الفهرس 
Comparative study between bilateral microscopic decompression via unilateral fenestration versus standard laminectomy for management of lumbar spinal stenosis
AbstractOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 100 |  |  |
| | | from | 100 | | |
Abstract
Background : The classic laminectomy for spinal decompression was the treatment of choice of the degenerative lumbar canal stenosis (LCS). Many surgeons prefer to minimally invasive lumbar decompression (MILD) has been advocated for successful decompression with less bleeding loss and shorter hospitalization.
Aim and objectives:To compare outcomes following bilateral microsurgical decompression via unilateral fenestration to standard open laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis treatment including hospital stay blood loss complications.
Patients and methods: Twenty six patients with degenerative LCS were randomized from two institutions: KasrAlAiny Hospital and Arab Contractors Medical Center, who underwent surgeries for degenerative LCS between 2021 and 2022 with 6 months follow‑up. The study compared two groups: group A – 13 patients underwent classic lumbar laminectomy without fixation, and group B – 13 patients underwent MILD.
Results:There were statistically significant differences between both treatment modalities to minimize intraoperative and postoperative. To reduce intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay, spinal instability incidence, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak and the formation of a pseudomeningocele or CSF fistula post dural tear may not be present in the minimally invasive surgeries as small incisions and limited muscle separation do not create potential spaces for CSF collection.Conclusion:Minimally invasive lumbar decompression (MILD) is superior approach to minimize the complications and is satisfactory multilevel lumbar canal stenosis.