Comparative study of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar decompression and traditional revision surgery in the treatment of symptomatic adjacent segment degeneration.

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to evaluate and compare the surgical outcomes and complications of Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Decompression (PELD) and traditional revision surgery in treating symptomatic Adjacent Segment Degeneration (ASD). This comparison aims to delineate the advantages and disadvantages of these methods, assisting spine surgeons in making informed surgical decisions. METHODS: 66 patients with symptomatic ASD who failed conservative treatment for more than 1 month and received repeated lumbar surgery were retrospectively collected in the study from January 2015 to November 2018, with the average age of 65.86 ± 11.04 years old. According to the type of surgery they received, all the patients were divided in 2 groups, including 32 patients replaced the prior rod in Group A and 34 patients received PELD at the adjacent level in Group B. Patients were followed up routinely and received clinical and radiological evaluation at 3, 6, 12 months and yearly postoperatively. Complications and hospital costs were recorded through chart reviews. RESULTS: The majority of patients experienced positive surgical outcomes. However, three cases encountered complications. Notably, Group B patients demonstrated superior pain relief and improved postoperative functional scores throughout the follow-up period, alongside reduced hospital costs (P < 0.05). Additionally, significant reductions in average operative time, blood loss, and hospital stay were observed in Group B (P < 0.05). Notwithstanding these benefits, three patients in Group B experienced disc re-herniation and underwent subsequent revision surgeries. CONCLUSIONS: While PELD offers several advantages over traditional revision surgery, such as reduced operative time, blood loss, and hospital stay, it also presents a higher likelihood of requiring subsequent revision surgeries. Future studies involving a larger cohort and extended follow-up periods are essential to fully assess the relative benefits and drawbacks of these surgical approaches for ASD.