Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
A comparative study of percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy and transforaminal discectomy for L5-S1 calcified lumbar disc herniation.
Cheng, Yuan-Pei; Cheng, Xiao-Kang; Wu, Han.
Afiliação
  • Cheng YP; Department of Orthopaedics, China-Japan Union Hospital of Jilin University, 130033, Jilin, China.
  • Cheng XK; Department of Orthopaedics, Beijing Tongren Hospital Affiliated to Capital Medical University, 100730, Beijing, China.
  • Wu H; Department of Orthopaedics, China-Japan Union Hospital of Jilin University, 130033, Jilin, China. wu_han@jlu.edu.cn.
BMC Musculoskelet Disord ; 23(1): 244, 2022 Mar 12.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35279101
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) is a relatively safe and effective minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of calcified lumbar disc herniation (CLDH). However, studies on percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) and percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy (PETD) for CLDH have rarely been reported. This research aimed to compare the clinical efficacy of PEID and PETD for L5-S1 CLDH.

METHODS:

We retrospectively analyzed 54 consecutive patients with L5-S1 CLDH treated with PELD at our institution from August 2016 to August 2020. Patients were divided into PEID group (n = 28) and PETD (n = 26) group according to the surgical methods. The demographic characteristics and surgical results of the two groups were compared. Clinical outcomes were estimated by the visual analog scale (VAS) for leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI) and modified MacNab criteria.

RESULTS:

All patients were successfully operated on by PEID or PETD. No significant differences in the demographic characteristics, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hospital stay and complication rate were noted between the PEID and PETD groups. The excellent and good rates in the PEID group were similar to those in the PETD group (89.29% vs 88.46%, P = 1.000), whereas the PEID group exhibited superior results for operative time (min) (64.61 ± 5.60 vs 85.58 ± 8.52, P < 0.001) and fluoroscopy times (n) (2.93 ± 0.90 vs 13.35 ± 2.30, P < 0.001) compared with the PETD group.

CONCLUSIONS:

PEID has achieved good clinical efficacy as PETD for L5-S1 CLDH. Compared with PETD, PEID has the advantages of shorter operative time and a reduced number of fluoroscopy times in the treatment of CLDH.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Discotomia Percutânea / Deslocamento do Disco Intervertebral Tipo de estudo: Etiology_studies / Observational_studies Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Discotomia Percutânea / Deslocamento do Disco Intervertebral Tipo de estudo: Etiology_studies / Observational_studies Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article