Cargando…

Comparison of Interlaminar and Transforaminal Approaches for Treatment of L(5)/S(1) Disc Herniation by Percutaneous Endoscopic Discectomy

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) and percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy (PETD) in treating L(5)/S(1) disc herniation. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 76 patients with L(5)/S(1) interver...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gao, Aiguo, Yang, Huilin, Zhu, Liyan, Hu, Zhangjie, Lu, Binbin, Jin, Qi, Wang, Ye, Gu, Xiaofeng
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7862146/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33274579
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/os.12831
_version_ 1783647225468944384
author Gao, Aiguo
Yang, Huilin
Zhu, Liyan
Hu, Zhangjie
Lu, Binbin
Jin, Qi
Wang, Ye
Gu, Xiaofeng
author_facet Gao, Aiguo
Yang, Huilin
Zhu, Liyan
Hu, Zhangjie
Lu, Binbin
Jin, Qi
Wang, Ye
Gu, Xiaofeng
author_sort Gao, Aiguo
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) and percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy (PETD) in treating L(5)/S(1) disc herniation. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 76 patients with L(5)/S(1) intervertebral disc herniation was performed. There were two surgical treatment groups: one with patients receiving PEID and the other with patients receiving PETD. The two groups were compared by length of surgery, times of intraoperative X‐ray exposure, postoperative time in bed, length of hospital stay, operative complications, patient's assessment of pain using a visual analogue scale (VAS), and disability using the Oswestry disability index (ODI) before and after surgery. RESULTS: Subjects in the PEID group were in surgery for 60.90 ± 13.11 min and needed intraoperative X‐ray exposure 4.10 ± 1.09 times. Patients in this group were ambulatory by 7.52 ± 1.08 h after surgery and were hospitalized for 5.05 ± 0.92 days. In contrast, patients in the PETD group were in surgery for 84.06 ± 15.58 min and needed intraoperative X ray exposure 12.81 ± 8.46 times. These patients were ambulatory by 7.06 ± 0.91 h after surgery and remained in the hospital for 4.94 ± 0.80 days. Based on these data, operation time and fluoroscopy time were significantly less (P < 0.002 and P < 0.001, respectively) for subjects in the PEID group. However, ambulatory time and hospitalization were similar for both in terms of pain relief and decreased disability, and subjects in both groups responded well to the surgery and showed a significant decrease in both VAS and ODI scores at their 1‐year follow‐up (P < 0.01). Furthermore, there were no statistically significant differences between the two surgeries in terms of pain relief and decrease in disability. CONCLUSION: For L(5)/S(1) disc herniation, PEID and PETD provide similar results for patients. However, PEID has the advantage over PETD in that it is a shorter procedure and exposes the patient to less radiation. Keywords
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7862146
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-78621462021-02-16 Comparison of Interlaminar and Transforaminal Approaches for Treatment of L(5)/S(1) Disc Herniation by Percutaneous Endoscopic Discectomy Gao, Aiguo Yang, Huilin Zhu, Liyan Hu, Zhangjie Lu, Binbin Jin, Qi Wang, Ye Gu, Xiaofeng Orthop Surg Clinical Articles OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) and percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy (PETD) in treating L(5)/S(1) disc herniation. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 76 patients with L(5)/S(1) intervertebral disc herniation was performed. There were two surgical treatment groups: one with patients receiving PEID and the other with patients receiving PETD. The two groups were compared by length of surgery, times of intraoperative X‐ray exposure, postoperative time in bed, length of hospital stay, operative complications, patient's assessment of pain using a visual analogue scale (VAS), and disability using the Oswestry disability index (ODI) before and after surgery. RESULTS: Subjects in the PEID group were in surgery for 60.90 ± 13.11 min and needed intraoperative X‐ray exposure 4.10 ± 1.09 times. Patients in this group were ambulatory by 7.52 ± 1.08 h after surgery and were hospitalized for 5.05 ± 0.92 days. In contrast, patients in the PETD group were in surgery for 84.06 ± 15.58 min and needed intraoperative X ray exposure 12.81 ± 8.46 times. These patients were ambulatory by 7.06 ± 0.91 h after surgery and remained in the hospital for 4.94 ± 0.80 days. Based on these data, operation time and fluoroscopy time were significantly less (P < 0.002 and P < 0.001, respectively) for subjects in the PEID group. However, ambulatory time and hospitalization were similar for both in terms of pain relief and decreased disability, and subjects in both groups responded well to the surgery and showed a significant decrease in both VAS and ODI scores at their 1‐year follow‐up (P < 0.01). Furthermore, there were no statistically significant differences between the two surgeries in terms of pain relief and decrease in disability. CONCLUSION: For L(5)/S(1) disc herniation, PEID and PETD provide similar results for patients. However, PEID has the advantage over PETD in that it is a shorter procedure and exposes the patient to less radiation. Keywords John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd 2020-12-03 /pmc/articles/PMC7862146/ /pubmed/33274579 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/os.12831 Text en © 2020 The Authors. Orthopaedic Surgery published by Chinese Orthopaedic Association and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Clinical Articles
Gao, Aiguo
Yang, Huilin
Zhu, Liyan
Hu, Zhangjie
Lu, Binbin
Jin, Qi
Wang, Ye
Gu, Xiaofeng
Comparison of Interlaminar and Transforaminal Approaches for Treatment of L(5)/S(1) Disc Herniation by Percutaneous Endoscopic Discectomy
title Comparison of Interlaminar and Transforaminal Approaches for Treatment of L(5)/S(1) Disc Herniation by Percutaneous Endoscopic Discectomy
title_full Comparison of Interlaminar and Transforaminal Approaches for Treatment of L(5)/S(1) Disc Herniation by Percutaneous Endoscopic Discectomy
title_fullStr Comparison of Interlaminar and Transforaminal Approaches for Treatment of L(5)/S(1) Disc Herniation by Percutaneous Endoscopic Discectomy
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Interlaminar and Transforaminal Approaches for Treatment of L(5)/S(1) Disc Herniation by Percutaneous Endoscopic Discectomy
title_short Comparison of Interlaminar and Transforaminal Approaches for Treatment of L(5)/S(1) Disc Herniation by Percutaneous Endoscopic Discectomy
title_sort comparison of interlaminar and transforaminal approaches for treatment of l(5)/s(1) disc herniation by percutaneous endoscopic discectomy
topic Clinical Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7862146/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33274579
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/os.12831
work_keys_str_mv AT gaoaiguo comparisonofinterlaminarandtransforaminalapproachesfortreatmentofl5s1discherniationbypercutaneousendoscopicdiscectomy
AT yanghuilin comparisonofinterlaminarandtransforaminalapproachesfortreatmentofl5s1discherniationbypercutaneousendoscopicdiscectomy
AT zhuliyan comparisonofinterlaminarandtransforaminalapproachesfortreatmentofl5s1discherniationbypercutaneousendoscopicdiscectomy
AT huzhangjie comparisonofinterlaminarandtransforaminalapproachesfortreatmentofl5s1discherniationbypercutaneousendoscopicdiscectomy
AT lubinbin comparisonofinterlaminarandtransforaminalapproachesfortreatmentofl5s1discherniationbypercutaneousendoscopicdiscectomy
AT jinqi comparisonofinterlaminarandtransforaminalapproachesfortreatmentofl5s1discherniationbypercutaneousendoscopicdiscectomy
AT wangye comparisonofinterlaminarandtransforaminalapproachesfortreatmentofl5s1discherniationbypercutaneousendoscopicdiscectomy
AT guxiaofeng comparisonofinterlaminarandtransforaminalapproachesfortreatmentofl5s1discherniationbypercutaneousendoscopicdiscectomy