Endoscopic Discectomy and Foraminal Decompression

2008 ◽  
pp. 1407-1413
Author(s):  
Anthony T. Yeung ◽  
Christopher Alan Yeung
10.14444/4028 ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stylianos Kapetanakis ◽  
Grigorios Gkasdaris ◽  
Tryfon Thomaidis ◽  
Georgios Charitoudis ◽  
Konstantinos Kazakos

Neurosurgery ◽  
1998 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
pp. 701-701 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maurice M. Smith ◽  
Kevin T. Foley

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jinlong Liu ◽  
Junlong wu ◽  
Honglei Zhang ◽  
Rui Zuo ◽  
Jiabin Liu ◽  
...  

Abstract ObjectivePercutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) is minimally invasive and has been widely used to treat patients with lumbar disk herniation(LDH) due to its safety and efficiency. However, due to the unique anatomy of the L5-S1 level, the PTED procedure is often difficult to perform in the region. ZESSYS, a targeted and quantificational foraminoplasty device, may help to overcome these anatomical limitations. In this study, we assessed the efficiency and the short-term effects of PTED with ZESSY at the L5-S1 level.MethodsBetween January to August of 2018, Fifty-six patients with lumbar disk herniation at the single level of L5–S1 and underwent percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy were enrolled in this retrospective cohort study. They were segregated into the the TESSYS group and the ZESSYS group. The puncture time, foraminoplasty time, decompression time and fluoroscopy time evaluated for the operation efficiency. Clinical outcomes were assessed by visual analog scale(VAS) score and Oswestry Disability Index(ODI) score. The MacNab criteria were used to evaluate patient subjective satisfaction at 12-month follow-up postoperatively.ResultsThe average puncture time (5.29±2.05 minutes), foraminoplasty time (12.82±2.52 minutes) and fluoroscopy time (26.29±5.96 seconds) were all significantly shorter in the ZESSYS group than in the TESSYS group (average puncture time 8.07±3.13 minutes, p<0.01; foraminoplasty time, 17.18±2.92 minutes, p<0.01; fluoroscopy time, 34.73±6.86 seconds; p<0.01). No significant differences were observed between the 2 groups in the decompression time (p=0.057). The VAS score of low back pain and leg pain, as well as the ODI score, improved at all time points postoperatively compared with preoprative , in both the TESSYS group and the ZESSYS group (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in the VAS score of low back pain, VAS score of leg pain, and ODI score between the TESSYS group and the ZESSYS group at the same time points (P > 0.05). According to the MacNab criteria, the excellent and good rate at 12-month follow-up postoperatively was 85.7% in the TESSYS group and 89.3% in the ZESSYS group (P > 0.05).ConclusionThe targeted and quantificational foraminoplasty device named ZESSYS was more efficient in the puncture and foraminoplasty procedures, effectively protecting the exiting nerve and minimizing the level of radiation exposure. The device is efficient and safe for PTED in treating lumbar disk herniation at the L5-S1 level.


Author(s):  
J. SYS ◽  
A. VERVAECKE

Open (micro) discectomie is a routine treatment for patients with a lumbar disc hernia and incapacitating sciatica, resistant to conservative treatment. Alternatively, the full-endoscopic discectomy has been increasingly performed over the past years. While the surgical instrumentation for this approach has improved and the necessary specialized training is widely available, the technique remains challenging for the surgeon and the assumed/theoretical advantage regarding patient morbidity is still unproven. When compared to open (micro) discectomie, the existing literature fails to attribute significant decreases in length of hospital stay or complication rates to the full-endoscopic approach, therefore making the cost-benefit analysis uninteresting due to the higher associated cost. The structural lack of financing of Belgian hospitals leads to intrinsic budgetary limitations which are emphasized if the hospitals have to carry the extra costs related to endoscopic disc surgery themselves.


2005 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 365
Author(s):  
Byung-Joon Shin ◽  
Jae-Chul Lee ◽  
Jun-Seo Nam ◽  
Je-Pil Eom ◽  
Young-Il Cho ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 481-482
Author(s):  
Sanjeev Ariyandath Sreenivasan ◽  
Manoj Phalak ◽  
Sachin Anil Borkar ◽  
Shashank Sharad Kale

2011 ◽  
Vol 18 (04) ◽  
pp. 678-683
Author(s):  
M.SHAHID SMAIJA ◽  
SHEIKH ATIQ-UR-REHMAN ◽  
ASFA KHIZAR

Background: Discectomy is the standard treatment for lumber disc disease. Fenestration operations involved lot of tissue dissection and so the complications. Instead the endoscopic discectomy involved less tissue dissection but limited exposure. Objectives: The objectives of this study were to compare the outcome of endoscopic discectomy and fenestration discectomy interms of relieve from symptoms and complications. Study Design: Analytic study. Place and duration of study: Neurosurgical unit Bahawal Victoria hospital Bahawalpur, from Feb 2010 to Aug 2010. Patients and Methods: Forty cases fulfilling the inclusion criteria were selected. Efficacy of procedure was determined by improvement in Denis pain scale, Macnab’s criteria and straight leg raising (SLR) improvement. Results: Forty patients divided in two equal groups. Patients of group A underwent fenestration and Group B endoscopic discectomy.60%of patients had left sciatica while 40% of patients had right sciatica. According to Denis pain scale 10% patients had moderate pain, 30% had severe pain and 60% had constant pain. Straight leg raising test showed, 50% patients had less than 30O SLR, 30%patients showed SLR of 31̊ to 40̊ and 20%patients had SLR more than 40O. MRI findings were disc bulging, protrusion and rupture. Considering SLR, Denis pain scale and Mcnabs criteria of pain control there was no clinical difference found between the two operative procedures except in two patients in group B when open discectomy had to be performed. Conclusions: MED is a safe and effective mode of treatment for low back pain in patients with lumbar disc herniation. 


PAIN Reports ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. e906
Author(s):  
Kenta Wakaizumi ◽  
Binbin Wu ◽  
Shishi Huang ◽  
Linyu Fan ◽  
Bangli Shen ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document