Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Minimally Invasive vs Conventional Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Prospective Cohort Study
Keywords:
Lumbar Spinal Stenosis, Conventional Surgery, Clinical Outcomes, Radiological Outcomes, Prospective Cohort StudyAbstract
Objective
The objective of this study is to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) versus conventional surgery for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).
Methods: This prospective cohort study was conducted at a tertiary care hospital in Peshawar, Pakistan, the study enrolled 200 patients diagnosed with symptomatic LSS, confirmed by MRI. Patients were assigned to MIS (n=100) or conventional surgery (n=100) groups based on surgeon discretion and patient preference. Preoperative and postoperative evaluations included clinical assessments using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and patient satisfaction scores, alongside radiological assessments of spinal canal diameter and residual stenosis. Data analysis was performed using SPSS version 25.0, with a significance level set at p<0.05.
Results: The MIS group exhibited significantly lower VAS scores (6 months: 2.8±1.2 vs. 4.5±1.5, p<0.01; 12 months: 2.5±1.1 vs. 4.2±1.3, p<0.01) and ODI scores (6 months: 18.4±5.2 vs. 25.6±6.3, p<0.01; 12 months: 17.8±4.9 vs. 24.8±6.0, p<0.01) compared to the conventional surgery group. Patient satisfaction was higher in the MIS group (85% vs. 70%, p<0.05). Radiological outcomes showed a greater increase in spinal canal diameter in the MIS group at 6 months (13.5±1.4 mm vs. 12.1±1.5 mm, p<0.01) and 12 months (13.2±1.3 mm vs. 11.8±1.4 mm, p<0.01) postoperatively. The incidence of residual stenosis was lower in the MIS group at both follow-ups (6 months: 10% vs. 25%, p<0.05; 12 months: 12% vs. 28%, p<0.05).
Conclusion: MIS offers superior clinical and radiological outcomes compared to conventional surgery for LSS, with better pain relief, functional improvement, and patient satisfaction. The study supports MIS as a viable alternative to conventional surgery, though further research is needed to explore its long-term efficacy and safety.
Keywords: lumbar spinal stenosis, minimally invasive surgery, conventional surgery, clinical outcomes, radiological outcomes, prospective cohort study.
Downloads
Metrics
References
Kalichman L, Cole R, Kim DH, Li L, Suri P, Guermazi A, et al. Spinal Stenosis Prevalence and Association with Symptoms: The Framingham Study. The Spine Journal. 2010;10(9):S34-S5
Deyo RA, Mirza SK, Martin BI. Error in Trends, Major Medical Complications, and Charges Associated With Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis in Older Adults. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association. 2011;306(10):1088-
Hirano Y, Mizuno J, Numazawa S, Itoh Y, Watanabe S, Watanabe K. Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy (PELD) for Herniated Nucleus Pulposus of the Lumbar Spine : Surgical Indications and Current Limitations. Japanese Journal of Neurosurgery. 2017;26(5):346-52
Phan K, Xu J, Scherman DB, Rao PJ, Mobbs RJ. Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion With and Without an “Access Surgeon”. Spine. 2017;42(10):E592-E601
Lam K, Al-Mousa A, Manson N. Do outcomes vary following minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion (MILIF) in patients with spinal stenosis? A multi-centre subgroup analysis study. The Spine Journal. 2016;16(4):S47
Parker SL, Mendenhall SK, Shau DN, Zuckerman Scott L, Godil SS, Devin CJ, et al. Minimally Invasive Versus Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF) for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: Comparative Effectiveness and Cost-Utility Analysis. The Spine Journal. 2012;12(9):S45
Parker SL, Xu R, McGirt MJ, Witham TF, Long DM, Bydon A. Long-term back pain after a single-level discectomy for radiculopathy: incidence and health care cost analysis. Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine. 2010;12(2):178-82
Heindel P, Tuchman A, Hsieh PC, Pham MH, D’Oro A, Patel NN, et al. Reoperation Rates After Single-level Lumbar Discectomy. Spine. 2017;42(8):E496-E501
Liu XS. Statistical Power Analysis for the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Routledge; 2013
Echt M, Bakare AA, Varela JR, Platt A, Abdul Sami M, Molenda J, et al. Comparison of minimally invasive decompression alone versus minimally invasive short-segment fusion in the setting of adult degenerative lumbar scoliosis: a propensity score–matched analysis. Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine. 2023;39(3):394-403
Lehmen JA, Gerber EJ. MIS lateral spine surgery: a systematic literature review of complications, outcomes, and economics. European Spine Journal. 2015;24(S3):287-313
Smuck M, Muaremi A, Zheng P, Norden J, Sinha A, Hu R, et al. Objective Measurement of Function following Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Decompression Reveals Improved Functional Capacity with Stagnant Real-Life Physical Activity. The Spine Journal. 2017;17(10):S96
Li J, Fu Y-F. Percutaneous endoscopic versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases: a meta-analysis. INPLASY - International Platform of Registered Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols; 2022 2022/02/21
Jagtiani P, Karabacak M, Margetis K. Comparative Effectiveness of Open Versus Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion. Clinical Spine Surgery: A Spine Publication. 2024
14 Intraoperative Neuromonitoring in Lumbar Interbody Fusion. Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Limited; 2020
Tumialan LM, editor. 4 Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) minimally invasiveLumbar spineminimally invasive TLIF forMinimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion. In: Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery. Stuttgart: Georg Thieme Verlag; 2020
Zheng G, Nolte LP. Computer-assisted orthopedic surgery: current state and future perspective. Frontiers in surgery. 2015;2:66.
Cheng Y, Liu Z, Hai Y, Yang H. Letter to the editor regarding the article “Bone metabolism in the healing process of lumbar interbody fusion-temporal changes of bone turnover markers”. By Hyakkan R et al. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2021 Apr 19. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000004075. Spine. 2021;46(17):E955
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Samir Khan Kabir, Abdul Sattar, Muhammad Zahid Khan, Muhammad Arif Khan, Waqar Khan
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
