Cargando…

Comparison of Percutaneous Endoscopic Interlaminar Discectomy and Open Fenestration Discectomy for Single-Segment Huge Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Two-year Follow-up Retrospective Study

PURPOSE: Both percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) and open fenestration discectomy (OFD) are effective and safe surgical procedures for the treatment of LDH. The purpose of this retrospective study was to compare the surgical outcomes of percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ma, Cheng, Li, He, Zhang, Teng, Wei, Yifan, Zhang, Helong, Yu, Fenglei, Lv, You, Ren, Yongxin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9013921/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35444463
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/JPR.S352595
_version_ 1784688103240237056
author Ma, Cheng
Li, He
Zhang, Teng
Wei, Yifan
Zhang, Helong
Yu, Fenglei
Lv, You
Ren, Yongxin
author_facet Ma, Cheng
Li, He
Zhang, Teng
Wei, Yifan
Zhang, Helong
Yu, Fenglei
Lv, You
Ren, Yongxin
author_sort Ma, Cheng
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Both percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) and open fenestration discectomy (OFD) are effective and safe surgical procedures for the treatment of LDH. The purpose of this retrospective study was to compare the surgical outcomes of percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) and OFD for single-segment huge lumbar disc herniation (HLDH). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 91 patients diagnosed with single-segment HLDH and treated with OFD or PEID. Visual analog scale (VAS), modified Japanese orthopedic association (mJOA) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) were used to assess clinical outcomes at preoperation and postoperatively at 3, 6, 12, and 24months. Modified Macnab criteria were applied to evaluate clinically satisfaction at the final follow-up. RESULTS: In both groups, the VAS and ODI scores at 3, 6, 12, and 24months postoperatively showed a significant decrease and the mJOA score at 3, 6, 12, and 24months postoperatively was significantly increased compared to preoperative results (P<0.001). According to Macnab criteria at the final follow-up, the overall clinically satisfactory rate was 86.67% in the OFD group and 86.96% in the PEID group. There were no significant differences in VAS, ODI, and mJOA scores between the two groups at preoperation and postoperative 3, 6, 12, and 24months, respectively. In the PEID group, the length of hospitalization and the length of incision were significantly shorter than that in the OFD group (P<0.0001). However, there was no significant difference in operative time between groups (P=0.81). CONCLUSION: Collectively, postoperative clinical results were equally favorable for both procedures, with no statistically significant difference between PEID and OFD at the two-year of follow-up. No serious complication was observed in two groups. Compared with the traditional surgery, PEID has the following benefits: less trauma, less bleeding, speedy recovery, and shorter hospitalization. Therefore, PEID may be a promising alternative to traditional surgery.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9013921
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Dove
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-90139212022-04-19 Comparison of Percutaneous Endoscopic Interlaminar Discectomy and Open Fenestration Discectomy for Single-Segment Huge Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Two-year Follow-up Retrospective Study Ma, Cheng Li, He Zhang, Teng Wei, Yifan Zhang, Helong Yu, Fenglei Lv, You Ren, Yongxin J Pain Res Original Research PURPOSE: Both percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) and open fenestration discectomy (OFD) are effective and safe surgical procedures for the treatment of LDH. The purpose of this retrospective study was to compare the surgical outcomes of percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) and OFD for single-segment huge lumbar disc herniation (HLDH). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 91 patients diagnosed with single-segment HLDH and treated with OFD or PEID. Visual analog scale (VAS), modified Japanese orthopedic association (mJOA) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) were used to assess clinical outcomes at preoperation and postoperatively at 3, 6, 12, and 24months. Modified Macnab criteria were applied to evaluate clinically satisfaction at the final follow-up. RESULTS: In both groups, the VAS and ODI scores at 3, 6, 12, and 24months postoperatively showed a significant decrease and the mJOA score at 3, 6, 12, and 24months postoperatively was significantly increased compared to preoperative results (P<0.001). According to Macnab criteria at the final follow-up, the overall clinically satisfactory rate was 86.67% in the OFD group and 86.96% in the PEID group. There were no significant differences in VAS, ODI, and mJOA scores between the two groups at preoperation and postoperative 3, 6, 12, and 24months, respectively. In the PEID group, the length of hospitalization and the length of incision were significantly shorter than that in the OFD group (P<0.0001). However, there was no significant difference in operative time between groups (P=0.81). CONCLUSION: Collectively, postoperative clinical results were equally favorable for both procedures, with no statistically significant difference between PEID and OFD at the two-year of follow-up. No serious complication was observed in two groups. Compared with the traditional surgery, PEID has the following benefits: less trauma, less bleeding, speedy recovery, and shorter hospitalization. Therefore, PEID may be a promising alternative to traditional surgery. Dove 2022-04-13 /pmc/articles/PMC9013921/ /pubmed/35444463 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/JPR.S352595 Text en © 2022 Ma et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) ). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms (https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php).
spellingShingle Original Research
Ma, Cheng
Li, He
Zhang, Teng
Wei, Yifan
Zhang, Helong
Yu, Fenglei
Lv, You
Ren, Yongxin
Comparison of Percutaneous Endoscopic Interlaminar Discectomy and Open Fenestration Discectomy for Single-Segment Huge Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Two-year Follow-up Retrospective Study
title Comparison of Percutaneous Endoscopic Interlaminar Discectomy and Open Fenestration Discectomy for Single-Segment Huge Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Two-year Follow-up Retrospective Study
title_full Comparison of Percutaneous Endoscopic Interlaminar Discectomy and Open Fenestration Discectomy for Single-Segment Huge Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Two-year Follow-up Retrospective Study
title_fullStr Comparison of Percutaneous Endoscopic Interlaminar Discectomy and Open Fenestration Discectomy for Single-Segment Huge Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Two-year Follow-up Retrospective Study
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Percutaneous Endoscopic Interlaminar Discectomy and Open Fenestration Discectomy for Single-Segment Huge Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Two-year Follow-up Retrospective Study
title_short Comparison of Percutaneous Endoscopic Interlaminar Discectomy and Open Fenestration Discectomy for Single-Segment Huge Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Two-year Follow-up Retrospective Study
title_sort comparison of percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy and open fenestration discectomy for single-segment huge lumbar disc herniation: a two-year follow-up retrospective study
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9013921/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35444463
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/JPR.S352595
work_keys_str_mv AT macheng comparisonofpercutaneousendoscopicinterlaminardiscectomyandopenfenestrationdiscectomyforsinglesegmenthugelumbardischerniationatwoyearfollowupretrospectivestudy
AT lihe comparisonofpercutaneousendoscopicinterlaminardiscectomyandopenfenestrationdiscectomyforsinglesegmenthugelumbardischerniationatwoyearfollowupretrospectivestudy
AT zhangteng comparisonofpercutaneousendoscopicinterlaminardiscectomyandopenfenestrationdiscectomyforsinglesegmenthugelumbardischerniationatwoyearfollowupretrospectivestudy
AT weiyifan comparisonofpercutaneousendoscopicinterlaminardiscectomyandopenfenestrationdiscectomyforsinglesegmenthugelumbardischerniationatwoyearfollowupretrospectivestudy
AT zhanghelong comparisonofpercutaneousendoscopicinterlaminardiscectomyandopenfenestrationdiscectomyforsinglesegmenthugelumbardischerniationatwoyearfollowupretrospectivestudy
AT yufenglei comparisonofpercutaneousendoscopicinterlaminardiscectomyandopenfenestrationdiscectomyforsinglesegmenthugelumbardischerniationatwoyearfollowupretrospectivestudy
AT lvyou comparisonofpercutaneousendoscopicinterlaminardiscectomyandopenfenestrationdiscectomyforsinglesegmenthugelumbardischerniationatwoyearfollowupretrospectivestudy
AT renyongxin comparisonofpercutaneousendoscopicinterlaminardiscectomyandopenfenestrationdiscectomyforsinglesegmenthugelumbardischerniationatwoyearfollowupretrospectivestudy