Lumbar Spinal Stenosis
Conditions
Keywords
Microdecompression, laminectomy, pain, stenosis
Brief summary
This study compare the results of 2 methods in surgical treatment of Lumbar spine stenosis.These are microdecompresssion and open decompression with posterior stabilization. 100 patients are involved in this study who divided in 2 groups.Each group was treated with one method and follow up done which showed both method are effective with better results in those patients treated with microdecomppression.
Detailed description
This randomized controlled study was conducted between January 2016 and October 2018. One hundred patients were involved in this study. All these patients were suffered from radicular leg pain with MRI features of multilevel lumbar spinal stenosis and were treated by conservative treatment of medical treatment and physiotherapy without benefit for (6) months. Those patients were divided into two groups; Group A, (50) Microdecompression, and Group B, (50) patients who were treated by open wide laminectomy and posterior stabilization. Both groups of patients were followed up with ODI (Oswestry disability index) and VAS (Visual analogue score) for the back and leg pain for one year. Results: The results showed that both groups got significant improvement regarding Oswestry disability index. Regarding back pain, there was a significant improvement in both groups with better results in-group A due minimal tissues injury as the advantage of minimal invasive technique. In both groups, there were marked improvement of radicular leg pain postoperatively. Conclusions: Both Microdecompression and wide open laminectomy with posterior stabilization were effective in treatment of multilevel lumbar spinal stenosis with superior results of Microdecompression regarding less back pain postoperatively with less blood loss and soft tissue dissection.
Interventions
PROCEDUREMicrodecompression
comparative surgical treatment
Sponsors
Hawler Medical University
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
41 Years to 66 Years
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
* patients were suffered from back pain of different degrees with spinal claudication
Exclusion criteria
* Smoking * Diabetic patients, * Previous spinal surgery, * any neuromuscular disorder like poliomyelitis, and * vertebral instability proved by Dynamic plain radiographs
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Oswestry disability index | It was measured at 12 months after operation | For each section the total possible score is 5: if the first statement is marked the section score = 0; if the last statement is marked, it = 5. If all 10 sections are completed the score is calculated as follows: Example: 16 (total scored) 50 (total possible score) x 100 = 32% If one section is missed or not applicable the score is calculated: 16 (total scored) 45 (total possible score) x 100 = 35.5% Minimum detectable change (90% confidence): 10% points (change of less than this may be attributable to error in the measurement) |
| Visual analoge score | It was measured at 12 months after operation | This is in pain measurement ranging from 0 when no pain to 10 when there is severe pain |
Outcome results
None listed