SPINE: High heterogeneity and no significant differences in clinical outcomes of endoscopic foraminotomy vs fusion for lumbar foraminal stenosis: a meta-analysis

Abstract

Objective This study aimed to systematically review the literature for comparative and non-comparative studies reporting on clinical outcomes of patients with lumbar foraminal stenosis treated by either endoscopic foraminotomy or fusion. Methods In adherence with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, a literature search was done on January 17, 2022, using Medline and Embase. Clinical studies were eligible if they reported outcomes following fusion or endoscopic foraminotomy, in patients with primary lumbar foraminal stenosis. Two independent reviewers screened titles, abstracts, and full-texts to determine eligibility; performed data extraction; and assessed the quality of eligible studies according to the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist. Results The search returned 827 records; 266 were duplicates, 538 were excluded after title/abstract/full-text screening, and 23 were eligible, with 16 case series reporting on endoscopic foraminotomy, 7 case series reporting on fusion, and no comparative studies. The JBI checklist indicated that 21 studies scored ≥4 points. When comparing endoscopic foraminotomy to fusion, pooled data revealed reduced operative time (69 vs 119 min, P < 0.01) but similar Oswestry disability index (19 vs 20, P = 0.67), lower back pain (2 vs 2, P = 0.11), leg pain (2 vs 2, P = 0.15), complication rates (10% vs 5%, P = 0.22), and reoperation rates (5% vs 0%, P = 0.16). The proportions of patients with good/excellent MacNab criteria were similar for endoscopic foraminotomy and fusion (82–91% vs 85–91%). Conclusions There were high heterogeneity and no significant differences in clinical outcomes, complication rates, and reoperation rates between endoscopic foraminotomy and fusion for the treatment of lumbar foraminal stenosis; although endoscopic foraminotomy has reduced operative time.

Risk Factors of Restenosis After Full Endoscopic Foraminotomy for Lumbar Foraminal Stenosis: Case-Control Study

“…Nonetheless, it is uncertain whether the duration and durability of symptom relief and the risk of stenosis recurrence with endoscopic decompression alone of the intervertebral foramen can be compared to the fusion technique, which offers both neural decompression and structural stabilization. 8 This represents a key challenge that the endoscopic approach needs to address. Therefore, this study aims to examine the risk factors associated with postoperative restenosis, a primary reason for reoperation following full endoscopic lumbar foraminotomy (FELF) in patients with LFS.…”

“…Nonetheless, it is uncertain whether the duration and durability of symptom relief and the risk of stenosis recurrence with endoscopic decompression alone of the intervertebral foramen can be compared to the fusion technique, which offers both neural decompression and structural stabilization [ 8 ]. This represents a key challenge that the endoscopic approach needs to address.…”

Uniportal Full‐endoscopic Foraminotomy for Lumbar Foraminal Stenosis: Clinical Characteristics and Functional Outcomes

“…Undetected and untreated lumbar foraminal stenosis correlates with persistent symptoms, representing a distinctive form of lumbar spinal stenosis. 3 The intervertebral foramen is a round, oval, or inverted teardrop shape region. Positioned beneath the lamina and facet joints, it is aptly labeled the "hidden zone."…”

“…LFS constitutes a significant pathological condition leading to lumbar radiculopathies, comprising around 8%–11% of lumbar degenerative diseases necessitating surgical interventions. Undetected and untreated lumbar foraminal stenosis correlates with persistent symptoms, representing a distinctive form of lumbar spinal stenosis 3 …”

“…Undetected and untreated lumbar foraminal stenosis correlates with persistent symptoms, representing a distinctive form of lumbar spinal stenosis. 3 …”