Open Access

Clinical outcomes of MED and iLESSYS® Delta for the treatment of lumbar central spinal stenosis and lateral recess stenosis: A comparison study

  • Authors:
    • Boyu Wu
    • Chengjie Xiong
    • Linying Tan
    • Dongdong Zhao
    • Feng Xu
    • Hui Kang
  • View Affiliations

  • Published online on: October 23, 2020     https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2020.9382
  • Article Number: 252
  • Copyright: © Wu 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: )
Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )


Abstract

Microendoscopic discectomy (MED) is an established procedure used to treat lumbar central spinal stenosis (LCSS) and lateral recess stenosis (LRS). The Interlaminar Endoscopic Surgical System iLESSYS® Delta approach has been developed from the traditional interlaminar endoscopic technique for the treatment of LCSS and LRS. In the present study, MED was used as a reference to evaluate this newly developed approach. A total of 82 and 52 patients with radicular leg pain and/or neurogenic claudication symptoms were treated by spinal canal decompression using the MED or iLESSYS® Delta approach, respectively. The clinical outcomes of the patients were analyzed using the Modified MacNab's criteria, visual analogue scale (VAS) leg pain score, VAS back pain score and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score. Finally, the effectiveness of the decompression was evaluated on a cross‑sectional area of the dural sac (CSAD) at the disc level. The incision length in the iLESSYS® Delta group was significantly decreased compared with the MED group (P<0.05); however, the duration of the operation in the iLESSYS® Delta group was significantly longer compared with the MED group (P<0.05). The VAS score of the back and ODI score in the iLESSYS® Delta group were significantly decreased compared with the MED group at the 1‑week follow‑up (P<0.0125). The postoperative CSAD was also significantly increased in both groups compared with before the operation (P<0.05); however, there were no significant differences in the postoperative CSAD between the two groups. The good‑to‑excellent rates of the MED and iLESSYS® Delta approach were 89.0 and 90.4%, respectively, whereas the complication rates of the MED and iLESSYS® Delta system were 3.66 and 3.85% in the two groups, respectively. In conclusion, the iLESSYS® Delta approach was identified to be comparable with the MED approach for treating LCSS and LRS, demonstrating both precise and limited decompression. In addition, the iLESSYS® Delta approach may reduce the short‑term back pain and promote faster recovery compared with the MED.
View Figures
View References

Related Articles

Journal Cover

December-2020
Volume 20 Issue 6

Print ISSN: 1792-0981
Online ISSN:1792-1015

Sign up for eToc alerts

Recommend to Library

Copy and paste a formatted citation
x
Spandidos Publications style
Wu B, Xiong C, Tan L, Zhao D, Xu F and Kang H: Clinical outcomes of MED and iLESSYS<sup>&reg;</sup> Delta for the treatment of lumbar central spinal stenosis and lateral recess stenosis: A comparison study. Exp Ther Med 20: 252, 2020
APA
Wu, B., Xiong, C., Tan, L., Zhao, D., Xu, F., & Kang, H. (2020). Clinical outcomes of MED and iLESSYS<sup>&reg;</sup> Delta for the treatment of lumbar central spinal stenosis and lateral recess stenosis: A comparison study. Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine, 20, 252. https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2020.9382
MLA
Wu, B., Xiong, C., Tan, L., Zhao, D., Xu, F., Kang, H."Clinical outcomes of MED and iLESSYS<sup>&reg;</sup> Delta for the treatment of lumbar central spinal stenosis and lateral recess stenosis: A comparison study". Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine 20.6 (2020): 252.
Chicago
Wu, B., Xiong, C., Tan, L., Zhao, D., Xu, F., Kang, H."Clinical outcomes of MED and iLESSYS<sup>&reg;</sup> Delta for the treatment of lumbar central spinal stenosis and lateral recess stenosis: A comparison study". Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine 20, no. 6 (2020): 252. https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2020.9382