Minimally invasive spine surgery decreases postoperative pain and inflammation for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis

Peng,Hui; Tang,Guangping; Zhuang,Xiaoqiang; Lu,Shenglin; Bai,Yu; Xu,Li

doi:10.3892/etm.2019.7917

Minimally invasive spine surgery decreases postoperative pain and inflammation for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis

Authors:
- Hui Peng
- Guangping Tang
- Xiaoqiang Zhuang
- Shenglin Lu
- Yu Bai
- Li Xu
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Orthopedics, Affiliated National Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, Guangxi 530021, P.R. China, Department of Orthopedics, Wuhan Hanyang Hospital, Wuhan, Hubei 430050, P.R. China, Department of Traumatology, Wuhan No. 1 Hospital, Wuhan, Hubei 430022, P.R. China
Published online on: August 20, 2019 https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2019.7917
Pages: 3032-3036
Copyright: © Peng et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License.

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

In certain cases, lumbar spinal stenosis may lead to lumbar nervous disorder. A previous study indicated that minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) presents benefits compared with conventional open surgery (COS). In the current study, the efficacy of MISS and COS for lumbar spinal stenosis patients was investigated. A total of 82 patients with lumbar spinal stenosis were enrolled and divided into two age‑matched groups that received MISS (n=41) or COS (n=41). Patient parameters, including symptoms, inflammatory score, visual analog score (VAS), wound length, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), hospital stay and postoperative outcomes were analyzed in the current study. Outcomes indicated that both MISS and COS significantly improved symptoms of lumbar spinal stenosis compared with the baseline. It was observed that MISS resulted in decreased wound length and hospital stay compared with COS for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. The results revealed that MISS had better outcomes compared with COS in improving ODI and inflammatory score for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Notably, it was identified that MISS exhibited improved VAS for back and leg pain compared with the COS group for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. In conclusion, these outcomes indicate that MISS was more effective compared with COS for improving symptoms in patients with lumbar stenosis.

View Figures

View References

1	Houten JK and Nasser R: Symptomatic progression of degenerative scoliosis after decompression and limited fusion surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. J Clin Neurosci. 20:613–615. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
2	Kuang MJ, Ma JX and Ma XL: Decompression and coflex interlaminar stabilization compared with conventional surgical procedures for lumbar spinal stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Surg. 45:164–165. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
3	Ulrich NH, Kleinstück F, Woernle CM, Antoniadis A, Winklhofer S, Burgstaller JM, Farshad M, Oberle J, Porchet F and Min K; LumbSten Research Collaboration, : Clinical outcome in lumbar decompression surgery for spinal canal stenosis in the aged population: A prospective Swiss multicenter cohort study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 40:415–422. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
4	Minamide A, Yoshida M, Iwahashi H, Simpson AK, Yamada H, Hashizume H, Nakagawa Y, Iwasaki H, Tsutsui S, Kagotani R, et al: Minimally invasive decompression surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis with degenerative scoliosis: Predictive factors of radiographic and clinical outcomes. J Orthop Sci. 22:377–383. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
5	Moojen WA and Peul WC: Minimally invasive surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. BMJ. 350:h16642015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
6	Kim HJ, Lee JI, Kang KT, Chang BS, Lee CK, Ruscheweyh R, Kang SS and Yeom JS: Influence of pain sensitivity on surgical outcomes after lumbar spine surgery in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 40:193–200. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
7	Vasudeva VS and Chi JH: Fusion surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med. 375:5982016.PubMed/NCBI
8	Park CK, Kim SB, Kim MK, Park BJ, Choi SG, Lim YJ and Kim TS: Comparison of treatment methods in lumbar spinal stenosis for geriatric patient: Nerve block versus radiofrequency neurotomy versus spinal surgery. Korean J Spine. 11:97–102. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
9	Wang ZH, Wu DH, Ma C and Dai WX: Surgical treatment of postoperative deep wound infection after posterior lumbar interlumbar fusion of the lumbar stenosis. Zhongguo Gu Shang. 25:928–930. 2012.(In Chinese). PubMed/NCBI
10	Yaldiz C, Yaldiz M, Ceylan N, Kacira OK, Ceylan D, Kacira T, Kizilcay G and Tanriverdi T: Retrospective, demographic, and clinical investigation of the causes of postoperative infection in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis who underwent posterior stabilization. Medicine (Baltimore). 94:e11772015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
11	Polikandriotis JA, Hudak EM and Perry MW: Minimally invasive surgery through endoscopic laminotomy and foraminotomy for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. J Orthop. 10:13–16. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
12	Lauryssen C: Technical advances in minimally invasive surgery: Direct decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 35 (Suppl 26):S287–S293. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
13	Sakalauskienė G, Obelienius V, Pilvinienė R and Jauniškienė D: Evaluation of daily outpatient multidisciplinary rehabilitative treatment of patients with musculoskeletal, neurological and traumatic disorders in a municipality outpatient setting. Medicina (Kaunas). 52:61–68. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
14	Scott J and Huskisson EC: Graphic representation of pain. Pain. 2:175–184. 1976. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
15	Copay AG, Glassman SD, Subach BR, Berven S, Schuler TC and Carreon LY: Minimum clinically important difference in lumbar spine surgery patients: A choice of methods using the Oswestry disability index, Medical outcomes study questionnaire Short Form 36, and pain scales. Spine J. 8:968–974. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
16	Lane SS and Holland EJ: Loteprednol etabonate 0.5% versus prednisolone acetate 1.0% for the treatment of inflammation after cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg. 39:168–173. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
17	Hudak EM and Perry MW: Outpatient minimally invasive spine surgery using endoscopy for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis among obese patients. J Orthop. 12:156–159. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
18	Haddadi K and Ganjeh Qazvini HR: Outcome after surgery of lumbar spinal stenosis: A randomized comparison of bilateral laminotomy, trumpet laminectomy, and conventional laminectomy. Front Surg. 3:192016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
19	Aghayev E, Elfering A, Schizas C and Mannion AF; SWISSSpine Registry Group, : Factor analysis of the North American Spine Society outcome assessment instrument: A study based on a spine registry of patients treated with lumbar and cervical disc arthroplasty. Spine J. 14:916–924. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
20	Coronado-Zarco R, Cruz-Medina E, Arellano-Hernández A, Chavez-Arias D and León-Hernández SR: Effectiveness of calcitonin in intermittent claudication treatment of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: A systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 34:E818–E822. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
21	Rubino F, Deutsch H, Pamoukian V, Zhu JF, King WA and Gagner M: Minimally invasive spine surgery: An animal model for endoscopic approach to the anterior cervical and upper thoracic spine. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 10:309–313. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
22	Podichetty VK, Spears J, Isaacs RE, Booher J and Biscup RS: Complications associated with minimally invasive decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis. J Spinal Disord Tech. 19:161–166. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
23	Ikuta K, Tono O, Tanaka T, Arima J, Nakano S, Sasaki K and Oga M: Surgical complications of microendoscopic procedures for lumbar spinal stenosis. Minim Invasive Neurosurg. 50:145–149. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
24	Imajo Y, Taguchi T, Neo M, Otani K, Ogata T, Ozawa H, Miyakoshi N, Murakami H and Iguchi T: Complications of spinal surgery for elderly patients with lumbar spinal stenosis in a super-aging country: An analysis of 8,033 patients. J Orthop Sci. 22:10–15. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI