Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Jul 18:17:138213.
doi: 10.52965/001c.138213. eCollection 2025.

INNOVATIVE FULL-ENDOSCOPIC DECOMPRESSION TECHNIQUE FOR LUMBAR SPINAL STENOSIS: PROMISING EARLY RESULTS FROM VIETNAM

Dinh Trong Tuyen  1   2 , Le Thanh Dung  2 , Do Anh Tuan  1   2 , Vo Hoang Long  3 , Dinh Ngoc Son  1   2
Affiliations

INNOVATIVE FULL-ENDOSCOPIC DECOMPRESSION TECHNIQUE FOR LUMBAR SPINAL STENOSIS: PROMISING EARLY RESULTS FROM VIETNAM

Dinh Trong Tuyen et al. Orthop Rev (Pavia). .

Abstract

Background: This study aimed to evaluate the early outcomes of full-endoscopic decompression using the outside-in technique via the interlaminar approach for treating lumbar spinal stenosis in Vietnamese patients.

Methods: A retrospective review was conducted on 25 consecutive patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (16 men and 9 women; mean age ± SD: 65.80 ± 8.41 years) who underwent full-endoscopic decompression. Clinical outcomes were analyzed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for back and leg pain and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) preoperatively, immediately postoperatively, and at a three-month follow-up. The final outcome was evaluated using the MacNab criteria.

Results: Among the 25 patients, the L4-L5 level was the most common site of stenosis (17 patients, 68%), with central canal stenosis observed in 10 patients (40%). The primary causes of stenosis were hypertrophy of the facet joints combined with ligamentum flavum thickening (9 patients, 36%) and disc herniation (11 patients, 44%). Unilateral decompression was performed in 20 patients (80%), while bilateral decompression was required in 5 patients (20%). The mean operative time was 50.96 ± 16.20 minutes, and the average hospital stay was 2.13 ± 0.52 days, with no reported complications. VAS scores for back pain decreased from 7.60 preoperatively to 1.80 at 6 months, and leg pain scores from 7.20 to 1.76. The ODI improved from 76.35 preoperatively to 10.34 at 6 months. MRI results showed a significant increase in the canal cross-sectional area, from 75.78 mm² to 155.2 mm². Based on Mac-Nab criteria, 80% of patients achieved excellent results, 16% good, and 4% fair at 6 months.

Conclusions: Full-endoscopic decompression of lumbar canal stenosis demonstrates promising early outcomes. Advances in endoscopic surgical instruments facilitate decompression procedures that can be performed as effectively, if not more so, than traditional open decompression surgery.

Keywords: Clinical outcomes; Full-endoscopic decompression; Interlaminar approach; Laminectomy; Lumbar canal stenosis; Minimally invasive surgery; Spinal decompression.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Figures

Image 1.
Image 1.. Patient positioning during surgery
Image 2.
Image 2.. Fluoroscopic-guided insertion of guidewires through the posterior lumbar musculature for operative channel placement.
Image 3.
Image 3.. Bilateral decompression of the spinal canal.
Figure 1.
Figure 1.. Changes in VAS scores for back and leg pain at preoperative, immediate postoperative, 3-month follow-up, and 6-month follow-up
Figure 2.
Figure 2.. Changes in the ODI at preoperative, immediate postoperative, 3-month follow-up, and 6-month follow-up
Figure 3.
Figure 3.. The final outcome using the Mac-Nab criteria at 3-month follow-up, and 6-month follow-up
Figure 4.
Figure 4.. Preoperative and immediate postoperative axial MRI scans showing significant improvement in the lumbar canal cross-sectional area at the operative level.
(a case of a 60-year-old female with L4-5 central canal stenosis and sacralized L5)
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Lumbar spinal stenosis. Genevay S., Atlas S. J. 2010Best Pract. Res. Clin. Rheumatol. 24:253–265. doi: 10.1016/j.berh.2009.11.001. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Decompressive surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: WFNS spine committee recommendations. Costa F., Alves O. L., Anania C. D., Zileli M., Fornari M. 2020World Neurosurg. X 7:100076. doi: 10.1016/j.wnsx.2020.100076. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Which is the most effective treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis: decompression, fusion, or interspinous process device? A Bayesian network meta-analysis. Zhang Y.., et al. 2021J. Orthop. Transl. 26:45–53. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Unilateral laminectomy by endoscopy in central lumbar canal spinal stenosis: technical note and early outcomes. Sun F.., et al. 2020Spine. 45:E871–E877. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000003478. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Efficacy and safety of full-endoscopic decompression via interlaminar approach for central or lateral recess spinal stenosis of the lumbar spine: a meta-analysis. Lee C.-H.., et al. 2018Spine. 43:1756–1764. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000002708. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources