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 Comparison of Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Revision Surgery for the Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation After Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anqi Wang ◽  
Zhengrong Yu
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Lumbar Disc Herniation ◽  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Revision Surgery ◽  
Lumbar Disc ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Discectomy ◽  
Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy ◽  
Surgical Methods ◽  
Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy

Abstract Background: Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) has become a feasible alternative to the conventional open surgery for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH), but PELD is associated with a certain rate of recurrence. Therefore, a good choice of surgical approach for recurrent lumbar disc herniation (rLDH) is important. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes between PELD and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) for revision surgery for the rLDH after primary PELD surgery.Methods: This study retrospectively assessed 46 patients who suffered from rLDH after PELD surgery in Peking University First Hospital from January 2015 to June 2019, and patients were divided into two groups, PELD group (n=24) and MIS-TLIF group (n=22), according to different revision surgical methods. Preoperative data, perioperative conditions, complications, recurrence condition, and clinical outcomes were compared between these two groups.Results: Compared with the MIS-TLIF group, the PELD group was associated with shorter operative time, less intraoperative hemorrhage, and shorter post-operative hospitalization, but higher recurrence rate. Complication rates were comparable between two groups. Both the two groups could provide patients with satisfactory clinical outcomes at the 12-month follow-up after revision surgery. Compared with MIS-TLIF, PELD was associated with visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores of back pain, and Oswestry disability index (ODI) at the 1-month follow-up, whereas this effect was equalized after 6 months postoperatively.Conclusions: Either PELD or MIS-TLIF surgery could provide satisfactory clinical outcomes for revision surgery for the rLDH after primary PELD. PELD brought advantages in shorter operative time, less intraoperative hemorrhage, and shorter post-operative hospitalization over MIS-TLIF, however, higher postoperative recurrence rate of PELD couldn’t be ignored. Surgeons must weigh advantages against disadvantages of these surgical methods and fully informed patients preoperatively.

Comparation of Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy between Transforaminal Approach and Interlaminar Approach on Lumbar Disc Herniation of L4-L5: An Observational Study

2020 ◽  
Vol 103 (12) ◽  
pp. 1277-1283
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Disc Herniation ◽  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Lumbar Disc ◽  
Demographic Data ◽  
Lumbar Discectomy ◽  
Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy ◽  
Interlaminar Approach ◽  
Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy ◽  
Approach Group

Objective: To evaluate the clinical outcomes and complications of post percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) via transforaminal (TF) approach and interlaminar (IL) approach in patients with lumbar disc herniation L4-L5 level. Materials and Methods: Eighty-five patients diagnosed with lumbar disc herniation on L4-L5 level and who underwent PELD were non-randomly recruited and assigned into two groups. Fifty-two patients underwent PELD via the IL approach and thirty-three patients underwent PELD via the TF approach. The demographic data, resting visual analog scale (VAS), activity VAS, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and complications were obtained before the operation, and at follow-up on day 1, and at 2-, 6-, 12-, and 24-months post operation. Results: Resting VAS and activity VAS statistically significantly declined in both groups (p=0.001). Activities of daily living (ADL) as assessed by ODI increased significantly in both groups (p=0.001). However, there was no significant differences between the groups. The TF approach group had significant more dysesthesia and re-surgery (p=0.009, p=0.05, respectively) than the IL approach group. The total re-surgery rate during the two years of follow-up was in the 9.4%. Conclusion: PELD is a safe and effective minimal invasive spine surgery. The clinical results via both approaches have similar result but PELD via the TF approach had higher post-operative complications than via the IL approach. Additionally, PELD via the TF approach required higher skill to puncture and there is a steeper learning curve than PELD via the IL approach. Keywords: Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy, PELD, Transforaminal, Interlaminar

scholarly journals Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy as an Alternative to Open Lumbar Microdiscectomy for Large Lumbar Disc Herniation

2016 ◽  
Vol 19 (2;2) ◽  
pp. E291-E300 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jin-Sung Kim
Keyword(s):  
Back Pain ◽  
Lumbar Disc Herniation ◽  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Lumbar Disc ◽  
Lumbar Discectomy ◽  
Disc Height ◽  
Herniated Disc ◽  
Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy ◽  
Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy

Background: Remarkable advancements in endoscopic spinal surgery have led to successful outcomes comparable to those of conventional open surgery. Large lumbar disc herniation (LLDH) is a serious condition, resulting in higher surgical failure when accessing the herniated disc. Objectives: This study compared the outcomes of LLDH treated with percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) and open lumbar microdiscectomy (OLM). Study Design: Retrospective assessment. Methods: This retrospective observational study was conducted from January 2011 to June 2012. Forty-four consecutive patients diagnosed with LLDH without cauda equina syndrome who were scheduled to undergo spinal surgery were included. LLDH was defined as herniated disc fragment occupying > 50% of the spinal canal. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using a visual analogue scale (VAS, 0 – 10), functional status was assessed using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI, 0 – 100%) at 1, 6, and 24 months postoperatively and surgical satisfaction rate (0 – 100%) at final follow up. Radiological variables were assessed by plain radiography. Results: Forty-three patients were included; 20 and 23 patients underwent PELD and OLM, respectively. Both groups exhibited significant improvements in leg and back pain postoperatively (P < 0.001). Although there was no significant difference in leg pain improvement between the groups, improvement in back pain was significantly higher in the PELD group than in the OLM group (4.9 ± 1.5 vs. 2.5 ± 1.0, P < 0.001). The surgical satisfaction rate of the PELD group was significantly higher than that of the OLM group (91.3% ± 6.5 vs. 84.3% ± 5.2, P < 0.001). Mean operating time, hospital stay, and time until return to work were significantly shorter in the PELD group than in the OLM group (67.8 vs. 136.7 minutes, 1.5 vs. 7.2 days, and 4.2 vs. 8.6 weeks; P < 0.001). Disc height (%) decreased significantly from 23.7 ± 3.3 to 19.1 ± 3.7 after OLM (P < 0.001), but did not change significantly after PELD (23.6 ± 3.2 to 23.4 ± 4.2; P = 0.703). The segmental angle of the operated level increased from 10.3° to 15.4° in the PELD group, which was significantly higher than that in the OLM group (9.6° to 11.6°; P = 0.038). In the OLM group, there was one case of fusion due to instability. In the PELD group, one case required revision surgery and another case experienced recurrence. There were no perioperative complications in either group. Limitation: The study was retrospective with a small sample size and short follow-up period. Conclusion: PELD can be an effective treatment for LLDH, and it is associated with potential advantages, including a rapid recovery, improvements in back pain, and disc height preservation. Key words: Large lumbar disc herniation, percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy, microdiscectomy, back pain, disc height

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document