Cargando…
Percutaneous Endoscopic Cervical Discectomy versus Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Comparative Cohort Study with a Five-Year Follow-Up
Percutaneous endoscopic cervical discectomy (PECD) is an effective minimally invasive surgery for soft cervical disc herniation in properly selected cases. The current gold standard is anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). However, few studies have evaluated the outcome of PECD compared wi...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7073710/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32013206 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm9020371 |
_version_ | 1783506681098928128 |
---|---|
author | Ahn, Yong Keum, Han Joong Shin, Sang Ha |
author_facet | Ahn, Yong Keum, Han Joong Shin, Sang Ha |
author_sort | Ahn, Yong |
collection | PubMed |
description | Percutaneous endoscopic cervical discectomy (PECD) is an effective minimally invasive surgery for soft cervical disc herniation in properly selected cases. The current gold standard is anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). However, few studies have evaluated the outcome of PECD compared with ACDF. We compared the surgical results of PECD and ACDF. Data from patients treated with single-level PECD (n = 51) or ACDF (n = 64) were analyzed. Patients were prospectively entered into the clinical database and their records were retrospectively reviewed. Perioperative data and clinical outcomes were evaluated using the visual analogue scale (VAS), Neck Disability Index (NDI), and modified Macnab criteria. VAS and NDI results significantly improved in both groups. The rates of excellent or good results were 88.24% and 90.63% in the PECD and ACDF group, respectively. The revision rates were 3.92% and 1.56% in the PECD and ACDF group, respectively. Operative time, hospital stay, and time to return to work were reduced in the PECD group compared to the ACDF group (p < 0.001). The five-year outcomes of PECD were comparable to those of conventional ACDF. PECD provided the typical benefits of minimally invasive surgery and may be an effective alternative for treating soft cervical disc herniation. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7073710 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-70737102020-03-19 Percutaneous Endoscopic Cervical Discectomy versus Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Comparative Cohort Study with a Five-Year Follow-Up Ahn, Yong Keum, Han Joong Shin, Sang Ha J Clin Med Article Percutaneous endoscopic cervical discectomy (PECD) is an effective minimally invasive surgery for soft cervical disc herniation in properly selected cases. The current gold standard is anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). However, few studies have evaluated the outcome of PECD compared with ACDF. We compared the surgical results of PECD and ACDF. Data from patients treated with single-level PECD (n = 51) or ACDF (n = 64) were analyzed. Patients were prospectively entered into the clinical database and their records were retrospectively reviewed. Perioperative data and clinical outcomes were evaluated using the visual analogue scale (VAS), Neck Disability Index (NDI), and modified Macnab criteria. VAS and NDI results significantly improved in both groups. The rates of excellent or good results were 88.24% and 90.63% in the PECD and ACDF group, respectively. The revision rates were 3.92% and 1.56% in the PECD and ACDF group, respectively. Operative time, hospital stay, and time to return to work were reduced in the PECD group compared to the ACDF group (p < 0.001). The five-year outcomes of PECD were comparable to those of conventional ACDF. PECD provided the typical benefits of minimally invasive surgery and may be an effective alternative for treating soft cervical disc herniation. MDPI 2020-01-29 /pmc/articles/PMC7073710/ /pubmed/32013206 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm9020371 Text en © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Ahn, Yong Keum, Han Joong Shin, Sang Ha Percutaneous Endoscopic Cervical Discectomy versus Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Comparative Cohort Study with a Five-Year Follow-Up |
title | Percutaneous Endoscopic Cervical Discectomy versus Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Comparative Cohort Study with a Five-Year Follow-Up |
title_full | Percutaneous Endoscopic Cervical Discectomy versus Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Comparative Cohort Study with a Five-Year Follow-Up |
title_fullStr | Percutaneous Endoscopic Cervical Discectomy versus Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Comparative Cohort Study with a Five-Year Follow-Up |
title_full_unstemmed | Percutaneous Endoscopic Cervical Discectomy versus Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Comparative Cohort Study with a Five-Year Follow-Up |
title_short | Percutaneous Endoscopic Cervical Discectomy versus Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Comparative Cohort Study with a Five-Year Follow-Up |
title_sort | percutaneous endoscopic cervical discectomy versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a comparative cohort study with a five-year follow-up |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7073710/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32013206 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm9020371 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT ahnyong percutaneousendoscopiccervicaldiscectomyversusanteriorcervicaldiscectomyandfusionacomparativecohortstudywithafiveyearfollowup AT keumhanjoong percutaneousendoscopiccervicaldiscectomyversusanteriorcervicaldiscectomyandfusionacomparativecohortstudywithafiveyearfollowup AT shinsangha percutaneousendoscopiccervicaldiscectomyversusanteriorcervicaldiscectomyandfusionacomparativecohortstudywithafiveyearfollowup |