Microscopic Lumbar Discectomy for Paramedian Disc Herniation with CO2 Laser

2021 ◽  
pp. 61-66
Author(s):  
Dong Hyun Bae ◽  
Junseok Bae
Keyword(s):  
Co2 Laser ◽  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Lumbar Discectomy

EFFICACY OF ANTIBIOTICS PROPHYLAXIS IN PATIENTS WITH LUMBAR DISC HERNIATION UNDERGOING LUMBAR DISCETOMY

2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (5) ◽  
pp. 14-19
Author(s):  
Tri Truong Van ◽  
Tri Tran Duc Duy ◽  
Khai Vo Le Quang
Keyword(s):  
Surgical Site Infection ◽  
Lumbar Disc Herniation ◽  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Lumbar Disc ◽  
Lumbar Discectomy ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
Site Infection ◽  
Surgical Wound ◽  
A Prospective Study ◽  
Length Of Hospitalization

Introduction: Surgical wound infection in developing coutries is about 3%. Antibiotics prophylaxis may help to reduce the surgical site infection. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of antibiotics prophylaxis in patients with lumbar disc herniation who were treated with lumbar discectomy at Hue University hospital. Materials and Methods: A prospective study was conducted at Hue University hospital from March 2015 to May 2018 on 54 patients with lumbar disc herniation who were used antibiotics prophylaxis when undergoing discectomy. Results: The infection rate in our study was 0%. Antibiotics prophylaxis reduced the length of hospitalization as well as the medical cost. Conclusion: Antibiotics prophylaxis was effective in preventing surgical site infection despite the fact that the condition of operating rooms did not meet the standard rules. Key words: prophylaxis antibiotics, lumbar disc herniation

scholarly journals A Comparison of Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy and Open Lumbar Microdiscectomy for Lumbar Disc Herniation in the Korean: A Meta-Analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manyoung Kim ◽  
Sol Lee ◽  
Hyeun-Sung Kim ◽  
Sangyoon Park ◽  
Sang-Yeup Shim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Disc Herniation ◽  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Lumbar Disc ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Lumbar Discectomy ◽  
Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy ◽  
Lumbar Microdiscectomy ◽  
Surgical Methods ◽  
Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy

Background. Among the surgical methods for lumbar disc herniation, open lumbar microdiscectomy is considered the gold standard. Recently, percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy is also commonly performed for lumbar disc herniation for its various strong points. Objectives. The present study aims to examine whether percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy and open lumbar microdiscectomy show better results as surgical treatments for lumbar disc herniation in the Korean population. Methods. In the present meta-analysis, papers on Korean patients who underwent open lumbar microdiscectomy and percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy were searched, both of which are surgical methods to treat lumbar disc herniation. The papers from 1973, when percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy was first introduced, to March 2018 were searched at the databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane Library. Results. Seven papers with 1254 patients were selected. A comparison study revealed that percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy had significantly better results than open lumbar microdiscectomy in the visual analogue pain scale at the final follow-up (leg: mean difference [MD]=-0.35; 95% confidence interval [CI]=-0.61, -0.09; p=0.009; back: MD=-0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI]=-1.42, -0.17; p=0.01), Oswestry Disability Index (MD=-2.12; 95% CI=-4.25, 0.01; p=0.05), operation time (MD=-23.06; 95% CI=-32.42, -13.70; p<0.00001), and hospital stay (MD=-4.64; 95% CI=-6.37, -2.90; p<0.00001). There were no statistical differences in the MacNab classification (odds ratio [OR]=1.02; 95% CI=0.71, 1.49; p=0.90), complication rate (OR=0.72; 95% CI=0.20, 2.62; p=0.62), recurrence rate (OR=0.83; 95% CI=0.50, 1.38; p=0.47), and reoperation rate (OR=1.45; 95% CI=0.89, 2.35; p=0.13). Limitations. All 7 papers used for the meta-analysis were non-RCTs. Some differences (type of surgery (primary or revisional), treatment options before the operation, follow-up period, etc.) existed depending on the selected paper, and the sample size was small as well. Conclusion. While percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy showed better results than open lumbar microdiscectomy in some items, open lumbar microdiscectomy still showed good clinical results, and it is therefore reckoned that a randomized controlled trial with a large sample size would be required in the future to compare these two surgical methods.

scholarly journals The efficacy of lumbar discectomy and single-level fusion for spondylolisthesis: results from the NeuroPoint-SD registry

2013 ◽  
Vol 19 (5) ◽  
pp. 555-563 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zoher Ghogawala ◽  
Christopher I. Shaffrey ◽  
Anthony L. Asher ◽  
Robert F. Heary ◽  
Tanya Logvinenko ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Lumbar Discectomy ◽  
Cooperative Research ◽  
Single Level ◽  
Sf 36 ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Lumbar Spondylolisthesis ◽  
Level Fusion

Object There is significant practice variation and considerable uncertainty among payers and other major stakeholders as to whether many surgical treatments are effective in actual US spine practice. The aim of this study was to establish a multicenter cooperative research group and demonstrate the feasibility of developing a registry to assess the efficacy of common lumbar spinal procedures using prospectively collected patient-reported outcome measures. Methods An observational prospective cohort study was conducted at 13 US academic and community sites. Unselected patients undergoing lumbar discectomy or single-level fusion for spondylolisthesis were included. Patients completed the 36-item Short-Form Survey Instrument (SF-36), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and visual analog scale (VAS) questionnaires preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Power analysis estimated a sample size of 160 patients: 125 patients with lumbar disc herniation, and 35 with lumbar spondylolisthesis. All patient data were entered into a secure Internet-based data management platform. Results Of 249 patients screened, there were 198 enrolled over 1 year. The median age of the patients was 45.0 years (49% female) for lumbar discectomy (n = 148), and 58.0 years (58% female) for lumbar spondylolisthesis (n = 50). At 30 days, 12 complications (6.1% of study population) were identified. Ten patients (6.8%) with disc herniation and 1 (2%) with spondylolisthesis required reoperation. The overall follow-up rate for the collection of patient-reported outcome data over 1 year was 88.3%. At 30 days, both lumbar discectomy and single-level fusion procedures were associated with significant improvements in ODI, VAS, and SF-36 scores (p ≤ 0.0002), which persisted over the 1-year follow-up period (p < 0.0001). By the 1-year follow-up evaluation, more than 80% of patients in each cohort who were working preoperatively had returned to work. Conclusions It is feasible to build a national spine registry for the collection of high-quality prospective data to demonstrate the effectiveness of spinal procedures in actual practice. Clinical trial registration no.: 01220921 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document