Microendoscopic Discectomy Group Research Articles

Comparison of one-hole split endoscopic discectomy and microendoscopic discectomy in the treatment of lumbar disk herniation: a one-year retrospective cohort study

BackgroundWe aim to compare and assess the surgical parameters and follow-up information of one-hole split endoscopic discectomy (OSE) and microendoscopic discectomy (MED) in the treatment of LDH.MethodsThis study included 154 patients with degenerative lumbar disk disease. Sixty-eight patients underwent OSE and 86 patients MED. The VAS score for lower back and lower limb radiation pain, ODI score, modified MacNab score, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of the incision, amount of C-reactive protein, and recurrence and complication rates were examined as indicators for clinical outcomes and adverse events.ResultsAfter surgery, the VAS and ODI scores in the two groups significantly decreased. On the third day after surgery, the VAS and ODI scores of the OSE group were significantly better than those of the MED group. The VAS and ODI scores preoperatively and at 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months following the procedure did not substantially vary between the two groups. There was less EBL and a shorter incision with OSE than with MED. There was no significant difference in the rate of complications between the two groups.ConclusionCompared with MED, OSE is a new alternative option for LDH that can achieve similar and satisfactory clinical outcomes. Furthermore, OSE has many advantages, including less EBL and a smaller incision. Further clinical studies are needed to confirm the effectiveness of OSE.

Comparison of the Outcomes of Microendoscopic Discectomy Versus Full-Endoscopic Discectomy for the Treatment of L4/5 Lumbar Disc Herniation.

Retrospective Comparative Study. To compare the outcomes of microendoscopic discectomy (MED) versus full-endoscopic discectomy (FED) for treating L4/5 lumbar disc herniation (LDH). A retrospective study was performed on patients with L4/5 LDH treated using MED (n = 249) or FED (n = 124). A 16-mm tubular retractor and endoscope was used for MED, while a 4.1-mm working channel endoscope was used for FED. Patient background and operative data were collected. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) scores were recorded preoperatively and at 1 and 2years postsurgery. The background data of the two groups were similar. The mean operation times for MED and FED were 59.3 and 47.7min (respectively), and the mean volumes of removed nucleus pulposus were .65 and 1.03 g, respectively. These differences were significant (P < .001). Six dural tears and one postoperative hematoma were observed in the MED group; none were observed in the FED group. During the follow-up period, 16 MED and 7 FED patients required re-operation due to recurrence (P = 1.00). Although the ODI and EQ-5D scores significantly improved at 1 and 2years postsurgery in both groups, the differences were not statistically significant. Operative outcomes were almost identical in both groups. We did not observe any operative or postoperative complications in FED. We, therefore, recommend FED as the first option for the treatment of L4/5 LDH since it has a better safety profile and is minimally invasive.

Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Discectomy versus Microendoscopic Discectomy for the Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Objective In minimally invasive spinal surgery, the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with microendoscopic discectomy (MED) or unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBED) shows effective results, but which is more effective is controversial. Our study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of UBED versus MED in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis by a systematic review and meta-analysis, so as to provide reference for the promotion of UBED in clinical practice. Methods The multiple databases like PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Chinese National Knowledge Databases, Chinese BioMedical Database, and Wanfang Database were used to search for the relevant studies. Review Manager 5.4 was adopted to estimate the effects of the results among selected articles. Odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to estimate the overall pooled effect. Subgroup analysis, forest plots, funnel plots and Egger's test for the articles included were also conducted. Results Three randomized clinical trials and seven cohort studies were finally retrieved, these studies included 685 and 829 patients in the UBED and MED groups, respectively. There were no differences in terms of operation time (MD = -0.92, P =0.72), estimated blood loss (MD = -26.31, P =0.08), complications (MD =0.81, P =0.38) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score (P >0.05 in four subgroup) between the two groups. The visual analog scale (VAS) score of back pain in the UBED group was better than MED group only at 6 months (MD = -0.23, P =0.006) after operation, the VAS score of leg pain in the UBED group was better than that of MED group at 3 mouths (MD = -0.22, P =0.002) and 6 months (MD = -0.24, P =0.006) after operation, the UBED group had a less postoperative length of stay than the MED group (MD = -1.85, P <0.001). The bias analysis showed that there was no potential publication bias in the included literature. Conclusion This study showed that compared with MED, UBED has the advantages of short hospital stay and good short-term curative effect, but there is no significant difference in long-term efficacy and safety, they can be replaced by each other in clinical application.

Efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopy versus other spine surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BackgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) versus other forms of spine surgery.MethodsElectronic databases were systematically searched up to February 2022. The authors used Review Manager 5.3 to manage the data and perform the review.ResultsAfter the preliminary selection of 239 studies from electronic databases, the full inclusion criteria were applied; 16 studies were found to be eligible for inclusion. These 16 studies enrolled 1,488 patients: 653 patients in the UBE group, 570 in the microendoscopic discectomy group, 153 in the percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy group, and 70 in the posterior lumbar interbody fusion group. UBE was superior to microendoscopic discectomy regarding 1-day Visual Analog Scale(VAS) back pain scores (P < 0.00001). No difference was found between UBE and microendoscopic discectomy regarding 1-day Visual Analog Scale leg pain scores (P = 0.25), long-term VAS back pain scores (P = 0.06), long-term VAS leg pain scores (P = 0.05), Oswestry Disability Index scores (P = 0.09) or complications (P = 0.19). Pooled analysis indicated that UBE was similar to percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy regarding 1-day VAS back pain scores (P = 0.71), 1-day VAS leg pain scores (P = 0.37), long-term VAS back pain scores (P = 0.75), long-term VAS leg pain scores (P = 0.41), Oswestry Disability Index scores (P = 0.07) and complications (P = 0.88). One study reported no difference between UBE and posterior lumbar interbody fusion regarding long-term VAS back pain, long-term VAS leg pain, or Oswestry Disability Index scores.ConclusionsUBE is superior to microendoscopic discectomy to relieve back pain 1 day postoperatively. However, these two procedures are similar regarding 1-day leg pain relief, long-term effects, and safety. UBE and percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy are similar regarding 1-day pain relief, long-term effects and safety. More evidence is needed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of UBE versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion.

Follow-up results of microendoscopic discectomy compared to day surgery using percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation

BackgroundPercutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) is satisfactory for hospitalized patients with lumbar disc herniation (LDH). Currently, only a few studies have reported about the day surgery patients undergoing PELD.MethodsA total of 267 patients with LDH underwent PELD during day surgery and were followed up for at least 3 years. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the visual analog scale (VAS) for leg and lower back pain (VAS-B and VAS-L, respectively) and the Oswestry disability index (ODI). The radiological outcomes, such as lumbar lordosis (LL), sacral slope (SS), the disc-height ratio, and disc instability, were recorded and compared. The clinical effects between patients treated by PELD during day surgery and microendoscopic discectomy (MED) for contemporaneous hospitalized 116 patients with LDH were compared.ResultsPatients treated by PELD had lower blood loss and shorter hospital stay (P < 0.001) compared to those treated by MED. VAS-L, VAS-B, and ODI decreased significantly after PELD than before the operation and 3 years postoperatively. The postoperative VAS-B in the PELD group was significantly decreased than in the MED group (P = 0.001). The complications rate was 9.4% in the PELD group and 12.1% in the MED group (P = 0.471). The 1-year postoperative recurrence rate in the PELD group was much higher than that in MED group (P = 0.042). The postoperative LL and SS in the PELD group improved significantly compared to the values in the MED group (P < 0.001). According to the disc-height ratio at 3-year follow-up, a significant height loss was observed in the MED group than in the PELD group (P = 0.014).ConclusionsAlthough the 1-year postoperative recurrence rate was relatively high, the day surgery for LDH undergoing PELD had advantages in terms of less blood loss intraoperatively, short hospital stay, efficacy for back pain, and efficiency to maintain lumbar physiological curvature.

Comparison of the application value of two commonly used minimally invasive spinal surgery in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation.

The aim of the study was to compare the application value of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) and microendoscopic discectomy (MED) in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH). From January 2017 to July 2018, 108 LDH patients undergoing surgical treatment in our hospital were collected and divided into PTED group (treated with PTED, n=50) and MED group (treated with MED, n=58). The operation parameter index level, complications, recurrence and pain score (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI) and Japanese Orthopaedic Association Scale (JOA) were compared between the two groups. VAS, ODI and JOA scores of the two groups were significantly decreased after operation (P<0.05), but there was no significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05). Complications and recurrence of the two groups were similar (P>0.05). MED was superior to PTED in the number of intraoperative fluoroscopy and operation time, while PTED was superior to MED in intraoperative blood loss, incision length, length of hospital stay and bed rest time (P<0.05). Both PTED and MED can effectively treat LDH. Referring to clinical data, PTED may be the first choice for LDH treatment.

Comparison of Percutaneous Transforaminal Endoscopic Discectomy and Microendoscopic Discectomy for the Surgical Management of Symptomatic Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study with a Minimum of 2 Years’ Follow-Up

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) and microendoscopic discectomy (MED) are alternative minimally invasive procedures for the treatment of symptomatic lumbar disc herniation (LDH). However, insufficient literature exists to highlight the differences between the procedures. OBJECTIVES: This study intended to clarify whether PTED results in better clinical outcomes compared with MED in the surgical management of single-level LDH. STUDY DESIGN: A multicenter retrospective cohort study. SETTING: This study took place in 2 spinal minimally invasive centers in Beijing, China. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective study was conducted in consecutive patients diagnosed with symptomatic LDH receiving PTED or MED in 2 spinal minimally invasive centers from April 2009 to July 2016. A total of 1,053 patients were recruited, of which 632 underwent PTED and 421 underwent MED. All patients were followed with a minimum of 2 years; a set of clinical outcomes were extracted and analyzed. RESULTS: The operation time was similar between groups (71.2 ± 15.1 minutes in the PTED group and 69.4 ± 12.5 minutes in the MED group; P = 0.518); length of incision was significantly shorter; intraoperative blood loss was less in the PTED group (P &lt; 0.001); hospital stay was 3.6 ± 1.5 days in the PTED group and 5.4 ± 2.8 days in the MED group with significant differences detected (P = 0.018); however, intraoperative fluoroscopy was longer with significantly higher cost with the PTED group (P &lt; 0.001). Transient dysesthesia and wound complications were more common in the MED group (P = 0.039 and P = 0.026, respectively); however, no significant differences were found with total complications (P = 0.139). Significant lower Visual Analog Scale pain score (back and leg) were detected on day 1 postoperatively (P = 0.007 and P = 0.018, respectively). No significant differences were found at all other time points (P &gt; 0.05). Significantly better Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score was detected postoperatively at 1 month in the PTED group (19.6 ± 9.8 vs. 27.2 ± 9.3; P = 0.016); ODI score at other time points did not differ significantly between groups (P &gt; 0.05). Modified MacNab criteria showed that most patients experienced excellent and good results with no significant differences between groups (P = 0.511). LIMITATION: This was a multicenter retrospective study wherein the surgeons may have introduced bias to the study. CONCLUSIONS: Both PTED and MED present to be an acceptable long-term efficacy for the treatment of LDH. Although PTED is associated with longer intraoperative fluoroscopy and a little more cost, it should still be considered superior to MED considering the benefits of lesser invasion, shorter hospital stays, quicker pain relief, and functional recovery. KEY WORDS: Percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy, microendoscopic discectomy, lumbar disc herniation, VAS score, ODI score

Comparative Study between Full-Endoscopic Discectomy and Microendoscopic Discectomy for the Treatment of Lumbar Disc Herniation

Background and objectives: Lumbar disc herniation (LDH) is a common disease in the meridian of life. Although surgical discectomy is commonly used to treat LDH, there are several different strategies. We compared the outcomes of uniportal full-endoscopic discectomy (FED) with those of microendoscopic discectomy (MED) in treating LDH. Materials and Methods: FED was performed using a 4.1-mm working channel endoscope, and MED was performed using a 16-mm diameter tubular retractor and endoscope. Data of patients with LDH treated with FED (n = 39) or MED (n = 27) by the single surgeon were retrospectively reviewed. Patient background information and operative data were collected. Pre- and postoperative low back and leg pain were evaluated using the numerical rating scale (NRS) score. Pre- and postoperative disc height index (DHI) values were calculated from plain radiographs, and the disc height loss was evaluated using the ratio (DHI ratio); Results: The median (interquartile range (IQR) Q25–75) operation times for FED and MED were 42 (33–61) and 43 (33–50) minutes, respectively. The median (IQR Q25–75) pre- and postoperative NRS scores for low back pain were 5 (2–7) and 1 (0–4), respectively, for FED and 6 (3–8) and 1 (0–2), respectively, for MED. The median (IQR Q25–75) pre- and postoperative NRS scores for leg pain were 7 (5–8) and 0 (0–2), respectively, for FED and 6 (5–8) and 0 (0–2), respectively, for MED. These data were not different between the FED and MED groups. The median (IQR Q25–75) DHI ratios of FED and MED were 0.94 (0.89–1.03) and 0.90 (0.79–0.95), respectively. The DHI ratio was significantly higher (p < 0.05) in the FED group than in the MED group, and there was less blood loss; Conclusions: The pain-relieving effect of FED in treating LDH was almost identical to that of MED. However, FED was superior to MED in preventing disc height loss, which is one of the indicators of postoperative disc degeneration.

Clinical outcomes of MED and iLESSYS® Delta for the treatment of lumbar central spinal stenosis and lateral recess stenosis: A comparison study.

Microendoscopic discectomy (MED) is an established procedure used to treat lumbar central spinal stenosis (LCSS) and lateral recess stenosis (LRS). The Interlaminar Endoscopic Surgical System iLESSYS® Delta approach has been developed from the traditional interlaminar endoscopic technique for the treatment of LCSS and LRS. In the present study, MED was used as a reference to evaluate this newly developed approach. A total of 82 and 52 patients with radicular leg pain and/or neurogenic claudication symptoms were treated by spinal canal decompression using the MED or iLESSYS® Delta approach, respectively. The clinical outcomes of the patients were analyzed using the Modified MacNab's criteria, visual analogue scale (VAS) leg pain score, VAS back pain score and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score. Finally, the effectiveness of the decompression was evaluated on a cross-sectional area of the dural sac (CSAD) at the disc level. The incision length in the iLESSYS® Delta group was significantly decreased compared with the MED group (P<0.05); however, the duration of the operation in the iLESSYS® Delta group was significantly longer compared with the MED group (P<0.05). The VAS score of the back and ODI score in the iLESSYS® Delta group were significantly decreased compared with the MED group at the 1-week follow-up (P<0.0125). The postoperative CSAD was also significantly increased in both groups compared with before the operation (P<0.05); however, there were no significant differences in the postoperative CSAD between the two groups. The good-to-excellent rates of the MED and iLESSYS® Delta approach were 89.0 and 90.4%, respectively, whereas the complication rates of the MED and iLESSYS® Delta system were 3.66 and 3.85% in the two groups, respectively. In conclusion, the iLESSYS® Delta approach was identified to be comparable with the MED approach for treating LCSS and LRS, demonstrating both precise and limited decompression. In addition, the iLESSYS® Delta approach may reduce the short-term back pain and promote faster recovery compared with the MED.

Which is better in laborers? A comparison between Open and Micro Endoscopic Discectomy

Introduction: None of the studies compared the results of open lumbar discectomy (OLD) and microendoscopic discectomy (MED) surgeries in laborers. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical and functional impact of OLD versus MED surgery in laborers to find out which is better. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study was performed in 91 laborers (54 males and 37 females) who underwent OLD (n = 41) versus MED (n = 50) for the single- or double-level lumbar disc herniation (LDH). All patients were operated at a single institute after a failure of conservative trial for 6 weeks. Patients with associated severe disc degeneration, stenosis, instabilities, or other pathologies were excluded from the study. The clinical results were evaluated with Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analog score (VAS), and duration of return back to work. Results: The average age of the study group was 39.8 ± 12.1 years. Average follow-up was 50.2 ± 13.9 months. The entire study group comprised manual labor work such as farming or loading work with an average income of US $53.6 ± 14.6 (approximately INR 4000) per month. The patients belonged to low socioeconomic status as per modified Kuppuswamy scale. The post-operative VAS scores were significantly reduced in both MED (7.6–2.0) and open discectomies (7.2–2.1). Improvement ODI scores also showed similar trends for MED (57.3–20.6) and for open discectomies (55.1–20.1). Average duration to return to work was significantly less in the MED group in comparison to the OLD group (18.0 vs. 25.5 days). There were total 4 (4.4%) complications perioperatively. There were one superficial wound infection in the OLD and one dural tear in the MED group. Both were managed conservatively. There was one patient from each group having recurrent disc herniation that was managed conservatively. There were one patient from the MED and two patients from the OLD group who could not return to their previous work or had to modify their work du

A comparison study of two channels during MIS-TLIF in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis treatment

Objective To compare the clinical effects between minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) assisted by Microendoscopic discectomy (MED) and Quadrant for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS). Methods All of 59 patients suffered from DLSS treated surgically from May 2015 to October 2017 were reviewed. According to the surgery method, all cases were divided into MED group (27 cases) and Quadrant channel group (32 cases). All patients were followed up for an average of 18.5 months (11-29 months). Comparison was made on the operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage, postoperative time in bed, postoperative creatine kinase (CK), fusion rate and the degree of muscle fibrosis shown in MRI, as well as visual analogue scale (VAS)score and Oswestry dysfunction index (ODI) score in two groups. Results The duration of operation in MED group was significantly longer than that in Quadrant group (161.7±22.4 min vs. 145.6±19.4 min, t=4.541, P 0.05). ODI was lower in MED group than that in Quadrant group after 6 months and 12 months.The fusion rate was88.9%(24/27) in MED group and 93.8%(30/32) in Quadrant channel group. There was no statistical difference in fusion rate of two groups. 10 patients in MED group and 12 patients in Quadrant group underwent MRI examination of lumbar spine one year after operation. The ratio of postoperative and preoperative atrophy of multiplex muscle area was measured. Muscle atrophy of lower back muscle was lighter in MED group (0.12±0.05 vs. 0.22±0.04, t=-2.428, P<0.05). For intraoperative and postoperative complications, 1 case of dural sac rupture occurred in both groups. Gelatin sponge immediately with fibrin glue was used for plugging up, no postoperative cerebrospinal fluid leakage was found. In Quadrant channel group, 1 case had less blood supply of skin incision edges and epidermal necrosis while the other case had fat liquefaction. Conclusion Compared with the aid of Quadrant, MIS-TLIF assisted with MED had less blood loss, less trauma and faster recovery and could reduce the incidence of postoperative incision complication. Key words: Lumbar vertebrae; Intervertebral disc degeneration; Spinal Stenosis; Surgical procedures, minimally invasive; Spinal fusion

A comparative study on short-term therapeutic effects of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy and microendoscopic discectomy on lumbar disc herniation.

Objective:To find out the short-term effects of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) and microendoscopic discectomy (MED) on lumbar disc herniation (LDH).Methods:Ninety LDH patients treated in PLA Army General Hospital from July 2015 to July 2016 were selected and randomly divided into an MED group and a PTED group. Length of incision, amount of intraoperative bleeding, surgical time, number of times using intraoperative fluoroscopy, postoperative bedridden time, hospital stay, together with visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores before surgery, three days, three months and six months after surgery were analyzed.Results:As regards the length of surgical incision, amount of bleeding, postoperative bedridden time and hospital stay, the PTED group was significantly superior to the MED group ((P=0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.001, respectively)). Compared with the PTED group, the MED group used less fluoroscopy and had shorter surgical time (P=0.001, 0.000, respectively). The postoperative VAS and ODI scores of both groups were significantly improved compared with those before surgery (P<0.000, 0.000, respectively). The short-term postoperative low back pain (LBP) VAS score of PTED group was lower than that of MED group (P=0.001). The two groups had similar leg pain (LP) VAS score three and six months after surgery, postoperative and follow-up LP VAS and ODI scores, and surgical improvement rate (P=0.093, 0.097, respectively).Conclusion:LDH was effectively treated by both PTED and MED. Compared with MED, PTED had less trauma, less blood loss, and faster recovery after surgery.

Comparison of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy versus microendoscopic discectomy for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation: a meta-analysis.

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the clinical outcomes of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) and microendoscopic discectomy (MED) for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH), and to clarify whether PELD is more superior to MED. We performed a comprehensive search in the databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane database, CNKI, and Wanfang Data to acquire all relevant studies up to July 2018. The searched literatures were then screened according to the strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. The critical data were extracted and analyzed utilizing Review Manager software. The pooled effects were calculated by mean difference (MD) or odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) on the basis of data attributes. A total of 18 studies (2161 patients, 1093 in the PELD group and 1068 in the MED group) were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. At last follow-up, the results revealed that no significant difference was found between PELD group and MED group with respect to ODI (MD - 0.30; 95% CI - 1.02 to 0.42; P = 0.41), VAS-leg pain (MD - 0.18; 95% CI - 0.45 to 0.09; P = 0.19), VAS-unspecified (MD - 0.00; 95% CI - 0.05 to 0.04; P = 0.94), excellent & good rate (OR, 1.04; 95% CI 0.68 to 1.59; P = 0.86), total complication rate (OR, 0.96; 95% CI 0.65 to 1.43; P = 0.85), dural tear rate (OR, 0.39; 95% CI 0.10 to 1.55; P = 0.18), and residue or recurrence rate (OR, 2.22; 95% CI 1.02 to 4.83; P = 0.05). When compared to MED group, the PELD group showed significantly better results with regard to shorter length of incision (MD - 1.18; 95% CI - 1.39 to - 0.97; P < 0.00001), less blood loss (MD - 45.17; 95% CI - 64.74 to - 25.60; P < 0.00001), shorter post-operative in-bed time (MD - 59.11; 95% CI - 71.19 to - 47.04; P < 0.00001), shorter post-operative hospital stay (MD - 3.07; 95% CI - 4.81 to - 1.33; P < 0.00001), shorter total hospital stay (MD - 2.29; 95% CI - 3.03 to - 1.55; P < 0.00001), and lower VAS-back pain at last follow-up (MD - 0.77; 95% CI - 1.31 to - 0.24; P = 0.005), but with significantly worse results such as more fluoroscopy (MD 7.63; 95% CI 5.25 to 10.01; P < 0.00001) and higher re-operation rate (OR, 2.67; 95% CI 1.07 to 6.67; P = 0.04). Although no significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of duration of operation (MD 6.27; 95% CI - 2.44 to 14.98; P = 0.16) and total hospital cost (MD - 0.69; 95% CI - 12.60 to 11.23; P = 0.91), further subgroup analysis revealed that the duration of operation was significantly longer in the PELD group compared with the MED group in "Years before 2016" (MD 24.97; 95% CI 7.07 to 42.87; P = 0.006) and "Year 2016 to 2017" (MD 6.57; 95% CI 0.58 to 12.55; P = 0.03) subgroups but not in the subgroup "Year 2018" (MD - 5.66; 95% CI - 18.84 to 7.53; P = 0.40), and that the total hospital cost was significantly more in the PELD group compared with the MED group in the subgroup "Southeast of China" (MD 6.67; 95% CI 3.23 to 10.28; P = 0.0002) but not in the subgroup "Midwest of China" (MD - 8.09; 95% CI - 17.99 to 1.80; P = 0.11). For the treatment of LDH, both of PELD and MED can reach excellent results and no superiority was found between the two minimally invasive procedures with regard to duration of operation, ODI, VAS-leg pain, VAS-unspecified, excellent & good rate, total complication rate, dural tear rate, and residue or recurrence rate. While PELD can achieve better outcomes with respect to the length of incision, blood loss, post-operative in-bed time, post-operative hospital stay, total hospital stay, and VAS-back pain at last follow-up, however, MED showed certain advantages of less fluoroscopic times and lower re-operation rate. More practice and development are needed to make up for the deficiencies of PELD. Besides, the economic factor should also be considered according to different regions before making the treatment strategies. Well-defined randomized controlled trials with large samples are needed to further confirm these results.

Comparing the Extent of Tissue Damage between Lumbar Microendoscopic Discectomy (MED) and Microscopic Discectomy (MD) Using Biochemical Markers

Background Data: Discectomy through a limited laminotomy has remained the “gold standard” for lumbar disc surgery. Surgery for lumbar disc herniation can be classified into two broad categories;open (conventional) versus minimally invasive surgery, where the last category classified into microscopic, endoscopic and percutaneous procedures.Microendoscopic discectomy (MED) is unique in that it combines open surgical principles with endoscopic technology.Purpose: To evaluate extent of tissue damage and pain relief after microendoscopic (MED) and microscopic lumbar discectomy (MD). Study Design: A prospective randomized controlled study.Patients and Methods: The study included 40 patients having lumbar disc prolapse, operated in Alexandria Main University Hospital. Twenty of them underwent MED (Group A) and the other twenty underwent MD (Group B). Clinical (VAS, ODI) and radiological and biochemical markers (CRP, CPK) for tissue inflammation data were collected preoperatively and postoperatively for comparison. Patients were followed up for 6 months.Results: 26 patients were males and 14 were females. The mean age for group A was 40.8±1.34 years and for group B was 40.2±1.06 years. Clinically all patients had low back pain and radicular leg pain. There was no statistically significant difference between the duration of surgery in both groups. The length of hospital stay was significantly less in MED group. The length of the skin wound was significantly less in MED group. Reduction of back pain VAS immediate and 1 month postoperative was reported in both groups and was statistically significantly better in MED group, however, after 6 monthsthere was no difference between both groups. There was significant improvement with no difference between both groups regarding radicular VAS and ODI all through the follow up. Postoperative CRP and CPK was statistically significantly higher in MD group (P<0.001). Conclusion: Both techniques gave comparable clinical outcomes although early backpain score and tissue markers were in favor of MED technique. (2018ESJ153)

Percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy compared with microendoscopic discectomy for lumbar disc herniation: 1-year results of an ongoing randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE A prospective randomized controlled study was conducted to clarify whether percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) results in better clinical outcomes and less surgical trauma than microendoscopic discectomy (MED). METHODS In this single-center, open-label, randomized controlled trial, patients were included if they had persistent signs and symptoms of radiculopathy with corresponding imaging-confirmed lumbar disc herniation. Patients were randomly allocated to the PTED or the MED group by computer-generated randomization codes. The primary outcome was the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score 1 year after surgery. Secondary outcomes included scores of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey bodily pain and physical function scales, EuroQol Group's EQ-5D , and the visual analog scales for back pain and leg pain. Data including duration of operation, in-bed time, length of hospital stay, surgical cost and total hospital cost, complications, and reoperations were recorded. RESULTS A total of 153 participants were randomly assigned to 2 treatment groups (PTED vs MED), and 89.5% (137 patients) completed 1 year of follow-up. Primary and secondary outcomes did not differ significantly between the treatment groups at each prespecified follow-up point (p > 0.05). For PTED, there was less postoperative improvement in ODI score in the median herniation subgroup at 1 week (p = 0.027), 3 months (p = 0.013), 6 months (p = 0.027), and 1 year (p = 0.028) compared with the paramedian subgroup. For MED, there was significantly less improvement in ODI score at 3 months (p = 0.008), 6 months (p = 0.028), and 1 year (p = 0.028) in the far-lateral herniation subgroup compared with the paramedian subgroup. The total complication rate over the course of 1 year was 13.75% in the PTED group and 16.44% in the MED group (p = 0.642). Five patients (6.25%) in the PTED group and 3 patients (4.11%) in the MED group suffered from residue/recurrence of herniation, for which reoperation was required. CONCLUSIONS Over the 1-year follow-up period, PTED did not show superior clinical outcomes and did not seem to be a safer procedure for patients with lumbar disc herniation compared with MED. PTED had inferior results for median disc herniation, whereas MED did not seem to be the best treatment option for far-lateral disc herniation. Clinical trial registration no.: NCT01997086 (clinicaltrials.gov).

K-rod dynamic internal fixation versus microendoscopic discectomy for the treatment of single-segment lumbar disc herniation.

This study compared the clinical outcome of K-rod dynamic internal fixation versus microendoscopic discectomy (MED) for the treatment of single-segment lumbar disc herniation. This retrospective study included 34 patients with L4-L5 single-segment lumbar disc herniation who underwent K-rod dynamic internal fixation ( n = 18) or MED ( n = 16). The pain was evaluated by the Oswestry disability index (ODI) and visual analogue scale (VAS). The neurological function was assessed by the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores. The height of intervertebral space was calculated using X-ray images, and the disc degeneration was evaluated based on Pfirrmann scores. The mean follow-up time was 31 months (range, 18-46 months). In both groups, the ODI scores, VAS scores and JOA scores were significantly improved at the last follow-up compared with the preoperative values ( p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the improvement of ODI, VAS and JOA scores between the two groups ( p > 0.05). The height of intervertebral space in the surgical segments, proximal segments and distal segments, was significantly greater in the K-rod group than in the MED group. The disc degeneration occurred more in the MED group than in the K-rod group ( p < 0.05). K-rod internal fixation and MED produce satisfactory outcomes in the treatment of single-segment lumbar disc herniation. K-rod internal fixation is superior to MED in preventing adjacent segment degeneration.

A case-control study on the treatment of protrusion of lumbar intervertebral disc through PELD and MED.

We compared the clinical effects between the percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) and microendoscopic discectomy (MED) treatments for protrusion of lumbar intervertebral disc. We conducted a retrospective analysis on 60 patients who were diagnosed with single-segment protrusion of lumbar intervertebral disc during the period from January 2009 to June 2016. Patients were divided into two groups, the PELD and MED groups, which contained 30 cases each. We evaluated the operation results according to oswestry dysfunction index (ODI), visual analogue scale (VAS) and the improved MacNab standard. The average follow-up visit period after the operation was 18 months and the operation time of the two groups was not statistically different. The cadaverine quantity of bleeding in the PELD group is less than that in the MED group. Moreover, the average length of incision and the length of stay were shortened for the PELD group compared to the MED group. The ODI and VAS after operation for the two groups improved significantly compared to that before operation (P<0.05). The qualified rates of the PELD and MED groups were 93.0 and 90.0%, respectively, as of the improved MacNab method. The complication occurrence rates for the two groups during perioperative period were not different. Therefore, the short-term efficacy of the two minimally invasive operation methods (PELD and MED) on the treatment of protrusion of lumbar intervertebral disc is satisfactory. In cases where operation indications are chosen strictly, PELD can be regarded as a method of safety and efficiency due to the advantages of minimal incision, less bleeding, minimal trauma and faster postoperative recovery.

Does the microendoscopic technique reduce mortality and major complications in patients undergoing lumbar discectomy? A propensity score-matched analysis using a nationwide administrative database.

OBJECTIVE Although minimally invasive spinal surgery has recently gained popularity, few nationwide studies have compared the adverse events that occur during endoscopic versus open spinal surgery. The purpose of this study was to compare perioperative complications associated with microendoscopic discectomy (MED) and open discectomy for patients with lumbar disc herniation. METHODS The authors retrospectively extracted from the Diagnosis Procedure Combination database, a national inpatient database in Japan, data for patients admitted between July 2010 and March 2013. Patients who underwent lumbar discectomy without fusion surgery were included in the analysis, and those with an urgent admission were excluded. The authors examined patient age, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index, body mass index, smoking status, blood transfusion, duration of anesthesia, type of hospital, and hospital volume (number of patients undergoing discectomy at each hospital). One-to-one propensity score matching between the MED and open discectomy groups was performed to compare the proportions of in-hospital deaths, surgical site infections (SSIs), and major complications, including stroke, acute coronary events, pulmonary embolism, respiratory complications, urinary tract infection, and sepsis. The authors also compared the hospital length of stay between the 2 groups. RESULTS A total of 26,612 patients were identified in the database. The mean age was 49.6 years (SD 17.7 years). Among all patients, 17,406 (65.4%) were male and 6422 (24.1%) underwent MED. A propensity score-matched analysis with 6040 pairs of patients showed significant decreases in the occurrence of major complications (0.8% vs 1.3%, p = 0.01) and SSI (0.1% vs 0.2%, p = 0.02) in patients treated with MED compared with those who underwent open discectomy. Overall, MED was associated with significantly lower risks of major complications (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.43-0.89, p = 0.01) and SSI (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.09-0.87, p = 0.03) than open discectomy. There was a significant difference in length of hospital stay (11 vs 15 days, p < 0.001) between the groups. There was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality between MED and open discectomy. CONCLUSIONS The microendoscopic technique was associated with lower risks for SSI and major complications following discectomy in patients with lumbar disc herniation.

A Retrospective Study of Improved System of Micro-Endoscopic Discectomy for the Lumbar Spinal Canal Stenosis

Objective: The research aims to compare the therapeutic effect between improved system of micro-endoscopic discectomy (MED) and traditional discectomy for the treatment of lumbar stenosis. Methods: A retrospective study was carried out in two randomly allocated groups totaling 300 patients with lumbar stenosis, the improved MED group A and the conventional group B. All of them were examined by Xray, CT, MRI and proved to be lumbar stenosis. Intraoperative blood loss and hospital stay were analyzed. Results: The average of blood loss in group A: 83.10 ml ± 5.21 ml, while in group B, the blood loss were 150.13 ml ± 10.23 ml. And the average of hospital stay after operations in group A were 7.2 ± 1.1 days, group B 11.9 ± 1.4 days. There were significant differences between two groups (P<0.05). There were 5 cases suffering endorachis rupture in each of the two groups, which all healed after treatment. There were 4 cases suffering spine instability in group B after treatment of 4 years. And those patients were treated with cumber fusion jointed by GSS pedicle screw fixation. There were no other complications, such as operational mistakes, nerve root injury, cauda equina injury. There were no recurrent cases. According to the Nakai classification, the excellent and good rate has no significant differences between the two groups (P>0.05). Conclusion: The curative effects of both methods are satisfactory, but the improved system of MED has more advantages compared with traditional discectomy, which can be one of the ideal minimal invasive operations.

Clinical assessment of thoracolumbar transpedicle screw placement via posterior lamina in microendoscopic discectomy

Objective To explore feasibility, safety and efficacy of thoracolumbar transpedicle screw placement via posterior lamina aided by microendoscopic discectomy (MED). Methods A retrospective study was performed of the patients with thoracolumbar fracture (from T12 to L2) who had been treated simply with minimally invasive endoscopic transpedicle screwing at our department from July 2008 to September 2013. Of them, 61 received placement of ordinary transpedicle screws via posterior lamina aided by MED (the MED group), and 57 percutaneous placement of hollow transpedicle screws of Sextant system (the Sextant group), and 51 percutaneous placement of hollow transpedicle screws of Viper system (the Viper group). The 3 groups were compatible in preoperative general data, showing no significant differences (P>0.05). The 3 groups were compared in terms of surgical incision, intraoperative bleeding loss, surgery duration, fluoroscopy frequency, surgical convenience, visual analog scale (VAS) score, hospital stay, total medical expenses and complications. Satisfaction degree of the patients was also evaluated. Results This series was followed up from 6 to 24 months. No significant differences were found between the 3 groups in surgical incision, intra-operative bleeding loss, surgery duration, VAS score, hospital stay, complications, or satisfaction degree of the patients (P>0.05). Compared with the Sextant and Viper groups, the MED needed less fluoroscopy frequency, lower medical expenses, and no special devices or implants, though it was more complicated. Conclusions Placement of transpedicle screws via posterior lamina aided by MED has advantages of direct visualization of pedicle screw insertion, simplified operation of C-Arm X-ray machine, surgical safety, and controlled surgical risks. Key words: Surgical procedures, minimally invasive; Spinal fractures; Fracture fixation, internal; Microendoscopic discectomy