Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy versus percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective study

Background Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBE) is a rapidly growing surgical method that uses arthroscopic system for treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH), while percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) has been standardized as a representative minimally invasive spine surgical technique for LDH. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes between UBE and PELD for treatment of patients with LDH. Methods The subjects consisted of 54 patients who underwent UBE (24 cases) and PELD (30 cases) who were followed up for at least 6 months. All patients had lumber disc herniation for 1 level. Outcomes of the patients were assessed with operation time, incision length, hospital stay, total blood loss (TBL), intraoperative blood loss (IBL), hidden blood loss (HBL), complications, total hospitalization costs, visual analogue scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, the Oswestry disability index (ODI) and modified MacNab criteria. Results The VAS scores and ODI decreased significantly in two groups after operation. Preoperative and 1 day, 1 month, 6 months after operation VAS and ODI scores were not significantly different between the two groups. Compared with PELD group, UBE group was associated with higher TBL, higher IBL, higher HBL, longer operation time, longer hospital stay, longer incision length, and more total hospitalization costs. However, a dural tear occurred in one patient of the UBE group. There was no significant difference in the rate of complications between the two groups. Conclusions Application of UBE for treatment of lumbar disc herniation yielded similar clinical outcomes to PELD, including pain control and patient satisfaction. However, UBE was associated with various disadvantages relative to PELD, including increased total, intraoperative and hidden blood loss, longer operation times, longer hospital stays, and more total hospitalization costs.

Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy Using Side-Viewing Conical Working Tube: An Institutional Experience

Objective The paradigm of surgical therapy for spinal disease especially for lumbar disc herniation (LDH) has gradually shifted from the traditional open surgeries to minimal invasive spinal surgeries. Endoscopic discectomy has been performed widely using various devices and techniques. In this study we present our experience of endoscopic discectomy using a unique device with separate side-viewing channel. Methods Twenty-six patients with LDH treated between March 2015 and April 2018 using the unique conical working tube with separate side-viewing endoscopic channel have been retrospectively analyzed. Their preoperative and postoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Macnab scores were used to evaluate the outcome with a mean follow-up of 37.04 months. Results There were 18 males and 8 females with age ranging from 19 to 72 years (mean, 38.4 years). The follow-up ranged from 25 to 60 months with mean of 37.04 months. The mean preoperative ODI score was 72.4, which decreased to a mean of 7.6 and the outcome evaluated by Macnab criteria was 65.3% excellent, 19.2% good, 11.5% fair, and 3.8% poor. One patient underwent second surgery. None of the patients had to change their occupation postoperatively. Complications that occurred were dural tear in one patient and transient foot paresis in one, which improved spontaneously. Conclusion Endoscopic discectomy using conical working tube is a safe and effective technique for lumbar disc prolapse. The long-term results are comparable to the conventional techniques.

The Limitation of Endoscopic Surgery Using the Full Endoscopic Discectomy System for the Treatment of Destructive Stage Pyogenic Spondylodiscitis: A Case Series

Introduction. Conservative therapy, including appropriate antibiotics and bracing, is usually adequate for most patients with pyogenic spondylodiscitis. If conservative treatment fails, surgical intervention is needed. However, major spinal surgery comprising anterior debridement and accompanying bone grafting with or without additional instrumentation is often related to undesired postoperative complications. In recent years, with minimally invasive surgery, the diagnostic and therapeutic value of endoscopic lavage and drainage has been proven. This study reports a case series of patients who required open revision surgery after treatment with endoscopic surgery using the full endoscopic discectomy system (FED), indicating the surgical limitations of endoscopic surgery for pyogenic spondylodiscitis. Methods. We retrospectively investigated the medical records of 4 patients who underwent open debridement and anterior reconstruction with posterior instrumentation following endoscopic surgery for their advanced lumbar infectious spondylitis. They had been receiving conservative treatment with antibiotics for 12–15 days. They also had various comorbidities, including kidney disease, heart failure, and diabetes. Numerical rating scale pain response, perioperative imaging studies, and C-reactive protein (CRP) levels were determined, and causative bacteria were identified. Primarily, the bone destruction stage was classified using computed tomography with reference to Griffiths’ scheme. Results. All patients had severe back pain before surgery with no relief of the pain after FED. Increased pain, including radicular pain after FED, was noted in one case. Causative pathogens from biopsy specimens were identified in 3 (75%) of the 4 cases. In preoperative radiological evaluation, all cases were classified as destructive stage in Griffiths’ scheme. The CRP levels of all the patients decreased slightly after endoscopic surgery. Relapse of spinal infection after revision surgery was not noted in any patient during the follow-up period. Conclusion. The surgical treatment of destructive-stage spondylitis with FED alone can increase low back pain due to aggressive debridement.

Efficacy of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy unilateral and bilateral approach for bilateral decompression in treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis and their effects on quality of life

This study aimed to explore the efficacy of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) unilateral and bilateral approach for bilateral decompression in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS) and their effects on quality of life. Altogether 119 patients with DLSS admitted to our hospital from May 2012 to February 2014 were enrolled in this study. Patients in Group A (62 cases) were treated with PTED bilateral approach for bilateral decompression, while those in Group B (57 cases) were treated with PTED unilateral approach for bilateral decompression. The therapeutic effect and incidence of complications in the two groups were observed. Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) was used to assess the pain degree of the lower limbs. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) was used to assess the improvement of neurological function. 36-ltem Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) developed by the Institute of Medicine was used to assess the quality of life. There were no significant differences between Group A and Group B in operative time, intraoperative blood loss, hospitalization time, the effective rate of treatment, and the incidence of complications (P>0.05). The recovery time of lumbar function in Group A was significantly shorter than that in Group B (P<0.01). VAS and ODI scores at 1, 3, and 6 months after operation in Group A were significantly lower than those in Group B (P<0.05). The scores of general health (GH), bodily pain (BP), social function (SF), vitality (VT), and mental health (MH) at 6 months after operation in Group A were significantly higher than those in Group B (P<0.05). In conclusion, PTED bilateral approach for bilateral decompression was effective in the treatment of patients with DLSS. It can promote the recovery of their lumbar function and neurological function, and improve their quality of life.