Journal
BMC MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS
Volume 23, Issue 1, Pages -Publisher
BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12891-022-05440-4
Keywords
Lumbar spinal stenosis; Percutaneous endoscopic decompression; Open decompression and fusion; Comparative effectiveness
Categories
Funding
- Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Commision [2020-2-4091]
Ask authors/readers for more resources
This study aims to compare the effectiveness of percutaneous endoscopic decompression surgery and open decompression and fusion for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), investigate the prognosis risk factors for LSS, and evaluate the influence of percutaneous endoscopic decompression on operative level stability and degeneration of adjacent level.
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.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available