RESUMO
Introduction: For severe degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS), the conventional percutaneous endoscopic translaminar decompression (PEID) has some limitations. The modified PEID, Cross-Overtop decompression, ensures sufficient decompression without excessive damage to the facet joints and posterior complex integrity. Objectives: To evaluate the biomechanical properties of Cross-Overtop and provide practical case validation for final decision-making in severe DLSS treatment. Methods: A finite element (FE) model of L4-L5 (M0) was established, and the validity was verified against prior studies. Endo-ULBD (M1), Endo-LOVE (M2), and Cross-Overtop (M3) models were derived from M0 using the experimental protocol. L4-L5 segments in each model were evaluated for the range of motion (ROM) and disc Von Mises stress extremum. The real clinical Cross-Overtop model was constructed based on clinical CT images, disregarding paraspinal muscle influence. Subsequent validation using actual FE analysis results enhances the credibility of the preceding virtual FE analysis. Results: Compared with M0, ROM in surgical models were less than 10°, and the growth rate of ROM ranged from 0.10% to 11.56%, while those of disc stress ranged from 0% to 15.75%. Compared with preoperative, the growth rate of ROM and disc stress were 2.66%-11.38% and 1.38%-9.51%, respectively. The ROM values in both virtual and actual models were less than 10°, verifying the affected segment stability after Cross-Overtop decompression. Conclusion: Cross-Overtop, designed for fully expanding the central canal and contralateral recess, maximizing the integrity of the facet joints and posterior complex, does no significant effect on the affected segmental biomechanics and can be recommended as an effective endoscopic treatment for severe DLSS.
RESUMO
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.