{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019147917663954045, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003829583532790809, 'mean_word_length': 5.943521594684386, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparison of endoscopic and open methods of surgical treatment for lumbosacral spinal canal stenosis: a systematic literature review

Objective. To analyze clinical outcomes and complication rates of transforaminal and interlaminar endoscopic decompression and open microsurgical operations performed for lumbosacral spinal canal stenosis.Material and Methods. The data of 60 literature sources selected in accordance with the inclusion and exclusion criteria in the PubMed, Science Direct, Google Scholar and Cochrane Library databases were systematized by evaluating diagnostic methods, clinical pictures and surgical treatment of the lumbar spinal canal stenosis. Original studies, case series and reviews containing information on surgical methods for the treatment of spinal stenosis at the lumbar level were analyzed.Results. The complication rate after transforaminal endoscopic decompression (relapses, infectious complications, damage to the dural membrane and spinal roots) does not exceed 2.7 %, which is significantly lower than that in open microsurgical operation (4.8–8.8 %). Endoscopic decompression and reconstruction of the spinal canal demonstrate good clinical outcomes, lower number of bed-days, readmissions, and good economic benefits. When stenosis is combined with instability of the spinal motion segment, performing only a decompressive operation in any volume does not give a significant clinical result, and stabilization surgery is required.Conclusion. The introduction of endoscopic reconstructive surgery for spinal canal stenosis in the lumbosacral spine is associated not only with technical progress and improvement of endoscopic optics, but also with the search for the causes of unsatisfactory results of open operations. Endoscopic interventions showed good clinical outcomes and a decrease in the complication rate. However, the evidence base needs to be expanded due to the lack of randomized trials to compare open decompression and stabilization, and endoscopic reconstructive surgeries in patients with various manifestations of spinal stenosis.