PEID (Percutaneous Endoscopic Interlaminar Discectomy): Cautionary Points Based on the Evidence

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 7
Author(s):  
Jun Ho Lee
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Disc ◽  
Lumbar Discectomy ◽  
Radiographic Evaluation ◽  
Operative Indication ◽  
Endoscopic Techniques ◽  
Bone Removal ◽  
Iatrogenic Trauma ◽  
Minimal Damage ◽  
Surgical Modality ◽  
Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy

Background: Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) is one of the most sophisticated operative procedures for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH). Endoscopic techniques are now becoming standard in many areas due to expanded technical possibilities of full-endoscopic transforaminal or interlaminar resection of herniated lumbar discs as well as stenosis. However conventional percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) disc operations may sometimes result in subsequent untoward complications due to unnoticed iatrogenic trauma to neural structures, which is mostly related to an anatomical limitation during endoscope insertion.Methods: An appropriate operative indication of the PEID without bone removal or laminectomy can be used to treat LDH cases with an enough interlaminar space (at least ≥ 20 mm by bi-facetal distance) from the reported evidences. Otherwise, there might be several indications for requirement of bone removal; a narrow interlaminar space, disappearance of the concave shape of the upper vertebral laminae, high-grade migration of LDH, recurrent LDH, obesity, or an immobile nerve root.Conclusion: The significance of PEID lies also in its minimal damage to surrounding structures such as muscle, bone, and ligaments. A discrete radiographic evaluation from the patient preoperatively is mandatory before choosing a proper endoscopic surgical modality for the sake of optimal clinical outcome after PEID. 

scholarly journals Follow-up results of microendoscopic discectomy compared to day surgery using percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhaojun Song ◽  
Maobo Ran ◽  
Juan Luo ◽  
Kai Zhang ◽  
Yongjie Ye ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Back Pain ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Lumbar Disc ◽  
Postoperative Recurrence ◽  
Day Surgery ◽  
Lumbar Discectomy ◽  
Height Ratio ◽  
Microendoscopic Discectomy ◽  
Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy

Abstract Background Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) is satisfactory for hospitalized patients with lumbar disc herniation (LDH). Currently, only a few studies have reported about the day surgery patients undergoing PELD. Methods A total of 267 patients with LDH underwent PELD during day surgery and were followed up for at least 3 years. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the visual analog scale (VAS) for leg and lower back pain (VAS-B and VAS-L, respectively) and the Oswestry disability index (ODI). The radiological outcomes, such as lumbar lordosis (LL), sacral slope (SS), the disc-height ratio, and disc instability, were recorded and compared. The clinical effects between patients treated by PELD during day surgery and microendoscopic discectomy (MED) for contemporaneous hospitalized 116 patients with LDH were compared. Results Patients treated by PELD had lower blood loss and shorter hospital stay (P <  0.001) compared to those treated by MED. VAS-L, VAS-B, and ODI decreased significantly after PELD than before the operation and 3 years postoperatively. The postoperative VAS-B in the PELD group was significantly decreased than in the MED group (P = 0.001). The complications rate was 9.4% in the PELD group and 12.1% in the MED group (P = 0.471). The 1-year postoperative recurrence rate in the PELD group was much higher than that in MED group (P = 0.042). The postoperative LL and SS in the PELD group improved significantly compared to the values in the MED group (P <  0.001). According to the disc-height ratio at 3-year follow-up, a significant height loss was observed in the MED group than in the PELD group (P = 0.014). Conclusions Although the 1-year postoperative recurrence rate was relatively high, the day surgery for LDH undergoing PELD had advantages in terms of less blood loss intraoperatively, short hospital stay, efficacy for back pain, and efficiency to maintain lumbar physiological curvature.

Risk of reoperation and infection after percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy and open lumbar discectomy

2021 ◽  
Vol 103-B (8) ◽  
pp. 1392-1399
Author(s):  
Tae Wook Kang ◽  
Si Young Park ◽  
Hoonji Oh ◽  
Soon Hyuck Lee ◽  
Jong Hoon Park ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Disc ◽  
Surgical Techniques ◽  
Lumbar Discectomy ◽  
Infection Rates ◽  
Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy ◽  
Primary Endpoints ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
History Of ◽  
Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy ◽  
Reoperation Rates

Aims Open discectomy (OD) is the standard operation for lumbar disc herniation (LDH). Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD), however, has shown similar outcomes to OD and there is increasing interest in this procedure. However despite improved surgical techniques and instrumentation, reoperation and infection rates continue and are reported to be between 6% and 24% and 0.7% and 16%, respectively. The objective of this study was to compare the rate of reoperation and infection within six months of patients being treated for LDH either by OD or PELD. Methods In this retrospective, nationwide cohort study, the Korean National Health Insurance database from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2018 was reviewed. Data were extracted for patients who underwent OD or PELD for LDH without a history of having undergone either procedure during the preceding year. Individual patients were followed for six months through their encrypted unique resident registration number. The primary endpoints were rates of reoperation and infection during the follow-up period. Other risk factors for reoperation and infection were also evalulated. Results Out of 549,531 patients, 522,640 had undergone OD (95.11%) and 26,891 patients had undergone PELD (4.89%). Reoperation rates within six months were 2.28% in the OD group, and 5.38% in the PELD group. Infection rates were 1.18% in OD group and 0.83% in PELD group. The risk of reoperation was lower for patients with OD than for patients with PELD (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.38). The risk of infection was higher for patients with OD than for patients undergoing PELD (HR, 1.325). Conclusion Compared with the OD group, the PELD group showed higher reoperation rates and lower infection rates. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(8):1392–1399.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document