Endoscopic Versus Conventional Lumbar Decompression for Lumbar Canal Stenosis

Outcomes Evaluation of Interlaminar Endoscopic Uniportal Bilateral Lumbar Decompression Versus Open Laminectomy for Degenerative Lumbar Canal Stenosis

This is a randomized controlled trial comparing interlaminar uniportal endoscopic bilateral lumbar decompression with conventional open laminectomy in patients with degenerative lumbar canal stenosis. The study aims to evaluate and compare clinical outcomes including pain relief, functional improvement, operative parameters, and recovery profile between both surgical techniques. Patients will be followed postoperatively for one day outcomes, one month, and six months to assess effectiveness and safety of each procedure.

This randomized controlled trial was designed to compare the clinical and surgical outcomes of interlaminar uniportal endoscopic bilateral lumbar decompression versus conventional open laminectomy in patients diagnosed with degenerative lumbar canal stenosis. Lumbar spinal stenosis is a common degenerative condition that results in neurogenic claudication, radicular pain, and functional disability due to compression of neural elements.

The study was conducted at Ain Shams University Hospitals and Damanhour Medical National Institute. Patients meeting inclusion criteria were diagnosed based on clinical evaluation and radiological confirmation using MRI. Eligible patients were randomized into two groups: one group underwent minimally invasive interlaminar uniportal endoscopic bilateral decompression, while the other group underwent conventional open laminectomy.

The primary objective of the study was to compare the effectiveness of both surgical techniques in terms of pain relief and functional improvement. Secondary objectives included comparison of operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, complication rates, muscle injury markers, and time to return to normal activity.

Patients were evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively using standardized clinical assessment tools. Postoperative follow-up was conducted at one day postoperative period, one month, and six months to assess both early and mid-term outcomes.

The hypothesis of the study is that minimally invasive endoscopic decompression provides equivalent or superior clinical outcomes compared to conventional open laminectomy, with the advantage of reduced tissue trauma, less postoperative pain, faster recovery, and shorter hospital stay.

This study aims to contribute to the growing evidence supporting minimally invasive spine surgery techniques and to provide high-quality comparative data to guide surgical decision-making in degenerative lumbar canal stenosis.

Inclusion Criteria:

Patients diagnosed with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis based on clinical and radiological findings.

Patients presenting with neurogenic claudication and/or radicular leg pain. Patients indicated for surgical decompression after failure of conservative treatment.

Age 18 years and above. Patients able to provide informed consent.

Exclusion Criteria:

Patients with previous lumbar spine surgery at the same level. Patients with spinal instability requiring fusion. Presence of spinal infection, tumor, or traumatic pathology. Severe comorbid conditions contraindicating surgery. Patients with incomplete clinical or follow-up data.