Abstract
Conventional open laminectomy has long been considered one of the important surgical options for lumbar central stenosis owing to its positive outcomes. However, newer approaches have emerged as alternatives, including full-endoscopic and biportal endoscopic laminectomy. Therefore, a comparison of the outcomes that are associated with each of these surgical methods is warranted. This prospective multicenter trial, initiated in February 2019, compared the outcomes of three lumbar central stenosis surgical approaches: open laminectomy (OPEN), uniportal endoscopy (UNIPORT), and biportal endoscopy (BIPORT). Among 115 participants from seven centers, one-year follow-ups assessed laboratory, radiological, and clinical outcomes. Despite all groups showing adequate decompression and clinical improvement, the OPEN group exhibited less improvement in Visual analog scale (VAS) for back pain scores (p < 0.05) and significant postoperative increases in most laboratory markers. Furthermore, the OPEN group experienced a significant decrease in multifidus muscle cross-sectional area compared to endoscopic groups (p < 0.001). Each surgical techniques produced similar clinical outcomes and dural space expansion. However, endoscopic surgery was associated with better muscle preservation and better relief of back pain. Endoscopic surgery is a reasonable alternative to conventional laminectomy for treating lumbar central stenosis.This trial was registered on CRIS (Clinical Research Information Service, KCT0004355).