Endoscopic and microsurgical decompression for central lumbar spinal stenosis

Objective. To perform comparative analysis of the results of endoscopic and microsurgical decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis. Material and Methods. Design: Retrospective monocentric intra-cohort comparison of two groups of patients. The study included 99 patients aged 51–88 years with clinically significant lumbar spinal stenosis manifested by neurogenic intermittent claudication syndrome. Endoscopic decompression was performed in 51 patients, and microsurgical decompression – in 48 patients. To objectify and standardize clinical symptoms, walking distance in meters, pain syndrome and quality of life were assessed before and after surgery using standard scales and questionnaires (VAS, ODI). On the first day after surgery, back and lower limb pain were assessed, and during the observation period back and lower limb pain, quality of life and walking distance were assessed. Functional lumbar radiography was performed to exclude instability of the spinal motion segment. Using MRI, the cross-sectional area of the dural sac at the level of stenosis was measured before and after surgery. Clinical efficacy was assessed using the MCID (Minimal Clinical Important Difference) criterion. The results of the operation were followed-up for 12 months after the operation. Results. Blood loss in the endoscopic intervention group was less than in the microsurgical group. Pain in the lumbar spine and in the lower extremities decreased, and the cross-sectional area of the dural sac increased. In the first days after surgery, patients after endoscopic decompression had less severe back and lower extremity pain than patients after microsurgical decompression due to less soft tissue trauma. Pain syndrome in back 10–12 months after surgery was without statistically significant difference between the groups. Patients after endoscopic decompression had statistically significantly better quality of life according to ODI, lesser pain in the lower extremities according to VAS and longer walking distance than those in the microsurgical decompression group. Surgical treatment in both groups turned out to be effective, which is confirmed by MCID. The time of endoscopic intervention is significantly longer than that of microsurgical intervention. The length of the incision during endoscopic decompression is shorter than that of microsurgical decompression. Conclusion. A comparative analysis of the results of endoscopic and microsurgical decompression for degenerative central lumbar stenosis showed comparable effectiveness of both methods, including an increase in the spinal canal dimension and ensuring regression of clinical symptoms. The results of the comparison do not allow making a sufficiently substantiated judgment on the advantages of one of the methods, which dictates the need for further research.