The Journal of Practical Medicine >
The efficacy of different surgical approaches in full⁃endoscopic treatment for degenerative lumbar lateral recess stenosis: A propensity score⁃matched cohort study
Received date: 2025-07-22
Online published: 2025-11-26
Objective To compare the clinical efficacy of the transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy (TELD) approach with that of the interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy (IELD) approach, both performed using a single-channel spinal endoscope, in the treatment of L4-L5 degenerative lumbar lateral recess stenosis (DLLRS). Methods A retrospective analysis was conducted on 78 patients with L4-L5 DLLRS who underwent single-channel endoscopic spinal surgery at our institution between March 2020 and March 2024. Patients were classified into the TELD group (lateral transforaminal approach, n = 34) and the IELD group (interlaminar approach, n = 44). Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed in a 1∶1 ratio using age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and duration of symptoms as covariates, yielding 25 matched pairs for final comparative analysis. Perioperative outcomes were systematically compared between groups. Visual analog scale (VAS) scores for low back pain and leg pain, as well as the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), were evaluated preoperatively and at 3 days, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year postoperatively. Lumbar computed tomography (CT) scans obtained 3 days after surgery were used to measure the lateral recess angle (LRA) and assess the extent of decompression. Spinal stability was evaluated using dynamic lumbar radiographs at 3 months postoperatively. Clinical outcomes were assessed 1 year after surgery based on the modified MacNab criteria. Results Both groups showed significant reductions in VAS scores for low back and leg pain, as well as in ODI scores, at all postoperative time points compared to baseline values (P < 0.05). However, no statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups (P > 0.05). Lumbar CT scans performed on postoperative day 3 demonstrated a significant increase in LRA in both groups relative to preoperative measurements (P < 0.05). Although the magnitude of increase was greater in the IELD group, the intergroup difference did not reach statistical significance (P > 0.05). At 3 months postoperatively, dynamic lumbar radiographs revealed no deterioration in spinal stability in either group compared to preoperative conditions, with no significant difference between groups (P > 0.05). According to the modified MacNab criteria at 1 year postoperatively, the excellent and good outcome rate was 88.0% in the TELD group and 92.0% in the IELD group, with no statistically significant difference between the groups (P > 0.05). Conclusions Both the TELD and IELD techniques are safe and effective for managing L4-L5 DLLRS, yielding comparable clinical outcomes. The selection of surgical approach should be guided by the anatomical location of ventral disc protrusions, as well as the degree of facet joint hypertrophy and neural compression.
Ran LIU , Dan CHEN , Yingzhao QI , Jiayu WANG , Zhixin LIU . The efficacy of different surgical approaches in full⁃endoscopic treatment for degenerative lumbar lateral recess stenosis: A propensity score⁃matched cohort study[J]. The Journal of Practical Medicine, 2025 , 41(22) : 3544 -3551 . DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-5725.2025.22.011
| [1] | JENSEN R K, HARHANGI B S, HUYGEN F, et al. Lumbar spinal stenosis[J]. BMJ, 2021,373:n1581. doi:10.1136/bmj.n1581 |
| [2] | XIE P, FENG F, CHEN Z, et al. Percutaneous transforaminal full endoscopic decompression for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis[J]. BMC Musculoskelet Disord, 2020,21(1):546. doi:10.1186/s12891-020-03566-x |
| [3] | KATZ J N, ZIMMERMAN Z E, MASS H, et al. Diagnosis and Management of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Review[J]. JAMA, 2022,327(17):1688-1699. doi:10.1001/jama.2022.5921 |
| [4] | 王子桓, 张翼升, 余熙荣, 等. 单一切口椎间孔镜治疗双节段腰椎管狭窄合并腰椎间盘突出症的效果[J]. 实用医学杂志, 2025,41(1):41-47. |
| [5] | LI K, ZHANG Z, RAN J, et al. Unilateral Endoscopic and Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Front Surg, 2025,12:1585783. doi:10.3389/fsurg.2025.1585783 |
| [6] | 廖军, 宗少晖, 陈晓明, 等. 经皮内镜后路腰椎间融合术与微创经椎间孔入路腰椎椎间融合术治疗腰椎管狭窄症的效果[J]. 实用医学杂志, 2022,38(17):2209-2215. |
| [7] | 中国医疗保健国际交流促进会骨科分会脊柱内镜学部, 中国医师协会骨科医师分会脊柱微创学组, 戎利民, 等. 脊柱内镜手术规范化命名的中国专家共识[J]. 中国脊柱脊髓杂志, 2024, 34(4): 444-448. |
| [8] | GUNJOTIKAR S, PESTONJI M, TANAKA M, et al. Evolution, Current Trends, and Latest Advances of Endoscopic Spine Surgery[J]. J Clin Med, 2024,13(11):3208. doi:10.3390/jcm13113208 |
| [9] | 刁文博, 李文祥, 娄才立, 等. 对椎间孔分区方法在内镜下腰椎后外侧入路手术中应用的效果分析[J]. 骨科临床与研究杂志, 2024, 9(3): 163-169. |
| [10] | 蒋强,丁宇,卢正操,等. PE-MFD与Endo-LOVE治疗腰椎间盘突出症疗效比较[J].中国骨与关节损伤杂志, 2021,36(1):13-16. |
| [11] | AUSTIN P C. An Introduction to Propensity Score Methods for Reducing the Effects of Confounding in Observational Studies[J]. Multivariate Behav Res, 2011, 46(3): 399-424. doi:10.1080/00273171.2011.568786 |
| [12] | WEINSTEIN J N, TOSTESON T D, LURIE J D, et al. Surgical versus Nonsurgical Therapy for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis[J]. N Engl J Med, 2008, 358(8): 794-810. doi:10.1056/nejmoa0707136 |
| [13] | 舒涛,吴帝求,沈茂. 不同微创椎管减压术在腰椎管狭窄症中的研究进展[J]. 中国修复重建外科杂志, 2023, 37(7): 895-900. |
| [14] | JU C I, KIM P, HA S W, et al. Contraindications and Complications of Full Endoscopic Lumbar Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review[J]. World Neurosurg, 2022, 168: 398-410. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2022.07.066 |
| [15] | CHEN K T, CHOI K C, SHIM H K, et al. Full-endoscopic versus microscopic unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis at L4-L5: Comparative study[J].Int Orthop, 2022, 46(12): 2887-2895. doi:10.1007/s00264-022-05549-0 |
| [16] | LIANG X, RAN L, ZHAI N, et al. Application of Repeated Foraminoplasty in Percutaneous Endoscopic Transforaminal Discectomy for Lumbar Disc Herniation Patients with Lumbar Foraminal Stenosis.[J]. World Neurosurg, 2025, 195: 123647. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2024.123647 |
| [17] | LIANG M, WANG Y, JIANG Y, et al. Clinical Efficacy of Interlaminar and Transforaminal Spinal Endoscopy in the Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis[J].Clin Interv Aging, 2023, 18: 881-890. doi:10.2147/cia.s406566 |
| [18] | YU L, DONG H, TAN H, et al. Uniportal Full-endoscopic Foraminotomy for Lumbar Foraminal Stenosis: Clinical Characteristics and Functional Outcomes[J]. Orthop Surg, 2024,16(8): 1861-1870. doi:10.1111/os.14102 |
| [19] | LEWANDROWSKI K U, DOWLING á, DE CARVALHO P S T, et al. Indication and Contraindication of Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Decompression.[J]. World Neurosurg, 2021, 145: 631-642. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2020.03.076 |
| [20] | LIU J, KONG Q, MA J, et al. Comparison of clinical efficacy between Percutaneous Endoscopic Large channels nerve decompression through Translaminar approach and Percutaneous Endoscopy Conventional channels nerve decompression through Transforaminal approach for the treatment of degenerative L4/5 spinal stenosis: A retrospective study[J]. BMC Musculoskelet Disord, 2025, 26(1): 493. doi:10.1186/s12891-025-08623-x |
| [21] | ZOU H J, HU Y, LIU J B, et al. Percutaneous Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Discectomy via Eccentric Trepan foraminoplasty Technology for Unilateral Stenosed Serve Root Canals[J]. Orthop Surg, 2020, 12(4): 1205-1211. doi:10.1111/os.12739 |
| [22] | KISHIMA K, YAGI K, YAMASHITA K, et al. Transforaminal Full-Endoscopic Ventral Facetectomy: Midterm Results and Factors Associated with Poor Surgical Outcomes.[J]. J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg, 2024,85(2): 155-163. doi:10.1055/a-1995-1772 |
| [23] | 刘学光, 孙振中. 全内镜下手术治疗高度移位型腰椎间盘突出症的研究进展[J]. 中国脊柱脊髓杂志, 2023, 33(6): 564-569. |
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |