4.5 Article

Is the Use of a Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Approach Associated with Rapid Recovery After Lumbar Decompressive Laminectomy? A Preliminary Analysis of a Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

期刊

WORLD NEUROSURGERY
卷 128, 期 -, 页码 E709-E718

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2019.04.240

关键词

Biportal endoscopic spine surgery; Degenerative spine; Lumbar spinal stenosis; Unilateral laminectomy and bilateral decompression; Visual analog scale

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the immediate postoperative clinical outcomes and perform a preliminary analysis of the effectiveness of biportal endoscopic approaches to lumbar decompressive laminectomy in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. METHODS: All participants (64 patients) were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either the biportal endoscopic lumbar decompressive laminectomy (BE-D) group or the mini-open microscopic lumbar decompressive laminectomy (MI-D) group. Early postoperative outcomes were evaluated using clinical and surgical technique-related outcomes. The visual analog scale (VAS) pain score was measured at 6 time points after surgery (at 4, 8, 16, 24, and 48 hours and 2 weeks). Surgical technique-related outcomes were also analyzed. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the preoperative demographics between the 2 groups. The VAS pain score from 8 to 48 hours (P < 0.05) was significantly lower in the BE-D group than in the MI-D group. Moreover, the total amount of fentanyl usage was higher in the MI-D group than in the BE-D group after surgery (P = 0.026). The length of hospital stay was lower in the BE-D group than in the MI-D group (P = 0.048). The operative time and creatinine phosphokinase level were not significantly different between the groups (P >0.05). Postoperative drainage was significantly higher in the BE-D group than in the MI-D group. CONCLUSIONS: BE-D was associated with rapid pain recovery, low fentanyl usage, and early discharge after surgery, but its other benefits have not yet been shown.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据