2022, 157 :248-248