A randomized controlled study of two different fixations in anterior cervical discectomy of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

Background: To compare the efficacy of anterior cervical discectomy and hybrid fusion (ACDHF) with short-segment plate plus self-locking, stand-alone intervertebral cages versus traditional anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with long-segment plate for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy (MCSM). Methods: All the patients were randomly divided into two groups. 30 cases underwent ACDHF with short-segment plate and self-locking stand-alone cages (hybrid group), while the other 30 cases received ACDF with long-segment plate (control group). In patients meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria, operation time, blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, length of stay (LOS), visual analogue scale for neck pain (VASNP) scores, Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, and the cervical lordosis before and after the operation (5 days, 3, 6, 12 months after operation and final follow-up) were evaluated. The postoperative complications were analyzed as well. Results: All operations were performed uneventfully with followed-up. Compared with ACDF, ACDHF showed a shorter operation time, less intraoperative blood loss and postoperative drainage (p < 0.05). There were no significant difference in LOS between two groups (p ˃ 0.05). Both approaches significantly improved the JOA scores, VASNP scores and the cervical lordosis (p < 0.05). Based on Bazaz grading system, hybrid group had a lower incidence of dysphagia than control group in follow-up periods of 5 days, 3 and 6 months (p < 0.05). Conclusion: ACDF and ACDHF are both effective methods of restoring cervical lordosis following MCSM, but hybrid surgery minimizes intraoperative injury and postoperative dysphagia, making it a viable treatment option for the disorder.

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.