223 Views

930 - Comparison of Efficacy Between Endoscopic Spine Surgery and Other Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery Techniques for Patients with Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review

Friday, February 28, 2025

5:00 PM - 6:30 PM MST

Presenting Author(s)

JP

Jonathan Paris, MD

Resident Physician
Stony Brook Hospital
Centerport, New York, United States

Co-Author(s)

MW

Maggie Weichert, BA

Medical Student
Stony Brook University Hospital - 101 Nicolls Road, HSC Level 4 - 214Stony Brook, NY UNITED STATES - Stony Brook, NY
Stony Brook, New York, United States
GL

Gabriel Lartigue, BA

Medical Student
Stony Brook University Hospital - 101 Nicolls Road, HSC Level 4 - 214Stony Brook, NY UNITED STATES - Stony Brook, NY
Stony Brook, New York, United States
AC

Aaron Chen, BA

Medical Student
Stony Brook University Hospital - 101 Nicolls Road, HSC Level 4 - 214Stony Brook, NY UNITED STATES - Stony Brook, NY
Stony Brook, New York, United States
RS

Rohan Sarna, MD

Attending Physician
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida, United States

Objectives: To provide a comprehensive review comparing patient and surgery-related outcomes for patients treated with endoscopic spine surgery (ESS) versus other minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) approaches for cervical and lumbar spinal stenosis.

Design: The primary outcomes were divided into patient and surgery-related outcomes. Patient outcomes included visual analog scale (VAS) scores and oswestry and neck disability index scores (ODI, NDI). Surgery-specific outcomes included estimated blood loss (EBL), length of hospital stay (HS), operating time (OT) and complication rate. This outcome analysis was derived from publications between 2008-2024. JP, MW, AC,GL assessed studies identified from multiple databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane).

Results: Out of 33 initial publications, 26 studies fulfilled inclusion criteria. 9 studies were selected in the cervical spinal stenosis section of the comparison, while 17 studies were selected for the lumbar spinal stenosis section. These peer-reviewed articles included randomized prospective and retrospective observational studies with direct comparisons of ESS to various MISS approaches including microscopic, percutaneous and open spine surgery. For patient-related outcomes, ESS was found to be non-inferior in postoperative VAS, ODI and NDI scores for lumbar and cervical spinal stenosis. For surgery-related outcomes, ESS was found to have superior scores for HS and EBL, and non-inferior scores for OT and complication rate for cervical and lumbar spinal stenosis.

Conclusions: This comparison reveals no significant differences in efficacy between ESS and other MISS techniques for cervical and lumbar spinal stenosis. However, ESS may offer potential benefits such as shorter hospital stays and lower estimated blood loss with comparable operating times and complication rates.