Cargando…

Comparison of the clinical efficacy of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy and traditional laminectomy in the treatment of recurrent lumbar disc herniation

A few years ago, percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) began to prevail in clinical treatment of recurrent lumbar disc herniation (RLDH), whereas traditional laminectomy (TL) was treated earlier in RLDH than PTED. This study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy of PTED and TL in...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jiang, Shifeng, Li, Qingning, Wang, Hongzhi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8322506/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34397681
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000025806
_version_ 1783731063293476864
author Jiang, Shifeng
Li, Qingning
Wang, Hongzhi
author_facet Jiang, Shifeng
Li, Qingning
Wang, Hongzhi
author_sort Jiang, Shifeng
collection PubMed
description A few years ago, percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) began to prevail in clinical treatment of recurrent lumbar disc herniation (RLDH), whereas traditional laminectomy (TL) was treated earlier in RLDH than PTED. This study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy of PTED and TL in the treatment of RLDH. Between November 2012 and October 2017, retrospective analysis of 48 patients with RLDH who were treated at the Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hefei and Department of Orthopaedics, Second Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University. Perioperative evaluation indicators included operation time, the intraoperative blood loss, length of incision and hospitalization time. Clinical outcomes were measured preoperatively, and at 1 days, 3 months, and 12 months postoperatively. The patients’ lower limb pain was evaluated using Oswestry disability index (ODI) and visual analog scale (VAS) scores. The ODI is the most widely-used assessment method internationally for lumbar or leg pain at present. Every category comprises 6 options, with the highest score for each question being 5 points. higher scores represent more serious dysfunction. The VAS is the most commonly-used quantitative method for assessing the degree of pain in clinical practice. The measurement method is to draw a 10 cm horizontal line on a piece of paper, 1 end of which is 0, indicating no pain, which the other end is 10, which means severe pain, and the middle part indicates different degree of pain. Compared with the TL group, the operation time, postoperative bed-rest time, and hospitalization time of the PTED group were significantly shorter, and the intraoperative blood loss was also reduced. These differences were statistically significant (P < .01). There were no significant differences in VAS or ODI scores between the two groups before or after surgery (P > .05). PTED and TL have similar clinical efficacy in the treatment of RLDH, but PTED can shorten the operation time, postoperative bed-rest time and hospitalization time, and reduce intraoperative blood loss, so the PTED is a safe and effective surgical method for the treatment of RLDH than TL, but more randomized controlled trials are still required to further verify these conclusions.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8322506
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-83225062021-08-02 Comparison of the clinical efficacy of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy and traditional laminectomy in the treatment of recurrent lumbar disc herniation Jiang, Shifeng Li, Qingning Wang, Hongzhi Medicine (Baltimore) 7100 A few years ago, percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) began to prevail in clinical treatment of recurrent lumbar disc herniation (RLDH), whereas traditional laminectomy (TL) was treated earlier in RLDH than PTED. This study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy of PTED and TL in the treatment of RLDH. Between November 2012 and October 2017, retrospective analysis of 48 patients with RLDH who were treated at the Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hefei and Department of Orthopaedics, Second Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University. Perioperative evaluation indicators included operation time, the intraoperative blood loss, length of incision and hospitalization time. Clinical outcomes were measured preoperatively, and at 1 days, 3 months, and 12 months postoperatively. The patients’ lower limb pain was evaluated using Oswestry disability index (ODI) and visual analog scale (VAS) scores. The ODI is the most widely-used assessment method internationally for lumbar or leg pain at present. Every category comprises 6 options, with the highest score for each question being 5 points. higher scores represent more serious dysfunction. The VAS is the most commonly-used quantitative method for assessing the degree of pain in clinical practice. The measurement method is to draw a 10 cm horizontal line on a piece of paper, 1 end of which is 0, indicating no pain, which the other end is 10, which means severe pain, and the middle part indicates different degree of pain. Compared with the TL group, the operation time, postoperative bed-rest time, and hospitalization time of the PTED group were significantly shorter, and the intraoperative blood loss was also reduced. These differences were statistically significant (P < .01). There were no significant differences in VAS or ODI scores between the two groups before or after surgery (P > .05). PTED and TL have similar clinical efficacy in the treatment of RLDH, but PTED can shorten the operation time, postoperative bed-rest time and hospitalization time, and reduce intraoperative blood loss, so the PTED is a safe and effective surgical method for the treatment of RLDH than TL, but more randomized controlled trials are still required to further verify these conclusions. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2021-07-30 /pmc/articles/PMC8322506/ /pubmed/34397681 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000025806 Text en Copyright © 2021 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial License 4.0 (CCBY-NC), where it is permissible to download, share, remix, transform, and buildup the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be used commercially without permission from the journal. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/)
spellingShingle 7100
Jiang, Shifeng
Li, Qingning
Wang, Hongzhi
Comparison of the clinical efficacy of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy and traditional laminectomy in the treatment of recurrent lumbar disc herniation
title Comparison of the clinical efficacy of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy and traditional laminectomy in the treatment of recurrent lumbar disc herniation
title_full Comparison of the clinical efficacy of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy and traditional laminectomy in the treatment of recurrent lumbar disc herniation
title_fullStr Comparison of the clinical efficacy of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy and traditional laminectomy in the treatment of recurrent lumbar disc herniation
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of the clinical efficacy of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy and traditional laminectomy in the treatment of recurrent lumbar disc herniation
title_short Comparison of the clinical efficacy of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy and traditional laminectomy in the treatment of recurrent lumbar disc herniation
title_sort comparison of the clinical efficacy of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy and traditional laminectomy in the treatment of recurrent lumbar disc herniation
topic 7100
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8322506/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34397681
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000025806
work_keys_str_mv AT jiangshifeng comparisonoftheclinicalefficacyofpercutaneoustransforaminalendoscopicdiscectomyandtraditionallaminectomyinthetreatmentofrecurrentlumbardischerniation
AT liqingning comparisonoftheclinicalefficacyofpercutaneoustransforaminalendoscopicdiscectomyandtraditionallaminectomyinthetreatmentofrecurrentlumbardischerniation
AT wanghongzhi comparisonoftheclinicalefficacyofpercutaneoustransforaminalendoscopicdiscectomyandtraditionallaminectomyinthetreatmentofrecurrentlumbardischerniation