[Two kinds of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar decompression in the treatment of single level lumbar lateral recess stenosis].

OBJECTIVE: To prospectively compare the clinical efficacy and radiographic outcomes between interlaminar percutaneous endoscopic lumbar decompression(IL-PELD) and transforaminar percutaneous endoscopic lumbar decompression(TF-PELD) in the treatment of single-segment lumbar lateral recess stenosis. METHODS: From April 2018 to July 2021, 85 patients with single-segment lumbar lateral recess stenosis underment percutaneous endoscopic lumbar decompression.There were 44 males and 41 females, aged from 49 to 81 years old with an average of (65.5±8.3) years old, duration of lumbar lateral recess stenosis ranging from 3 to 83 months with an average of (26.7±16.5) months. They were divided into IL-PELD group and TF-PELD group according to the different operation methods. There were 47 patients in the IL-PELD group, including 28 males and 19 females aged from 50 to 80 yeaes old with an average age was (66.7±9.3) years old. The disease duration ranged from 3 to 65 months with an average of (25.7±15.0) months. There were 38 patients in the TF-PELD group, including 16 males and 22 females, aged from 51 to 78 years old with an average of(64.1±7.6) years old. The disease duration ranged from 4 to 73 months with an average of (27.9±18.3) months The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative fluoroscopy, hospitalization day and complications of the two groups were recorded. Visual analogue scale (VAS) to evaluate low back pain and lower limb pain, Oswestry disability index(ODI) to evaluate lumbar function in preoperative and postoperative period(1month, 6 months and last follow-up)were recorded. the sagittal diameter of the lateral recess of the responsible intervertebral space in preoperative and 1 week after the operation were recorded. RESULTS: The operation was successfully completed in both groups without serious complications such as vascular injury, dural sac tear and nerve injury. The operation time in IL-PED group(69.3±19.3)min was significantly longer than that in TF-PELD group(57.5±14.5)min (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the intraoperative blood loss between the two groups (P>0.05). The number of intraoperative fluoroscopy in TF-PELD group (8.8±2.6)times was significantly higher than that in IL-PED group(4.8±1.2)times (P<0.05). The hospitalization days of the two groups were not statistically significant (P>0.05). VAS for low back and lower extremity pain and ODI were (5.1±2.2), (6.9±1.3) scores and (71.4±12.6) % in IL-PELD group, and (4.7±1.8), (6.9±1.3) scores and (68.4±13.9)% in TF-PELD group. In the IL-PELD group, the VAS of low back pain was (2.4±1.5), (1.6±0.8), (1.4±0.9) scores, and the VAS of lower extremity pain was (3.0±1.2), (1.6±0.7), (1.5±1.0) scores, ODI was (32.6±11.9) %, (17.4±6.5) %, (19.3±9.3)%;In TF-PELD group, the VAS of low back pain was (2.6±1.4), (1.5±0.6), (1.4±1.0) scores, and the VAS of lower extremity pain was (2.8±1.2), (1.6±0.6), (1.5±1.2) scores, The ODI was (32.0±11.2) %, (15.0±6.1) %, and (20.0±11.3) %. The VAS and ODI of the two groups at each time point after operation were significantly improved compared with those before operation (P<0.05), but there was no statistically significant difference between the groups (P>0.05), and there was no statistically significant difference in the interaction between different time points and groups (P>0.05). At 1 week after operation, the sagittal diameter of lateral recess in both groups was significantly increased compared with that before operation (P<0.05), but there was no significant difference between the two groups at each time point (P>0.05). According to the modified Macnab criteria, IL-PELD group was rated as excellent in 24 cases, good in 19 cases and fair in 4 cases. In TF-PELD group the results were excellent in 19 cases, good in 15 cases, fair in 3 cases and poor in 1 case. There was no significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05). CONCLUSION: IL-PELD and TF-PELD can expand the lateral recess in the treatment of single level lumbar lateral recess stenosis, and have achieved good clinical effects.

[Effect and complication among different kinds of spinal endoscopic surgery for lumbar disc herniation].

OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical efficacy and complication rate of percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy(PETD),percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) and unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) in treating single-segment lumbar disc herniation(LDH). METHODS: From October 2019 to August 2021,121 LDH patients with single-segment treated by spinal endoscopy were retrospectively analyzed and divided into three groups. In PETD group,there were 48 patients,including 19 males and 29 females,aged from 18 to 72 years old with an average of (44.0±13.9) years old;3 patients with L3,4 segments,27 patients with L4,5 segments,and 18 patients with L5S1 segments. In PEID group,there were 43 patients,including 23 males and 20 females,aged from 20 to 69 years old with an average of (40.1±12.1) years old;1 patient with L3,4 segments,15 patients with L4,5 segments,and 27 patients with L5S1 segments. In UBE group,there were 30 patients,including 12 males and 18 females,aged from 29 to 72 years old with an average of (41.2±15.0) years old;1 patient with L3,4 segments,18 patients with L4,5 segments,and 11 patients with L5S1 segments. Operation time,blood loss,fluoroscopy times and complications among three groups were observed and compared. Before opertaion,3 months after operation and at the latest follow-up,visual analogue scale (VAS) was used to evaluate low back pain and lower extremity pain,Oswestry disfunction index (ODI) was used to evaluate lumbar function,and modified MacNab was used to evaluate clinical efficacy at the latest follow-up. RESULTS: All patients were performed endoscopic spinal surgery completly and were followed up for at least 12 months. One patient occurred dural sac rupture both in PETD and PEID group,and dural sac rupture was small,and there was no obvious discomfort after operation. Two patients were occurred intraoperative rupture of dural sac in UBE group. One patient was occurred cerebrospinal fluid leakage after operation,and was improved after rest in supine position and fluid rehydration. One patient without no significant postoperative discomfort. (1)There were no significant difference in operating time,blood loss and hospital stay between PETD and PEID group (P>0.05),while UBE group was higher than those of PETD and PEID group (P<0.05). There was no statistical significance in fluoroscopy times between PEID and UBE group (P>0.05),but PETD group was higher than that of PEID and UBE group (P<0.05). (2)VAS of low back pain at 3 months after operation in UBE group was higher than that in PETD and PEID group (P<0.05),but there was no significant difference between PETD and PEID group (P>0.05). At the latest follow-up,there was no significant difference in VAS of low back pain among three groups (P>0.05). (3)Lower extremity pain of VAS and ODI among 3 groups after operation were significantly improved at all time points compared with those before opertaion(P<0.05),and there were no statistical significance between groups (P>0.05),and there were no statistical significance in interaction between different time points and operation groups (P>0.05). (4) At the latest follow-up,according to the modified MacNab standard,the results of PETD group were excellent in 27 patients,good in 16 patients,moderate in 4 patients,poor in 1 patient;in PEID group,27 patients got excellent result,12 good,3 moderate,and 1 poor;in UBE group,16 patients got excellent,10 good,2 moderate,and 2 poor. There was no significant difference among three groups (χ2=0.308,P>0.05). Recurrence of lumbar disc herniation occurred in 1 patient among each three groups,symptoms were improved in 2 patients after symptomatic treatment,and 1 patient was treated in other hospitals. CONCLUSION: PETD,PEID and UBE techniques could achieve good early clinical effects in treating lumbar disc herniation with similar complication rates. Both of PETD and PEID are single-channel minimally invasive surgery,with mild intraoperative tissue damage and quick postoperative recovery; while intraoperative fluoroscopy of PETD was relatively more frequent, and PEID was more suitable for L5S1 segment;UBE is a two-channel surgery,in which the intraoperative soft tissue damage is more severe,but exposure is broad,which is more suitable for complex cases.