IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ajp/edwast/v8y2024i6p9253-9268id3982.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Functional outcomes of open laminectomy, minimally invasive, and endoscopic biportal decompression surgery in lumbar stenosis: systematic review and meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Mukhlis Aziz
  • Lukas Widhiyanto
  • Pudji Lestari

Abstract

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a common degenerative condition that often requires decompression surgery. Various techniques, including open laminectomy, minimally invasive unilateral laminotomy bilateral decompression (MIS-ULBD), and unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) surgery, are utilized. This study compares the functional outcomes and complications of these methods. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted, analyzing studies from PubMed, Springerlink, and other databases. The key variables studied included the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay duration, operative time, and postoperative complications. A total of 14 studies with 1,427 patients aged 52.35-74.52 years were included. MIS resulted in shorter operative times compared to UBE, but UBE had a lower complication rate. UBE also demonstrated superior outcomes in terms of VAS pain reduction, ODI scores, and shorter hospital stays compared to both MIS and open laminectomy. UBE and MIS each present post-operative advantages. UBE offers faster recovery and reduced pain, while MIS has the benefit of shorter surgery times. Despite the steep learning curve and more complex instrumentation required, UBE is a safe and effective alternative to traditional decompression techniques, offering better functional outcomes in LSS patients compared to MIS and open laminectomy.

Suggested Citation

  • Mukhlis Aziz & Lukas Widhiyanto & Pudji Lestari, 2024. "Functional outcomes of open laminectomy, minimally invasive, and endoscopic biportal decompression surgery in lumbar stenosis: systematic review and meta-analysis," Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology, Learning Gate, vol. 8(6), pages 9253-9268.
  • Handle: RePEc:ajp:edwast:v:8:y:2024:i:6:p:9253-9268:id:3982
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://learning-gate.com/index.php/2576-8484/article/view/3982/1510
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ajp:edwast:v:8:y:2024:i:6:p:9253-9268:id:3982. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Melissa Fernandes (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://learning-gate.com/index.php/2576-8484/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.