scholarly journals Posterior percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy combined with the vertical anchoring technique for lumbar disc herniation with distant upward migration

Author(s):  
Yu Xia ◽  
Qiongyue Zhang ◽  
Xiang Gao ◽  
Keran Wang ◽  
Xun Zhang ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Posterior percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) has become a preferred procedure for the treatment of simple lumbar disc herniation (LDH) but has rarely been reported for distant upward migration. The purpose of this research was to investigate the feasibility, safety, clinical efficacy and technical points of posterior PELD combined with the vertical anchoring technique (VAT) for the treatment of LDH with distant upward migration. Methods Thirteen patients with distant upward migrated LDH who underwent posterior PELD combined with the VAT from March 2016 to May 2018 were selected. Among these cases, the herniated disc was located at L3/4 in 2 patients, L4/5 in 9 patients and L5/S1 in 2 patients. The operative time, length of hospital stay and postoperative complications were recorded. The visual analogue score (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores and modified MacNab criteria were used to assess surgical efficacy. Results All 13 patients underwent successful surgery. We compared the VAS, ODI and JOA scores before and after surgery. The differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05). According to the modified MacNab criteria, 10 patients were assessed as “excellent”, 2 patients were assessed as “good” and 1 patient was assessed as “fair” at the last follow-up. The rate of satisfactory outcomes was 92.3%. Conclusion Posterior PELD combined with the VAT is a safe and feasible procedure for the treatment of LDH with distant upward migration and represents a new approach for this type of surgery.

2016 ◽  
Vol 19 (2;2) ◽  
pp. E291-E300 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jin-Sung Kim

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


2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manyoung Kim ◽  
Sol Lee ◽  
Hyeun-Sung Kim ◽  
Sangyoon Park ◽  
Sang-Yeup Shim ◽  
...  

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.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lei Kong ◽  
Wei-Zhi Zhang ◽  
Hong-Guang Xu

Abstract Background: Minimally invasive surgery includes percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy and the microscopic tubular technique. This study aimed to compare the two techniques and evaluate the outcomes of the procedures.Methods: We retrospectively analyzed patients with far-lateral lumbar disc herniation (FLLDH) from June 2015 to October 2018. Twenty-six patients underwent paraspinal muscle-splitting microscopic-assisted discectomy (MD) and 30 patients underwent percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) surgery by the same surgical team. Data included the duration of the operation, duration of intraoperative radiation exposure, and average duration of hospitalization. Pre- and postoperative pain scores and neurological functions were recorded using a visual analog scale (VAS) score and Oswestry disability index (ODI).Results: 56 patients remained in the study over the 12–24 months period. The mean operating time was 65.83 ± 16.64 min in the PELD group, mean duration of radiation exposure was 2.87 ± 1.19 min, and average of hospitalization was 3.43 days. The mean operating time was 44.96 ± 16.87 min in the MD group, duration of radiation exposure was 0.78 ± 0.32 min, and duration of hospitalization was 4.12 days. There were two patients with postoperative transient dysesthesia and one underwent reoperation 7 months after surgery in the PELD group. One patient had postoperative transient dysesthesia in the MD group. Except low back pain at 3 months (p >0.05), all patients in both groups showed significant improvement in VAS and ODI scores compared with pre-operation and until final follow-up (p<0.05). Although the learning curve of MD is shorter compared with the PELD, beginners should practice on cadavers and receive teaching demonstrations from senior surgeons.Conclusion: Both techniques are minimally invasive, effective, and safe for treating far-lateral lumbar disc herniation in selected patients. Compared with the PELD technique, the MD procedure offers a wider field of vision during operation, shorter operation time, fewer postoperative complications, and shorter learning curve.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document