Microdecompression Versus Open Laminectomy and Posterior Stabilization for Multilevel Lumbar Spine Stenosis

Not Applicable

Completed

• Conditions: Lumbar Spinal Stenosis
• Interventions: Procedure: Microdecompression

• Registration Number: NCT04087694
• Lead Sponsor: Hawler Medical University

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.

Study Timeline

• Study Start: 2016-01-03
• Primary Completion: 2018-10-04
• Study Completion: 2018-10-30
• Study First Submitted: 2019-09-11
• Study First Submitted QC: 2019-09-11
• Study First Posted: 2019-09-12
• Status Verified: 2019-10
• Last Update Submitted: 2019-10-15
• Last Update Posted: 2019-10-17

Recruitment & Eligibility

• Status: COMPLETED
• Sex: All
• Target Recruitment: 100

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

Study & Design

• Study Type: INTERVENTIONAL
• Study Design: PARALLEL

Arm && Interventions

Group	Intervention	Description
Microscope	Microdecompression	Microscopically done decompression of lumbar spine stenosis who are symptomatic
Open	Microdecompression	Open laminectomy and posterior stabilization with pedicle screws for symptomatic lumbar spine stenosis

Primary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
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
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)