Comparative evaluation of posterior percutaneous endoscopy cervical discectomy using a 3.7 mm endoscope and a 6.9 mm endoscope for cervical disc herniation: a retrospective comparative cohort study

Background Posterior percutaneous endoscopy cervical discectomy (p-PECD) is an effective strategy for the treatment of cervical diseases, with a working cannula ranging from 3.7 mm to 6.9 mm in diameter. However, to date, no studies have been performed to compare the clinical outcomes of the use of endoscopes with different diameters in cervical disc herniation (CDH) patients. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of patients with unilateral CDH treated with p-PECD using a 3.7 mm endoscope and a 6.9 mm endoscope. Methods From January 2016 to June 2018, a total of 28 consecutive patients with single-level CDH who received p-PECD using either the 3.7 mm or the 6.9 mm endoscope were enrolled. The clinical results, including the surgical duration, hospitalization, visual analog scale (VAS) score and modified MacNab criteria, were evaluated. Cervical fluoroscopy, CT, and MRI were also performed during follow-up. Results Tthere was a significant difference in regard to the average identification time of the “V” point (18.608 ± 3.7607 min vs. 11.256 ± 2.7161 min, p < 0.001) and the mean removal time of the overlying tissue (16.650 ± 4.1730 min vs. 12.712 ± 3.3079 min, p < 0.05) for the use of the 3.7 mm endoscope and the 6.9 mm endoscope, respectively. The postoperative VAS and MacNab scores of the two endoscopes were significantly improved compared with those the preoperative scores (p < 0.05). Conclusion The application of both the 3.7 mm endoscope and 6.9 mm endoscope represent an effective method for the treatment of CDH in selected patients, and no significant difference can be observed in the clinical outcomes of the endoscopes. The 6.9 mm endoscope shows superiority to the 3.7 mm endoscope in terms of the efficiency of “V” point identification, the removal of overlying soft tissue and the prevention of spinal cord injury. However, the 6.9 mm endoscope may be inferior to the 3.7 mm endoscope in regards to anterior foraminal decompression due to its large diameter; this result needs to be further evaluated with the support of a large number of randomized controlled trials.

Finite Element Analysis and in Vitro Biomechanical Experiment on the Effect of Unilateral Partial Facetectomy Performed by Percutaneous Endoscopy on the Stability of Lumbar Spine

Purpose: To investigate the lumbar biomechanical effects of unilateral partial facetectomy (UPF) of different facet joint (FJ) portions under percutaneous endoscopy. Methods: A 3D finite element (FE) model of the lumbar spine and 40 fresh calf spine models were used to simulate UPF under a physiological load performed through 3 commonly used needle insertion points (IPs) : (1) The apex of the superior FJ (as the first IP), (2) The midpoint of the ventral side of the superior FJ (as the second IP), (3) The lowest point of the ventral side of the superior FJ (as the third IP). The range of motion (ROM) and the L4/5 intradiscal maximum pressure (IMP) were measured and analyzed under a physiological load in all models during flexion, extension, left-right lateral flexion, and left-right axial rotation. Results: When UPF was performed through the first and the third IPs, the ROM of the lumbar spine and the L4/5 IMP in the FE model were significantly increased compared with those in the intact FE model. When UPF was performed through the second IP, the ROM of the lumbar spine and the L4/5 IMP were not significantly different compared with those in the intact FE model. When UPF was performed through the second IP, the ROM of the lumbar spine and the L4/5 IMP in the calf spine models were not statistically different from the intact calf spine model. Conclusion: UPF through the second IP resulted in a minimal impact on the biomechanics of the lumbar spine. Thus, it might be considered as the most appropriate IP for UPF.

Comparative Evaluation of Posterior Percutaneous Endoscopy Cervical Discectomy Using 3.7 mm Endoscope and 6.9 mm Endoscope for Cervical Disc Herniation: a retrospective comparative cohort study

Background. Posterior percutaneous endoscopy cervical discectomy (p-PECD) is an effective strategy for the treatment of cervical diseases, with a working cannula ranging from 3.7 mm to 6.9 mm in diameter. However, to date, no studies have been performed to compare the clinical outcomes of the use of endoscopes with different diameters in cervical disc herniation (CDH) patients. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of patients with unilateral CDH treated with p-PECD using a 3.7 mm endoscope and a 6.9 mm endoscope.Methods. From January 2016 to June 2018, a total of 28 consecutive patients with single-level CDH who received p-PECD using either the 3.7 mm or the 6.9 mm endoscope were enrolled. The clinical results, including the surgical duration, hospitalization, visual analog scale (VAS) score and modified MacNab criteria, were evaluated. Cervical fluoroscopy, CT, and MRI were also performed during follow-up.Results. Tthere was a significant difference in regard to the average identification time of the “V” point (18.608±3.7607 min vs. 11.256±2.7161 min, p<0.001) and the mean removal time of the overlying tissue (16.650±4.1730 min vs. 12.712±3.3079 min, p<0.05) for the use of the 3.7 mm endoscope and the 6.9 mm endoscope, respectively. The postoperative VAS and MacNab scores of the two endoscopes were significantly improved compared with those the preoperative scores (p<0.05).Conclusion. The application of both the 3.7 mm endoscope and 6.9 mm endoscope represent an effective method for the treatment of CDH in selected patients, and no significant difference can be observed in the clinical outcomes of the endoscopes. The 6.9 mm endoscope shows superiority to the 3.7 mm endoscope in terms of the efficiency of “V” point identification, the removal of overlying soft tissue and the prevention of spinal cord injury. However, the 6.9 mm endoscope may be inferior to the 3.7 mm endoscope in regards to anterior foraminal decompression due to its large diameter; this result needs to be further evaluated with the support of a large number of randomized controlled trials.

Comparative Evaluation of Posterior Percutaneous Endoscopy Cervical Discectomy Using 3.7 mm Endoscope and 6.9 mm Endoscope for Cervical Disc Herniation: a retrospective comparative cohort study

Background. Posterior percutaneous endoscopy cervical discectomy (p-PECD) is an effective strategy for the treatment of cervical diseases, with a working cannula ranging from 3.7 mm to 6.9 mm in diameter. However, to date, no studies have been performed to compare the clinical outcomes of the use of endoscopes with different diameters in cervical disc herniation (CDH) patients. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of patients with unilateral CDH treated with p-PECD using a 3.7 mm endoscope and a 6.9 mm endoscope.Methods. From January 2016 to June 2018, a total of 28 consecutive patients with single-level CDH who received p-PECD using either the 3.7 mm or the 6.9 mm endoscope were enrolled. The clinical results, including the surgical duration, hospitalization, visual analog scale (VAS) score and modified MacNab criteria, were evaluated. Cervical fluoroscopy, CT, and MRI were also performed during follow-up.Results. Tthere was a significant difference in regard to the average identification time of the “V” point (18.608±3.7607 min vs. 11.256±2.7161 min, p<0.001) and the mean removal time of the overlying tissue (16.650±4.1730 min vs. 12.712±3.3079 min, p<0.05) for the use of the 3.7 mm endoscope and the 6.9 mm endoscope, respectively. The postoperative VAS and MacNab scores of the two endoscopes were significantly improved compared with those the preoperative scores (p<0.05).Conclusion. The application of both the 3.7 mm endoscope and 6.9 mm endoscope represent an effective method for the treatment of CDH in selected patients, and no significant difference can be observed in the clinical outcomes of the endoscopes. The 6.9 mm endoscope shows superiority to the 3.7 mm endoscope in terms of the efficiency of “V” point identification, the removal of overlying soft tissue and the prevention of spinal cord injury. However, the 6.9 mm endoscope may be inferior to the 3.7 mm endoscope in regards to anterior foraminal decompression due to its large diameter; this result needs to be further evaluated with the support of a large number of randomized controlled trials.

Comparative Evaluation of Posterior Percutaneous Endoscopy Cervical Discectomy Using 3.7 mm Endoscope and 6.9 mm Endoscope for Cervical Disc Herniation: a retrospective comparative cohort study

Background. Posterior percutaneous endoscopy cervical discectomy (p-PECD) is an effective strategy for the treatment of cervical diseases, with a working cannula ranging from 3.7 mm to 6.9 mm in diameter. However, to date, no studies have been performed to compare the clinical outcomes of the use of endoscopes with different diameters in cervical disc herniation (CDH) patients. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of patients with unilateral CDH treated with p-PECD using a 3.7 mm endoscope and a 6.9 mm endoscope.Methods. From January 2016 to June 2018, a total of 28 consecutive patients with single-level CDH who received p-PECD using either the 3.7 mm or the 6.9 mm endoscope were enrolled. The clinical results, including the surgical duration, hospitalization, visual analog scale (VAS) score and modified MacNab criteria, were evaluated. Cervical fluoroscopy, CT, and MRI were also performed during follow-up.Results. Tthere was a significant difference in regard to the average identification time of the “V” point (18.608±3.7607 min vs. 11.256±2.7161 min, p<0.001) and the mean removal time of the overlying tissue (16.650±4.1730 min vs. 12.712±3.3079 min, p<0.05) for the use of the 3.7 mm endoscope and the 6.9 mm endoscope, respectively. The postoperative VAS and MacNab scores of the two endoscopes were significantly improved compared with those the preoperative scores (p<0.05).Conclusion. The application of both the 3.7 mm endoscope and 6.9 mm endoscope represent an effective method for the treatment of CDH in selected patients, and no significant difference can be observed in the clinical outcomes of the endoscopes. The 6.9 mm endoscope shows superiority to the 3.7 mm endoscope in terms of the efficiency of “V” point identification, the removal of overlying soft tissue and the prevention of spinal cord injury. However, the 6.9 mm endoscope may be inferior to the 3.7 mm endoscope in regards to anterior foraminal decompression due to its large diameter; this result needs to be further evaluated with the support of a large number of randomized controlled trials.