One-hole split endoscope versus unilateral biportal endoscopy for lumbar spinal stenosis: a retrospective propensity score study.

BACKGROUND: The one-hole split endoscopy (OSE) was first proposed and clinically applied in China in 2019. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of one-hole split endoscopy (OSE) and unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) for treating lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). METHODS: One hundred sixty patients with LSS who met the inclusion from November 2020 to August 2022 were analyzed and divided into OSE and UBE groups. The propensity score matching (PSM) method was used to adjust the imbalanced confounding variables between the two groups. After matching, surgical outcomes were recorded, and clinical data, including functional scores and imaging findings, were compared. Functional scores included the visual analog scale of leg pain (VAS-LP) and back pain (VAS-BP), the Japanese Orthopedic Association score (JOA), and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Imaging data included dural sac cross-sectional area (DCSA), lumbar range of motion (ROM), and sagittal translation (ST). RESULTS: After PSM, 104 LSS patients were included in the study, and all covariates were well-balanced between the two groups. Among the matched patients, the OSE showed advantages over the UBE regarding operative time (62.42 ± 4.86 vs. 68.96 ± 4.56) and incision length (2.30 ± 0.14 vs. 2.70 ± 0.15) (P < 0.001). However, differences between the two groups in intraoperative blood loss, hospital length of stay, and complication rates were not statistically significant (P > 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference regarding VAS-BP, VAS-LP, JOA, and ODI between the two groups (P > 0.05). However, all clinical and functional scores significantly improved postoperatively (P < 0.05). Postoperative DCSA of both groups was significantly found to be improved (P < 0.05), ROM and ST remained within the normal range, and no cases of lumbar instability were recorded. According to the modified MacNab criteria, the excellent and good rates in the OSE and UBE groups were 94.23% and 90.38%, respectively, with no statistically significant difference (P = 0.713). CONCLUSION: OSE is an alternative technique to UBE for the treatment of LSS, with similar satisfactory clinical outcomes, shorter operative time, and smaller incision length. Further studies are needed for long-term efficacy.

Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy combined with platelet-rich plasma injection for lumbar disc herniation: analysis of clinical and imaging outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical efficacy and imaging outcomes of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) combined with platelet-rich plasma (PRP) for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH). METHODS: A total of 155 patients with LDH between January 2020 and June 2022 were retrospective analyzed, of which 75 underwent PELD with PRP and 80 underwent PELD only. Clinical functional scores and imaging data were compared. Clinical functional scores included visual analog scale of leg pain (VAS-LP) and back pain (VAS-BP), Japanese Orthopedic Association score (JOA), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and modified MacNab criteria. Imaging data included disc height index (DHI), spinal cross-sectional area (SCSA), disc protrusion size (DPZ), and ratio value of disc grey scales (RVG). RESULTS: Both groups showed clinical improvement, and VAS-LP, VAS-BP, JOA and ODI were significantly improved in the PRP group compared with the control group at 3, 6 and 12 months postoperatively (P < 0.05). At the last follow-up, the differences in SCSA, DPZ and RVG between the two groups were statistically significant (P < 0.05), with the PRP group being superior to the control group. The excellent and good rates of the modified Macnab criteria in the PRP group and control group were 93.3% and 90%, respectively, with no statistically significant difference (P > 0.05). No serious complications occurred during the follow-up period. CONCLUSION: PELD combined with PRP is a safe and effective method for treating patients with LDH. PRP injection was beneficial for delaying disc degeneration and promoting disc remodeling.

Full endoscopic laminotomy decompression versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for the treatment of single-segment cervical spinal stenosis: a retrospective, propensity score-matched study.

OBJECTIVE: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is the standard procedure for the treatment of cervical spinal stenosis (CSS), but complications such as adjacent segment degeneration can seriously affect the long-term efficacy. Currently, posterior endoscopic surgery has been increasingly used in the clinical treatment of CSS. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of single-segment CSS patients who underwent full endoscopic laminotomy decompression or ACDF. METHODS: 138 CSS patients who met the inclusion criteria from June 2018 to August 2020 were retrospectively analyzed and divided into endoscopic and ACDF groups. The propensity score matching (PSM) method was used to adjust the imbalanced confounding variables between the groups. Then, perioperative data were recorded and clinical outcomes were compared, including functional scores and imaging data. Functional scores included Visual Analog Scale of Arms (A-VAS) and Neck pain (N-VAS), Japanese Orthopedic Association score (JOA), Neck Disability Index (NDI), and imaging data included Disc Height Index (DHI), Cervical range of motion (ROM), and Ratio of grey scale (RVG). RESULTS: After PSM, 84 patients were included in the study and followed for 24-30 months. The endoscopic group was significantly superior to the ACDF group in terms of operative time, intraoperative blood loss, incision length, and hospital stay (P < 0.001). Postoperative N-VAS, A-VAS, JOA, and NDI were significantly improved in both groups compared with the preoperative period (P < 0.001), and the endoscopic group showed better improvement at 7 days postoperatively (P < 0.05). The ROM changes of adjacent segments were significantly larger in the ACDF group at 12 months postoperatively and at the last follow-up (P < 0.05). The RVG of adjacent segments showed a decreasing trend, and the decrease was more marked in the ACDF group at last follow-up (P < 0.05). According to the modified MacNab criteria, the excellent and good rates in the endoscopic group and ACDF group were 90.48% and 88.10%, respectively, with no statistically significant difference (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Full endoscopic laminotomy decompression is demonstrated to be an efficacious alternative technique to traditional ACDF for the treatment of single-segment CSS, with the advantages of less trauma, faster recovery, and less impact on cervical spine kinematics and adjacent segmental degeneration.

Percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal vs. interlaminar discectomy for L5-S1 lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective propensity score matching study.

OBJECTIVE: Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) is a safe and effective minimally invasive surgery for treating lumbar disc herniation (LDH); however, the comparative clinical efficacy of percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy (PETD) and percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) in treating L5-S1 LDH remains unclear. This study compared the clinical advantages of PEID and PETD for treating L5-S1 LDH. METHODS: This was a single-centre retrospective study analysing clinical data from 120 patients with L5-S1 LDH between February 2016 and May 2020. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to adjust for imbalanced confounding variables between the two groups. Perioperative data were recorded, and clinical outcomes, including functional scores and imaging data, were compared between groups. Functional scores included visual analogue scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), and modified MacNab criteria. Imaging data included disc height index (DHI), ratio of greyscale (RVG), and range of motion (ROM) of the responsible segment. RESULTS: After PSM, 78 patients were included in the study, and all covariates were well balanced between the two groups. In the matched patients, the PEID group showed significantly shorter surgical time (65.41 ± 5.05 vs. 84.08 ± 5.12 min) and lower frequency of fluoroscopy (2.93 ± 0.63 vs. 11.56 ± 1.54) compared with the PETD group (P < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, total incision length, and incidence of complications between the two groups (P > 0.05). After surgery, both groups showed significant improvement in back and leg pain based on VAS and ODI scores (P < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in clinical functional scores and imaging data between the two groups at various time points after surgery (P > 0.05). According to the modified MacNab criteria, the excellent and good rates in the PEID group and PETD group were 91.89% and 89.19%, respectively, with no statistically significant difference (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: PEID and PETD have similar clinical efficacy in treating L5-S1 disc herniation. However, PEID is superior to PETD in reducing operation time and frequency of fluoroscopy.