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.

Effect of Dexmedetomidine Administation on Analgesic, Respiration and Inflammatory Responses in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy: A Prospective Observational Study

BackgroundLocal anesthesia has been recommended for percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) in recent years; however, the efficacy, including oxidative stress, inflammatory reactions and ventilation effects, when intravenous dexmedetomidine (DEX) is administered during PELD has not been thoroughly described.MethodsSixty patients undergoing PELD were randomly allocated to either an intravenous DEX sedation group (Group A) or a normal saline group (Group B). Respiratory data, including minute ventilation (MV), tidal volume (TV), and respiratory rate (RR), were recorded using a respiratory volume monitor (RVM), and pulse oxygen saturation (SpO2) was measured by pulse oximetry. The visual analog score (VAS) and the plasma levels of interleukin-6 (IL-6), tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), malondialdehyde (MDA) and glutathione peroxidase (GSH-PX) were also recorded to evaluate oxidative stress and inflammatory reactions.ResultsThere were no significant differences in RR, MV, TV and SpO2 between the two groups at any time point (p>0.05). Group B exhibited lower serum levels of GSH-PX (p<0.0001) and higher serum levels of MDA (p<0.0001) than Group A at the end of surgery. Twenty-four hours after surgery, Group B exhibited higher serum levels of IL-6 (p=0.0033), TNF-α(p=0.0002), and MDA (p<0.0001) and lower serum levels of GSH-PX (p<0.0001) than Group A. In addition, Group B exhibited lower VAS (p<0.0001) than Group A.ConclusionsDEX administration using an RVM not only provides convenient analgesia and ventilation but also alleviates oxidative stress and inflammatory reactions in patients undergoing PELD .Trial registration ChiCTR2100044715(http://www.chictr.org.cn/index.aspx)

The Intrathecal Morphine for Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy (IMPELD) Study: Rationale and Protocol for a Double-blinded Randomized Placebo-controlled Trial

BackgroundPercutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD), a minimally invasive spinal technique for lumbar disc herniation (LDH), has gained popularity globally and yielded satisfying results. However, PELD is often performed on awaking patients to avoid nerve injury, thus the intraoperative analgesia of PELD is sometimes insufficient. The effect of intrathecal morphine (ITM) has been well proved in various surgical specialties, and this study aims to investigate the effectiveness and safety of ITM on PELD.MethodsThe intrathecal morphine for percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (IMPELD) trial is a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. The 90 eligible LDH patients undergoing PELD will be randomly assigned to receive either ITM or placebo during spinal anesthesia, at a 1:1 ratio, with a one-month follow-up period. Average intraoperative pain intensity will be the primary outcome. Secondary outcome measures include intraoperative pain intensity assessed at each 30 min intraoperatively, postoperative pain intensity, perioperative analgesia requirements, functional evaluation, radiographic characteristics, overall satisfaction, other characteristics and adverse events.DiscussionCurrently, there is a lack of scientific evidence to provide a reliable method to reduce intraoperative pain of PELD. The IMPELD trial was designed to provide evidence regarding whether 100 ug of ITM is an effective and safe coanalgesic approach for PELD procedure.Trial registrationThe trial was registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (identifier ChiCTR2000039842). Registered on November 11th, 2020.

AN ANESTHESIA SUGGESTION FOR ENDOSCOPIC LUMBAR SPINE SURGERY

ABSTRACT Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy causes less damage to the paravertebral musculature, with preservation of bone structure and rapid recovery. This innovation allows the surgery to be performed on an outpatient basis, due to the faster recovery time. The anesthesia traditionally performed was general anesthesia, and then conscious sedation. The prone position has always been a major challenge for anesthesiologists. In order to avoid any type of respiratory depression, and based on our own experience with obstetric analgesia, we propose to perform an analgesic spinal anesthesia, a technique not yet found for this type of surgery in the world literature. Level of evidence I; Quality of Evidence A

Comparing the surgical efficacy of a newly designed endoscopic visualized trephine and a conventional trephine for percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy with foraminoplasty for patients with single-segment lumbar disc herniation: A retrospective case -control study

Background Owing to the remarkable evolution of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD), the application of spinal endoscopy is shifting from the treatment of soft disk herniation to complex lumbar spinal stenosis. This study aim to compare the surgical efficacy of a newly designed endoscopic visualized trephine and a conventional trephine for PELD with foraminoplasty for patients with single-segment lumbar disc herniation (LDH). Methods A total of 54 patients who were diagnosed with single-segment LDH and received PELD with foraminoplasty at Xuzhou Central Hospital (Xuzhou, China) from January 2016 to June 2020 were included in this case-control study. Data related to the length of incision, amount of intraoperative bleeding, the time required to create the working channel, and intraoperative and postoperative complications were recorded. The Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score was used to assess low back pain and leg pain. Besides, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) scores were utilized to evaluate patients’ pain intensity and their sitting and standing abilities. The X-ray fluoroscopy was performed to measure the horizontal and angular displacements of lumbar extension-flexion, and to evaluate the stability of lumbar spine. Results All the patients successfully underwent surgical procedures, except for two patients with injuries in the spinal nerve root of the responsible segment in the conventional trephine group, who were given nutritional supplements for nerve treatment. Besides, there was no significant difference in incision length and operative blood loss between the modern trephine and the conventional trephine groups. However, the time required to create the channel and the duration of fluoroscopy in the modern trephine group were significantly less than those in the conventional trephine group (34.24 ± 5.38 vs. 44.76 ± 6.37 min, P < 0.05). In addition, the VAS, ODI, and JOA scores significantly decreased postoperatively in the two groups. We also found no significant difference in horizontal and angular displacements of lumbar extension-flexion between the two groups pre-operation and at 3- and 12-month post-operation. Conclusion In spite of similar surgical efficacy of the two techniques, the newly designed endoscopic visualized trephine outperformed in terms of operation time and duration of fluoroscopy.