Percutaneous Transforaminal Endoscopic Discectomy Group Research Articles

Percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy and unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy for lumbar disc herniation: a comparative analysis of learning curves.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the learning curve of percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy (PETD) and interlaminar unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBED) in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH). Between 2018 and 2023, 120 consecutive patients with lumbar disc herniation (LDH) treated by endoscopic lumbar discectomy were retrospectively included. The PETD group comprised 87 cases, and the UBED group comprised 33 cases. Cumulative sum analysis was used to evaluate the learning curve, with the occurrence of complications or unresolved symptoms defined as surgical failure, and variables of different phases of the learning curve being compared. The learning curve analysis identified the cutoff point at 40 cases in the PETD group and 15 cases in the UBED group. In the mastery phase, both PETD and UBED demonstrated a significant reduction in operation times (approximately 38min for PTED and 49min for UBED). In both PETD and UBED groups, the surgical failure rates during the learning and mastery phases showed no statistically significant differences. The visual analogue scale at the last follow-up was significantly lower than before surgery in both the PETD and UBED groups. PETD and UBED surgery are effective in the treatment of LDH with a low incidence of complications. However, achieving mastery in PETD necessitates a learning curve of 40 cases, while UBED requires a minimum of 15 cases to reach proficiency.

Modified Percutaneous Endoscopic Interlaminar Discectomy through the Near-spinous Process Approach for L4/5 Disc Herniation: A Retrospective Clinical Study.

Compared with traditional open surgery, percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) has the advantages of less trauma, faster recovery, and less postoperative pain, so it has been widely used in the field of spinal surgery. However, it still has the defect of intraoperative fluoroscopy occurrences, complications, and even the risk of damage to the spinal cord and nerve. This study aims to compare the clinical efficacy of modified percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (MPEID) with percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy (PETD) in treating L4/5 lumbar disc herniation (LDH) and to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of MPEID. Thirty-four L4/5 LDH patients treated at the Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University from June 2020 to June 2021 were studied retrospectively. Seventeen underwent MPEID and seventeen PETD. Variables analyzed included demographics, operative duration, intraoperative fluoroscopy occurrences, and surgical outcomes. Effectiveness was evaluated using the visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), and modified MacNab criteria. Lumbar Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) was used to assess radiological outcomes. A paired t-test was performed to compare intragroup pre- and postoperative clinical data, VAS, and ODI scores. The average operative time in PETD group was 91.65 ± 14.04 min, and the average operative time in MPEID group was 65.41 ± 12.61 min (p < 0.001). In PETD group, the fluoroscopy occurrences averaged 9.71 ± 1.05 times, with fluoroscopy occurrences averaging 6.47 ± 1.00 times (p < 0.001) in MPEID group. At 12 months follow-up, the clinical effect showed significant improvement in both two groups. The MPEID group showed a decrease in average VAS-back score from 5.41 ± 2.18 to 1.76 ± 1.09 (p < 0.001) and VAS-leg score from 6.53 ± 1.66 to 0.82 ± 0.64 (p < 0.001). The ODI scores decreased from 51.35 ± 10.65 to 11.71 ± 2.91 (p < 0.001). In the PETD group, the VAS-back score decreased from 4.94 ± 1.98 to 2.06 ± 1.25 (p < 0.001), VAS-leg score from 7.12 ± 1.73 to 1.12 ± 0.60 (p < 0.001), and ODI scores from 48.00 ± 11.62 to 12.24 ± 2.56 (p < 0.001). According to the modified MacNab criteria, MPEID had 15 excellent and two good results; PETD had 12 excellent and 5 good (p = 0.23). No nerve root injuries, dural tears, or significant complications were reported. MPEID and PETD effectively treat L4/5 LDH, with MPEID showing shorter operative times and fewer fluoroscopies. Furthermore, the MPEID group can provide excellent clinical efficacy as the PETD group in the short term.

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

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). 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. 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. 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.

Hidden blood loss in three different endoscopic spinal procedures for lumbar disc herniation

Purpose: This study compared hidden blood loss (HBL) among three different endoscopic spinal procedures and investigated its risk factors. Patients and methods: This single-centre retrospective analysis collected data from consecutive hospitalized patients with single-segment lumbar disc herniation (LDH) undergoing unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBE), percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy (PETD), or percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) from December 2020 to October 2022. HBL was calculated using Nadler’s and Gross’s formulas. The authors used Pearson’s or Spearman’s correlation analysis to explore the relationship between patient characteristics and HBL. Multivariate linear regression analysis was used to identify independent risk factors for HBL. Results: In total, 122 consecutive patients (68 females and 54 males) were enroled in this study. The average HBL was 381.87±218.01 ml in the UBE group, 252.05±118.44 ml in the PETD group and 229.63±143.9 ml in the PEID group (P&lt;0.05). Pearson’s or Spearman’s correlation analysis showed that operative time, preoperative haemoglobin, preoperative haematocrit, and preoperative Albumin (ALB) were correlated with HBL in the UBE group, while sex, age, operative time, postoperative ALB, and patients’ blood volume (PBV) were related to HBL in the PETD group (P&lt;0.05). Operative time and preoperative activated partial thromboplastin time were related to HBL in the PEID group (P&lt;0.05). Multiple linear regression analysis showed a positive correlation between HBL and operative time in all three groups (P&lt;0.001, P&lt;0.001, P&lt;0.05). Conclusion: HBL was higher in the UBE group than in the PETD and PEID groups, and operative time may be a common risk factor for the three groups.

Endoscopic Revision Strategies and Outcomes for Recurrent L4/5 Disc Herniation After Percutaneous Endoscopic Transforaminal Discectomy.

We explore the endoscopic revision and surgical techniques for L4/5 recurrent disc herniation (rLDH) after percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy (PETD). A retrospective study was conducted. From January 2016 to September 2022, 96 patients who underwent percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for L4/5 rLDH after PETD were enrolled in the study. Based on the revision approach, the patients were divided into PETD group (57 cases) and percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) group (39 cases). Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and modified MacNab standard were recorded to evaluate the clinical outcomes. No significant differences were found in the demographic data and intraoperative blood loss between the two groups (P>0.05), but the time of operation and intraoperative X-ray fluoroscopy exposures in the PEID group were significantly less than that in the PETD group (P<0.05). The patients' postoperative clinical indexes gradually improved, and the VAS score, ODI index, and JOA score of the patients in both groups showed significant improvement compared with the preoperative period at the 1-week, 1-month, and 6-month postoperative follow-ups (P < 0.05). There was no serious complication observed during the follow-up. For recurrent LDH after PETD of L4/5 segments, percutaneous endoscopic revision can achieve satisfactory results. Among them, PEID has a shorter operative and fluoroscopy time and allows avoidance of the scar that forms after the initial surgery, so it can be considered preferred when both procedures can remove the disk well. However, for some specific types of herniation, a detailed surgical strategy is required.

Percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal vs. interlaminar discectomy for L5–S1 lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective propensity score matching study

ObjectivePercutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) is a safe and effective minimally invasive surgery for treating lumbar disc herniation (LDH); however, the comparative clinical efficacy of percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy (PETD) and percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) in treating L5–S1 LDH remains unclear. This study compared the clinical advantages of PEID and PETD for treating L5–S1 LDH.MethodsThis was a single-centre retrospective study analysing clinical data from 120 patients with L5–S1 LDH between February 2016 and May 2020. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to adjust for imbalanced confounding variables between the two groups. Perioperative data were recorded, and clinical outcomes, including functional scores and imaging data, were compared between groups. Functional scores included visual analogue scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), and modified MacNab criteria. Imaging data included disc height index (DHI), ratio of greyscale (RVG), and range of motion (ROM) of the responsible segment.ResultsAfter PSM, 78 patients were included in the study, and all covariates were well balanced between the two groups. In the matched patients, the PEID group showed significantly shorter surgical time (65.41 ± 5.05 vs. 84.08 ± 5.12 min) and lower frequency of fluoroscopy (2.93 ± 0.63 vs. 11.56 ± 1.54) compared with the PETD group (P < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, total incision length, and incidence of complications between the two groups (P > 0.05). After surgery, both groups showed significant improvement in back and leg pain based on VAS and ODI scores (P < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in clinical functional scores and imaging data between the two groups at various time points after surgery (P > 0.05). According to the modified MacNab criteria, the excellent and good rates in the PEID group and PETD group were 91.89% and 89.19%, respectively, with no statistically significant difference (P > 0.05).ConclusionPEID and PETD have similar clinical efficacy in treating L5–S1 disc herniation. However, PEID is superior to PETD in reducing operation time and frequency of fluoroscopy.

Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy for multi-segmental lumbar disc herniation.

To investigate the clinical efficacy and safety of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) in the treatment of multi-segmental lumbar disc herniation (msLDH). From January 2021 to December 2021, 75 patients with msLDH admitted to Baoding No.1 Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine were selected and divided into PTED group (n=40) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) group (n=35) according to different surgical methods. The operative time, intraoperative blood loss, surgical complications, Oswestry disability index (ODI) and Japanese Orthopedic Association score (JOA) scores were compared between the two groups. In the PTED group, the average operation time was 57.45±12.01minutes, and the average intraoperative blood loss was 50.57±16.69ml. There were three patients with surgical complications, including one case of hematoma, one case of aggravation of neurological symptoms and one case of new onset of neurological symptoms. In the PLIF group, there were 12 cases undergoing single-segment operation, 15 cases undergoing double-segment operation and 8 cases undergoing three-segment operation, the average operation time was 137.26±34.64minutes, and the average intraoperative blood loss was 456.06±33.06ml, there were four cases of wound fat liquefaction or delayed healing, two cases of hematoma, and three cases of exacerbation of original neurological symptoms or new neurological symptoms. At one month, six months, and one year of postoperative, the ODI and JOA scores of the two groups were significantly improved compared with those preoperative, and the ODI scores of the PTED group were better than those of the PLIF group (t=3.131, 2.263, 3.768, all P<0.05). The surgical effect of PTED in the treatment of LDH is similar to that of PLIF. However, PTED has the advantages of short operation time, less blood loss, fewer surgical complications, and high surgical safety. It is worthy of clinical promotion.

Comparative analysis of patient-reported outcomes after percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy between transforaminal and interlaminar approach: a minimum twoyear follow-up.

Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy has been increasingly used in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation. However, there is no consensus on which method would be more effective between the transforaminal and interlaminar approach. To compare clinical outcomes, patient satisfaction rate, reoperation rate, and residual symptoms between percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy (PETD) and percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID). A comparative, retrospective, controlled trial. The study was conducted at the Department of Orthopaedics at a local hospital. From January 2015 to September 2020, consecutive patients who underwent PETD or PEID treatment for lumbar disk herniation (LDH) at the L5/S1 level in our department were retrospectively collected. Baseline data including age, gender, body mass index (BMI), smoking status, alcohol drinking, clinical symptoms, physical examination, and radiographic characteristics were documented. During the two to threeyear follow-up periods, patients were evaluated clinically, including clinical outcomes assessed by the visual analog score (VAS), patient satisfaction rates assessed by the North American Spine Society patient satisfaction index (PSI), recurrent rate, and residual symptoms. A total of 113 patients with PELD in our department were included in the current study, with 65 patients in the PETD group and 48 in the PEID group. Demographic characteristics including age, gender, height, BMI, cigarette smoking, alcohol consumption status, and diabetes did not show any significant difference between the PETD and PEID groups. The VAS scores of the two groups were similar preoperatively, but the postoperative VAS score of the PEID group was lower than that of the PETD group. There were 90.8% of patients in the PETD group who were satisfied with the operation compared to 97.9% in the PEID group. The recurrence rate did not differ between groups, with three patients in both groups. Regarding residual symptoms, there were more patients in the PETD group who reported low back pain during the follow-up periods. The main limitations are that all patients were operated by the same surgical team from the same site, and there was a lack of multicenter data. Both PETD and PEID have satisfactory patient-reported outcomes for treating LDH. The PEID procedure results in fewer low back pain residual symptoms than the PELD procedure.

Comprehensive comparison of three techniques for the treatment of adjacent segment degeneration after lumbar fusion.

Adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) following lumbar fusion is technically challenging for spine surgeons. Posterolateral open fusion surgery with pedicle screw fixation is an effective way to treat symptomatic ASD with favorable clinical outcomes; however, it is associated with an increased morbidity rate. Therefore, minimally invasive spine surgery is advocated. This study was designed to compare clinical outcomes among patients with symptomatic ASD who underwent percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) with the transforaminal approach, posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) with cortical bone trajectory screw fixation (CBT-PLIF), and PLIF with traditional trajectory screw fixation (TT-PLIF). A retrospective study was conductedon 46 patients (26 men and 20 women; average age 60.8 ± 6.78 years) with symptomatic ASD. The patients were treated with three approaches. The operation time, incision length, time to return to work, complications, and the like were compared among three groups. Intervertebral disc (IVD) space height, angular motion, and vertebral slippage were obtained to assess spine biomechanical stability following surgery. The visual analog scale (VAS) score and Oswestry disability index were evaluated at preoperation and 1-week, 3-month, and the latest follow-ups. Clinical global outcomes were also estimated using modified MacNab criteria. The operation time, incision length, intraoperative blood loss, and time to return to work for the PTED group were significantly decreased compared with those for the other two groups (P < 0.05). The radiological indicators in the CBT-PLIF group and TT-PLIF group had better biomechanical stability compared with those in the PTED groups at the latest follow-up (P < 0.05). The back pain VAS score in the CBT-PLIF group was significantly decreased compared with those in the other two groups at the latest follow-up (P < 0.05). The good-to-excellent rate was 82.35% in the PTED group, 88.89% in the CBT-PLIF group, and 85.00% in the TT-PLIF group. No serious complications were encountered. Two patients experienced dysesthesia in the PTED group; screw malposition was found in one patient in the CBT-PLIF group. One case with a dural matter tear was observed in the TT-PLIF group. All three approaches can treat patients with symptomatic ASD efficiently and safely. Functional recovery was more accelerated in the PTED group compared with the other approaches in the short term; CBT-PLIF and TT-PLIF can provide superior biomechanical stability to the lumbosacral spine following decompression compared with PTED; however, compared with TT-PLIF, CBT-PLIF can significantly reduce back pain caused by iatrogenic muscle injury and improve functional recovery. Therefore, superior clinical outcomes were achieved in the CBT-PLIF group compared with the PTED and TT-PLIF groups in the long term.

[Visual trephine arthroplasty assisted percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy for lumbar disc herniation].

To compare the clinical efficacy between visual trephine arthroplasty assisted percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (VPTED) and traditional percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy(PTED) in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation. The clinical data of 60 patients with lumbar disc herniation admitted from June 2019 to December, 2020 was retrospectively analyzed. There were 38 males and 22 females, aged from 26 to 58 years old with an average of (43.63±8.48) years, 47 cases were on L4,5 segment and 13 cases were on L5S1 segment. Among them, 32 were treated with VPTED (group A) and 28 were treated with traditional PTED (group B). The general conditions of all the patients were recorded, including intraoperative fluoroscopy times, operation time, hospital stay and surgical complications during follow-up. The arthroplasty area ratio was observed by sagittal CT at the middle level of the intervertebral foramen. Visual analogue scale (VAS) and Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score of low back pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI) were used to evaluate the clinical efficacy between two groups. All patients were followed up from 9 to 15 months with an average of (12.10±1.16) months. There was no statistical difference of preoperative general data between two groups. The operation time, fluoroscopy times and hospital stay were (70.47±5.87) min, (13.66±1.34) times and (6.31±0.69) d in group A, and (90.71±7.66) min, (22.82±2.48) times and (6.54±0.92) d in group B. The operation time and intraoperative fluoroscopy times in group A were lower than those in group B(P<0.05). There was no significant difference in hospital stay between two groups (P>0.05). No obvious surgical complications were found during the follow-up in both groups. The arthroplasty area ratio in group A was (29.72±2.84)% and (29.57±2.20)% in group B, respectively, with no significant difference (P>0.05). There was no significant difference in VAS, ODI and JOA score between two groups before operation and at the final follow-up(P>0.05), but the final follow-up was significantly improved(P<0.05). The two surgical methods have definite clinical efficacy in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation. Visual trephine arthroplasty assisted percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy has the advantages of high efficiency and rapidity when establishing the channel, and can significantly reduce the operation time and intraoperative fluoroscopy times.

Clinical comparison of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy and unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy for single-level lumbar disc herniation.

To compare the clinical outcomes of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) and unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBE) for the treatment of single-level lumbar disc herniation (LDH). From January 2020 to November 2021, 62 patients with single-level LDH were retrospectively reviewed. All patients underwent spinal surgeries at the Affiliated Hospital of Chengde Medical University and Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University. Among them, 30 patients were treated with UBE, and 32 were treated with PTED. The patients were followed up for at least one year. Patient demographics and perioperative outcomes were reviewed before and after surgery. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analog scale (VAS) for back pain and leg pain, and modified MacNab criteria were used to evaluate the clinical outcomes. x-ray examinations were performed one year after surgery to assess the stability of the lumbar spine. The mean ages in the UBE and PTED groups were 46.7 years and 48.0 years, respectively. Compared to the UBE group, the PTED group had better VAS scores for back pain at 1 and 7 days after surgery (3.06 ± 0.80 vs. 4.03 ± 0.81, P < 0.05; 2.81 ± 0.60 vs. 3.70 ± 0.79, P < 0.05). The UBE and PTED groups demonstrated significant improvements in the VAS score for leg pain and ODI score, and no significant differences were found between the groups at any time after the first month (P > 0.05). Although the good-to-excellent rate of the modified MacNab criteria in the UBE group was similar to that in the PTED group (86.7% vs. 87.5%, P > 0.05), PTED was advantageous in terms of the operation time, estimated blood loss, incision length, and length of postoperative hospital stay. Both UBE and PTED have favorable outcomes in patients with single-level LDH. However, PTED is superior to UBE in terms of short-term postoperative back pain relief and perioperative quality of life.

A Retrospective Comparative Study of Modified Percutaneous Endoscopic Transforaminal Discectomy and Open Lumbar Discectomy for Gluteal Pain Caused by Lumbar Disc Herniation

IntroductionThis study aimed to demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of modified percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy (PETD) in the surgical management of single-segment lumbar disc herniation (LDH) gluteal pain and to determine whether it provides a better clinical outcome than open lumbar discectomy (OD).MethodsA retrospective analysis of patients treated with modified PETD and OD for gluteal pain in LDH from January 2015 to December 2020 was conducted. Sample size was determined using a priori power analysis. Demographic information, surgical outcomes including procedure time (minutes), intraoperative blood loss (mL), hospital days, costs (RMB), fluoroscopy shots, recurrence and complications, etc., were recorded and analyzed. Prognostic outcomes were assessed using the visual analog scale (VAS), the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), the Japanese Orthopedic Association Score (JOA) and modified MacNab criteria. The preoperative and postoperative VAS, ODI and JOA scores were recorded by two assistants. When the results were inconsistent, the scores were recorded again by the lead professor until all scores were consistently recorded in the data. MRI was used to assess radiological improvement and all patients received follow-ups for at least one year.ResultsThe sample size required for the study was calculated by a priori analysis, and a total of 72 participants were required for the study to achieve 95% statistical test power. A total of 93 patients were included, 47 of whom underwent modified PETD, and 46 of whom underwent OD. In the modified PETD intragroup comparison, VAS scores ranged from 7.14 ± 0.89 preoperatively to 2.00 ± 0.58, 2.68 ± 0.70, 2.55 ± 0.69, 2.23 ± 0.81, and 1.85 ± 0.72 at 7 days, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months postoperatively. Patients showed significant pain relief postoperatively (P < 0.01). According to the modified MacNab score, the excellent rate in the PETD group was 89.36%. There was no significant difference compared to the OD group (89.13%, P > 0.05). Complication rates were lower (P > 0.05) but recurrence rates were higher (P > 0.05) in the modified PETD group than in the OD group. The modified PETD group had a faster operative time (P < 0.01), shorter hospital stay (P < 0.01), less intraoperative bleeding (P < 0.01), and less financial burden to the patient (P < 0.01) than the OD group. At 7 days postoperatively, the VAS score for low back pain was higher in the OD group than in the modified PETD group (P < 0.01). The VAS and JOA scores at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively were not significantly different between the modified PETD and OD groups (P > 0.05), and the ODI was significantly different at 3 months postoperatively (P < 0.05).ConclusionModified PETD treatment is safe and effective for gluteal pain due to L4/5 disc herniation and has the advantages of a lower complication rate, faster postoperative recovery, shorter length of stay, fewer anesthesia risks and lower cost of the procedure compared with OD. However, modified PETD has a higher recurrence rate.

A comparative study of percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy and transforaminal discectomy for L5-S1 calcified lumbar disc herniation

BackgroundPercutaneous 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsAll 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.ConclusionsPEID 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.

Full endoscopic versus open discectomy for sciatica: randomised controlled non-inferiority trial

ObjectiveTo assess whether percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) is non-inferior to conventional open microdiscectomy in reduction of leg pain caused by lumbar disc herniation.DesignMulticentre randomised controlled trial with non-inferiority design.SettingFour...

178. Full endoscopic vs open discectomy for sciatica: a randomized controlled trial

<h3>BACKGROUND CONTEXT</h3> Open microdiscectomy (OM) is the standard procedure for the treatment of sciatica caused by a lumbar disc herniation. Percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) is an alternative procedure which is performed under conscious sedation. <h3>PURPOSE</h3> To determine if PTED is noninferior to OM in leg pain reduction, among patients with sciatica caused by lumbar disc herniation. Furthermore, an economic evaluation was conducted. <h3>STUDY DESIGN/SETTING</h3> Randomized controlled trial. <h3>PATIENT SAMPLE</h3> PTED (n=304) or OM (n=309). <h3>OUTCOME MEASURES</h3> The primary outcome was self-reported leg pain measured by a 0-100 visual analog scale (VAS), assuming a noninferiority margin of 5. Secondary outcomes included self-reported functional status, back pain, health-related quality of life and self-perceived recovery. Costs were measured from a societal perspective. Outcomes were measured until one year following surgery and were longitudinally analyzed. <h3>METHODS</h3> A 12-month, pragmatic, randomized, controlled, noninferiority trial in which 613 patients were randomized at four clinics in the Netherlands, from February 2016 to April 2019. Patients were aged from 18 to 70 years and had at least 6 weeks of radiating leg pain caused by lumbar disc herniation. The trial included a predetermined set of 125 PTED patients who were the early cases performed by surgeons who did not perform PTED before the trial. <h3>RESULTS</h3> At 12 months, the mean (SD) VAS score for leg pain was statically significantly lower among patients who underwent 67.3 (21.7) PTED than for 69.9 (20.6) OM (adjusted between-group difference of 7.4, 95% confidence interval 3.5 to 12.0). The blood loss was smaller, mean length of hospitalization was shorter, and timing mobilization was shorter in the PTED-group. Within one year, 5.3% in the PTED group compared to 5.6% in the OM group, underwent repeated surgery. Secondary patient-reported outcomes were similarly in favor of PTED. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves indicated that the probability of PTED being cost-effective compared with OM was almost 1.0 for both outcomes, regardless of the willingness-to-pay. <h3>CONCLUSIONS</h3> Results of the current study show that PTED is noninferior to OM in leg pain reduction. PTED resulted in more favorable results for patient self-reported leg pain, back pain, functional status, quality of life and recovery. Furthermore, results suggest that PTED is cost-effective compared with OM for patients with lumbar disc herniation from the societal perspective. Even though these differences are small and may not reach clinical relevance, PTED should be considered as an effective alternative to OM in treating sciatica. <h3>FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS</h3> This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.

Comparison of the clinical efficacy of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy and traditional laminectomy in the treatment of recurrent lumbar disc herniation.

A few years ago, percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) began to prevail in clinical treatment of recurrent lumbar disc herniation (RLDH), whereas traditional laminectomy (TL) was treated earlier in RLDH than PTED. This study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy of PTED and TL in the treatment of RLDH.Between November 2012 and October 2017, retrospective analysis of 48 patients with RLDH who were treated at the Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hefei and Department of Orthopaedics, Second Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University. Perioperative evaluation indicators included operation time, the intraoperative blood loss, length of incision and hospitalization time. Clinical outcomes were measured preoperatively, and at 1 days, 3 months, and 12 months postoperatively. The patients’ lower limb pain was evaluated using Oswestry disability index (ODI) and visual analog scale (VAS) scores. The ODI is the most widely-used assessment method internationally for lumbar or leg pain at present. Every category comprises 6 options, with the highest score for each question being 5 points. higher scores represent more serious dysfunction. The VAS is the most commonly-used quantitative method for assessing the degree of pain in clinical practice. The measurement method is to draw a 10 cm horizontal line on a piece of paper, 1 end of which is 0, indicating no pain, which the other end is 10, which means severe pain, and the middle part indicates different degree of pain.Compared with the TL group, the operation time, postoperative bed-rest time, and hospitalization time of the PTED group were significantly shorter, and the intraoperative blood loss was also reduced. These differences were statistically significant (P < .01). There were no significant differences in VAS or ODI scores between the two groups before or after surgery (P > .05).PTED and TL have similar clinical efficacy in the treatment of RLDH, but PTED can shorten the operation time, postoperative bed-rest time and hospitalization time, and reduce intraoperative blood loss, so the PTED is a safe and effective surgical method for the treatment of RLDH than TL, but more randomized controlled trials are still required to further verify these conclusions.

Comparison of Percutaneous Transforaminal Endoscopic Discectomy and Microscope‐Assisted Tubular Discectomy for Lumbar Disc Herniation

ObjectiveThe aim of the present study was to compare the clinical outcomes and quality of life following percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) and microscope‐assisted tubular discectomy (MTD) for lumbar disc herniation (LDH).MethodsThis study had a retrospective design. From June 2017 to June 2018, the clinical data of 120 patients with LDH treated with PTED (60 cases, PTED group) and MTD (60 cases, MTD group) were analyzed and followed up for at least 20 months. There were 59 men and 61 women. Patients were aged between 22 and 80 years. The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, incision length, frequency of intraoperative fluoroscopy, cost, hospital stay, types of herniated discs, complications, and clinical outcomes were evaluated. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the visual analog scale (VAS), the Oswestry disability index (ODI), and the modified Macnab criteria. Short‐Form 36 (SF‐36) and the EQ‐5D‐5L were used to evaluate the quality of life of patients. The data between the two groups were compared by independent sample t‐tests. Multiple comparisons between samples were analyzed by analysis of variance.ResultsCompared with the MTD group, the PTED group had shorter incision length (9.20 ± 1.19 mm vs 26.38 ± 1.82 mm), less intraoperative blood loss (18.00 ± 4.97 mL vs 39.83 ± 6.51 mL), and shorter hospital stay (5.42 ± 5.08 days vs 10.58 ± 3.69 days) (P = 0.00). PTED was much more appropriate for foraminal and extraforaminal disc herniation. The incidence of paresthesia was lower in the PTED group (6.67% vs 16.67%). At each follow up, the VAS and ODI scores of all patients were significantly improved compared with those before surgery (P = 0.00). At 3 days postoperatively, the lumbar VAS score of the PTED group was significantly lower (1.58 ± 1.00 vs 2.37 ± 1.10, P = 0.00). The excellent rate of the PTED group reached 91.67%, and that of the MTD group reached 93.33%. Compared with the preoperative SF‐36 scores for physiological function, mental health, and social function, the postoperative scores were significantly improved in both groups (P = 0.00). The EQ‐5D‐5L in the PTED group increased from 0.30 ± 0.17 before the operation to 0.69 ± 0.13 after 6 months of follow up (P = 0.00) and 0.73 ± 0.14 after 20 months of follow up. The EQ‐5D‐5L in the MTD group increased from 0.28 ± 0.17 before the operation to 0.68 ± 0.13 after a 6‐month follow up (P = 0.00), and 0.73 ± 0.12 after a 20‐month follow up.ConclusionAlthough both PTED and MTD are effective for LDH, PTED is much more appropriate for various types of LDH and has the advantages of the low incidence of low back pain, fewer complications, and early recovery.

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

Evaluation of Percutaneous Transforaminal Endoscopic Discectomy in the Treatment of Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Retrospective Study.

ObjectiveThe objective of the present study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) and open fenestration discectomy (OFD) in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH).MethodsPatients in our hospital with LDH who received PTED (n = 71) and OFD (n = 39) from 2013 to 2014 were retrospectively studied. Patient information, including age, gender, visual analogue scale (VAS) score for low back pain and leg pain, body weight, height, Oswestry disability index (ODI), Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA), and recurrence, was collected. The patients in the two groups were followed up for an average of 63 months after surgery.ResultsA total of 136 patients completed the operation and 110 patients were followed up completely. There was no significant difference in baseline data between the two groups (P > 0.05). The postoperative low back pain, leg pain, ODI, and JOA of the two groups were better than those preoperatively (P < 0.05). One week after surgery, the recovery of PTED patients was better than that of OFD. The ODI score of the PTED group was lower than that of the OFD group (10 [8, 12] vs 14 [11, 16]; P < 0.05), the waist VAS score of the PTED group was lower than that of the OFD group (2 [2, 3] vs 3 [2, 4]; P < 0.05), the leg VAS score of the PTED group was lower than that of the OFD group (1 [0,1] vs 1 [1, 2]; P < 0.05), while the JOA score of the PTED group was higher than that of OFD group [19(16, 20) vs 12(10, 17); P < 0.05]. There were no significant differences in ODI, JOA, waist and leg VAS scores between the two groups at 1 month after surgery and at subsequent follow‐up (P > 0.05). At the end of the follow up, 89.7% (35/39) of patients in the OFD group had excellent improvement in the JOA score, and 88.7% (63/71) of patients in the PTED group had an excellent improvement. There was no significant difference between the two (P > 0.05). There was also no significant difference in the recurrence rate between the two groups [(5/71) vs (3/39); P > 0.05]. [Correction added on 05 March 2021, after first online publication: “3/29” was amended to “3/39” in the preceding sentence.]ConclusionBoth PTED and OFD can achieve good mid‐term efficacy in the treatment of LDH but PTED has certain advantages, including the small incision, a shorter hospital stay, and quicker, earlier recovery. However, prospective randomized controlled studies with a larger sample size are needed.