Minimally Invasive Versus Open Laminectomy for Lumbar Stenosis A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

被引:152
作者
Phan, Kevin [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Mobbs, Ralph J. [1 ,2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Univ New S Wales, Dept Neurosurg, High St, Randwick, NSW, Australia
[2] Prince Wales Private Hosp, Neuro Spine Clin, Suite 7a,Level 7,Barker St, Randwick, NSW 2031, Australia
[3] Neuro Spine Surg Res Grp, Sydney, NSW, Australia
关键词
laminectomy; laminotomy; lumbar spinal stenosis; minimally invasive; bilateral decompression; UPDATED METHOD GUIDELINES; SPINAL STENOSIS; BILATERAL DECOMPRESSION; UNILATERAL-APPROACH; CERVICAL RADICULOPATHY; LAMINOTOMY; SURGERY; COMPLICATIONS; PAIN;
D O I
10.1097/BRS.0000000000001161
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
Study Design.Systematic review with meta-analysis.Objective.To assess the relative merits of minimally invasive unilateral laminectomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) versus open laminectomy, a systematic review and meta-analysis of all available evidence was performed.Summary of Background Data.Lumbar spinal stenosis is one of the most common pathologies in the increasingly elderly population that results in claudication, back and leg pain, and disability. The conventional approach for decompression is open laminectomy. In recent years, there has been a surge in microendoscopic procedures, which aim to minimize invasiveness. Despite the increasing use of these minimally invasive techniques, few studies have directly compared the safety, efficacy, and outcomes of these procedures with conventional laminectomy. There is a lack of robust clinical evidence, with most reports limited to single-center, inadequately powered, noncomparative studies.Methods.Relevant articles were identified from six electronic databases. Predefined endpoints were extracted and meta-analyzed from the identified studies.Results.Satisfaction rates were significantly higher in the minimally invasive group (84% vs. 75.4%; P=0.03), whereas back pain Visual Analog Scale scores were lower (P<0.00001). Minimally invasive laminectomy operative duration was 11 minutes longer than the open approach (P=0.001), however this may not have clinical significance. However, there was less blood loss (P<0.00001) and shorter hospital stay (2.1 days; P<0.0001). Dural injuries and cerebrospinal fluid leaks were comparable, but reoperation rates were lower in the minimally invasive cohort (1.6% vs. 5.8%; P=0.02); however this was not significant when only randomized evidence was considered.Conclusion.The pooled evidence suggests ULBD may be associated with less blood loss and shorter stay, with similar complication profiles to the open approach. These findings warrant verification in large prospective registries and randomized trials.Level of Evidence: 1
引用
收藏
页码:E91 / E100
页数:10
相关论文
共 34 条
[1]   Minimally invasive compared with open lumbar laminotomy: no functional benefits at 6 or 24 months after surgery [J].
Ang, Chia-Liang ;
Tow, Benjamin Phak-Boon ;
Fook, Stephanie ;
Guo, Chang-Ming ;
Chen, John Li-Tat ;
Yue, Wai-Mun ;
Tan, Seang-Beng .
SPINE JOURNAL, 2015, 15 (08) :1705-1712
[2]  
[Anonymous], ACTA MED SALINIANA
[3]   Minimally invasive operative management for lumbar spinal stenosis: Overview of early and long-term outcomes [J].
Asgarzadie, Farbod ;
Khoo, Larry T. .
ORTHOPEDIC CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 2007, 38 (03) :387-+
[4]   A new minimally invasive posterior approach for the treatment of cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy: surgical technique and preliminary results [J].
Boehm, H ;
Greiner-Perth, R ;
El-Saghir, H ;
Allam, Y .
EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL, 2003, 12 (03) :268-273
[5]   Midterm outcome after unilateral approach for bilateral decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis:: 5-year prospective study [J].
Cavusoglu, Halit ;
Kaya, Ramazan Alper ;
Tuerkmenoglu, Osman Nuri ;
Tuncer, Cengiz ;
Colak, Ibrahim ;
Aydin, Yunus .
EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL, 2007, 16 (12) :2133-2142
[7]   Trends, Major Medical Complications, and Charges Associated With Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis in Older Adults [J].
Deyo, Richard A. ;
Mirza, Sohail K. ;
Martin, Brook I. ;
Kreuter, William ;
Goodman, David C. ;
Jarvik, Jeffrey G. .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2010, 303 (13) :1259-1265
[8]   Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis [J].
Duval, S ;
Tweedie, R .
BIOMETRICS, 2000, 56 (02) :455-463
[9]  
Foley KT., 1997, TECH NEUROSURG, V3, P301
[10]   2009 Updated Method Guidelines for Systematic Reviews in the Cochrane Back Review Group [J].
Furlan, Andrea D. ;
Pennick, Victoria ;
Bombardier, Claire ;
van Tulder, Maurits .
SPINE, 2009, 34 (18) :1929-1941