scholarly journals Open Lumbar Microdiscectomy and Posterolateral Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy for Antero- and Retrospondylolisthesis

2020 ◽  
Vol 4;23 (7;4) ◽  
pp. 393-403
Author(s):  
Dong-Ju Yun
Keyword(s):  
Disc Degeneration ◽  
Telephone Survey ◽  
Lumbar Disc ◽  
Degenerative Spondylolisthesis ◽  
Lumbar Discectomy ◽  
Telephone Surveys ◽  
Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy ◽  
Lumbar Microdiscectomy ◽  
Herniated Lumbar Disc ◽  
Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy

Background: Posterolateral endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PLELD) or percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy has been reported to be effective as treatment for herniated lumbar disc in degenerative spondylolisthesis. Few studies have investigated the outcomes of open lumbar microdiscectomy (OLM) and PLELD for antero- and retrospondylolisthesis with mild slippage and instability. Objectives: We aimed to evaluate the outcomes of OLM and PLELD for antero- and retrospondylolisthesis with mild slippage and instability. Study Design: This study used a retrospective design. Setting: Research was conducted in a hospital and outpatient surgical center. Methods: This study enrolled 84 patients aged 20 to 60 years with low-grade degenerative spondylolisthesis who underwent OLM or PLELD for antero- or retrospondylolisthesis at our hospital between March 2007 and August 2014 and who were followed up for at least 3 years. Telephone survey and chart review, with a particular focus on pre- and postoperative radiographic parameters, were conducted. Additionally, patients were invited to undergo reexamination to update their clinical and radiological data. Results: Telephone surveys and clinical/imaging evaluation were conducted on the OLM and PLELD groups at a mean of 71.44 and 74.69 months, respectively. Out of 43 patients who underwent OLM, 34 responded to the telephone survey, 17 of whom then underwent reexamination. Among 41 patients who underwent PLELD, 32 responded to the telephone survey, 19 of whom then underwent reexamination. Based on telephone surveys and patient charts, reoperation at the same vertebral level was confirmed in 8 patients (23.5%) who underwent OLM and one patient (4.4%) who underwent PLELD, with a significantly higher rate of reoperation in the OLM group (P = .028). Vertebral disc height decreased more after OLM than after PLELD. Compared to PLELD, OLM was associated with significantly worse rates of iatrogenic endplate damage, endplate defect scores, and alterations in subchondral bone signal intensity. However, the final clinical outcomes did not differ between OLM and PLELD. Limitations: The limitations of this study include its relatively small sample size and the possibility of bias owing to nonrandomized patient selection. Conclusions: In patients with spondylolisthesis who have a herniated lumbar disc as mild slippage with instability, PLELD may be a good treatment option to reduce recurrence rates and mitigate disc degeneration. IRB approval number: 2016-12-WSH-011 Key words: Anterospondylolisthesis, disc degeneration, endplate, herniated lumbar disc, open lumbar discectomy, percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy, posterolateral endoscopic lumbar discectomy, retrospondylolisthesis, slippage

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.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document