ISSN: 1859 - 2872
Surgical outcomes of single-port endoscopic decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis at Quang Ninh Provincial General Hospital
Main Article Content
Keywords
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate surgical outcomes of single-port endoscopic decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis at Quang Ninh Provincial General Hospital. Subject and method: A prospective descriptive study was conducted on 35 patients with lumbar spinal stenosis who underwent uniportal endoscopic surgery at Quang Ninh Provincial General Hospital (January–June 2025). Inclusion criteria included neurogenic claudication, MRI findings of Schizas grade C or D stenosis, and failure of conservative treatment. Outcomes were evaluated using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Schizas grading before and after surgery. Result: Mean age was 62.2 ± 13.7 years; male/female ratio was 3:2. Preoperative scores: back VAS 2.08 ± 1.53; leg VAS 6.64 ± 0.91; ODI 69.6 ± 11.7. At 3 months postoperatively: Back VAS 1.04 ± 0.94; leg VAS 1.44 ± 1.16; ODI 16.8 ± 4.8. Postoperative MRI showed 96% canal area improvement (Schizas grade A). Mean operative time was 129.6 ± 25.1 minutes. According to the Macnab criteria: 68% excellent, 24% good, 8% fair. Complications included 1 dural tear and 2 wound seromas. Mean hospital stay was 4.32 ± 0.8 days. Conclusion: Uniportal endoscopic surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis is effective and safe, significantly improving symptoms and function with few complications and a short hospital stay, consistent with the trend toward minimally invasive surgery.
Article Details
References
2. Ahn Y (2012) Transforaminal percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy: technical tips to prevent complications. Expert Rev Med Devices. 9(4): 361-366.
3. Lee CW, Yoon KJ, Kim SW (2019) Percutaneous endoscopic decompression in lumbar canal and lateral recess stenosis - the surgical learning curve. Neurospine 16(1): 63-71.
4. Rosen DS, O’Toole JE (2007) Minimally invasive lumbar spinal decompression in the elderly: outcomes of 50 patients aged 75 years and older. Neurosurgery 60(3): 503-510.
5. Kim HS, Paudel B, Jang JS (2017) Percutaneous full endoscopic bilateral lumbar decompression of spinal stenosis through uniportal-contralateral approach: Techniques and preliminary results. World Neurosurg 103: 201-209.
6. Spivak JM (1998) Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 80(7): 1053-1066.
7. Verbiest H (1954) A radicular syndrome from developmental narrowing of the lumbar vertebral canal. J Bone Joint Surg 36B(2): 230-237.
8. Kim YU, Kong YG (2015) Clinical symptoms of lumbar spinal stenosis associated with morphological parameters on magnetic resonance images. Eur Spine J. Published online. doi:10.1007/s00586-015-4197-2.
9. Ju CI, Kim P, Ha SW, Kim SW, Lee SM (2022) Contraindications and complications of full endoscopic lumbar decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: A systematic review. World Neurosurg 168: 398-410.
10. Song Q, Zhu B, Zhao W, Liang C, Hai B, Liu X (2021) Full-endoscopic lumbar decompression versus open decompression and fusion surgery for the lumbar spinal stenosis: A 3-year follow-up study. J Pain Res 14: 1331-1338.
11. Kim HS, Pradhan P, Adsul N et al (2023) Comparison of full-endoscopic and tubular-based microscopic decompression in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: A randomized controlled trial. Spine J 23(4): 497-507.
12. Kırnap M, Ekinci G, Türe H, Türe U (2023) Comparison of the tubular approach and uniportal interlaminar full-endoscopic approach in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: our 3-year results. World Neurosurg 170: 506-513.
13. Al-Azzani A, Al-Otaibi F, Al-Saiari S et al (2022) Single incision tubular decompression to treat multi-level lumbar spinal stenosis: a retrospective review. J Minim Invasive Spine Surg Tech 7(1): 119-126.
Article Sidebar
