Comparative study of lumbar vertebral canal stenosis treated by microendoscope and microscope as-sisted decompression

陆晓生,彭昊,韦文,凌尚准
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1004-406X.2009.09.09
2009-01-01
Abstract:Objective:To compare the surgical outcome of microendoscope and microscope assisted decompression for lumbar vertebral canal stenosis.Method:A retrospective study was carried out on 192 patients with lumbar vertebral canal stenosis treated by either microendoscope or microscope assisted decompression from January 2003 to January 2008.All patients were divided into two groups with 97 cases in group A and 95 cases in group B.The operate time,intraoperative blood loss,complication and the stability of lumbar spine after operation were compared between two groups,all patients were evaluated by ODI(Oswestry disability index) before operation and 8 months after operation as well as the general satisfactoty degree.Result:7 cases in group A were turned to open operation,except for these,all cases had been successfully operated.The mean operating time in group A was 82.2±5.2 minutes,and 80.2±4.3 minutes in group B.The average blood loss volumn in group A was 83.1±4.1ml,and 80.0±6.7ml in group B,which had no statistical significance(P>0.05) . 3 cases were complicated with dural sac rupture in both two groups,which healed after corresponding treatment.There was no neurological complications and deep infection.2 cases in group A developed spinal instability 4 years after operation,which was resolved by PLIF.No significant deviation was found between two groups(P<0.05) .All cases were followed up at least 8 months.Pre-and post-operative ODI score were 79.2± 15.4 and 31.2 ±13.3 respectively in group A,and 78.7±16.9 and 30.1 ±15.3 respectively in group B,which showed significant differences in pre-and post-operation ODI score of each group(P <0.05) ,however nosignificant differences were noted between two groups(P<0.05) .Satisfactory rate in group A was excellent in 68 cases,good in 17 cases,fair in 7 cases and no poor,with the excellent and good rate of 92.2%.While in group B there was excellent in 74 cases,good in 15 cases,fair in 6 cases and no poor with the excellent and good rate of 93.7%.There was no significant differences between two groups(P<0.05) .Conclusion:The clinical outcome of two minimal invasive surgery are satisfactory,which had advantages of minimal incision,less blood loss,shorteness of operation time,less complications and less damage to posterior column of lumbar spine.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?