Endoscopic Decompressive Laminectomy
Procedurethe patients will undergo block randomization for either endoscopic or microscopic decompression
Other names: Microscopic Decompressive Laminectomy
NCT Number: NCT06381167
To compare between the clinical and surgical efficacies of bi-portal endoscopic and microscopic decompressive laminectomy in patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.
Trial opening soon.
Get Notified40 year and older
All sexes
Interventional
Not applicable
Lumbar canal stenosis is a disease caused by the compression of the dural sac and nerve root due to various factors such as hypertrophy of the ligamentum flavum (LF), facet joint hypertrophy, disc herniation, and spondylolisthesis, resulting in low back pain, leg pain with or without numbness, intermittent claudication, and bladder and bowel dysfunction in which intermittent neurogenic claudication is the main feature (1, 2).
Traditional surgical approaches include open laminotomy decompression, foraminotomy, discectomy, and fusion. Conventional open lumbar decompression has a long history and has the advantages of adequate decompression and clear visualization of neural structures, while surgical invasiveness and extensive stripping of paraspinal muscles and soft tissues may lead to a series of problems such as postoperative low back pain, spinal instability, and prolonged hospital stay and time to return to normal life after the operation (3).
Minimally invasive spine surgery has become increasingly popular in recent years. Unilateral bi-portal endoscopy (UBE) was proposed by Heo in 2017 to treat degenerative lumbar spinal diseases with less damage to the paraspinal muscles (4).
Minimally invasive decompression was introduced as a tissue-sparing alternative and applied to lumbar central stenosis. Minimally invasive decompression revealed good clinical outcomes comparable to those of conventional surgery (5, 6). It also showed a reasonable operative time, shorter hospital stay, and reduced blood loss, time to mobilization, postoperative pain, and narcotic use when compared to that seen with conventional surgery (7).
However, it presents some disadvantages, including poor visualization, difficulty of instrument manipulation, potential to induce inadequate decompression, and longer operative time than other minimally invasive surgeries (8).
Healthy volunteers accepted: No
Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
the patients will undergo block randomization for either endoscopic or microscopic decompression
Other names: Microscopic Decompressive Laminectomy
Time frame: one year
3,6 and 12-month follow-up after surgery
Time frame: one year
3,6 and 12-month follow-up after surgery
Time frame: one year
3,6 and 12-month follow-up after surgery
Time frame: one year
3,6 and 12-month follow-up after surgery
Contact information is provided by the study sponsor or research team.
Assiut University
Other
Endoscopic Bi-portal Decompression Versus Microscopic Decompression in Cases of Lumbar Canal Stenosis
OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.
View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.
Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.
NCT07688265
Body Weight, Bone Diseases
View Trial DetailsNCT07661199
Adjacent Segment Disease, Bone Diseases
Berlin, State of Berlin, Germany
View Trial DetailsNCT07644507
Bone Diseases, Degenerative Lumbar Spine Diseases
Wroclaw, Poland
View Trial DetailsNCT07612982
Behavior, Bone Diseases
Istanbul, Pendik, Turkey (Türkiye)
View Trial Details