Percutaneous Transforaminal Endoscopic Discectomy Group Research Articles

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.

Microendoscopic Discectomy Combined with Annular Suture Versus Percutaneous Transforaminal Endoscopic Discectomy for Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Prospective Observational Study

Background Microendoscopic discectomy (MED) and percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) are 2 of the most popular minimally invasive spinal surgery techniques. We are investigating whether minimally invasive early annular closure can achieve a better clinical effect in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH). Objective To compare the clinical and imaging outcomes between MED combined with annular suture and PTED in the treatment of LDH. Study design A prospective observational study with follow-up of 36 months. Setting The First People's Hospital of Lianyungang in China. Methods A total of 135 prospective consecutive patients underwent MED + annular suture or PTED. Patients were assessed postoperatively at 3 days and 3, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months. The outcome measures were visual analog scales for back pain (VAS-back) and leg pain (VAS-leg) scores, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score, the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey bodily pain (SF36-BP), and physical function (SF36-PF) scales, disc height, and recurrence rate. Results One hundred and six patients have completed the 3-year follow-up. The operation time and length of stay in the MED + annular suture group were longer than that in the PTED group (P Limitations First, this was not a randomized controlled trail, which could provide more evidence-based conclusions. Second, we did not accurately measure and compare the amount of nucleus pulposus removed, although less nucleus pulposus was removed in MED + annular suture. Conclusion PTED has the advantages of shorter length of incision, shorter operation time, and shorter length of stay. MED + annular suture is associated with greater preservation of disc height, and showed certain advantages of lower recurrence rate, although there was no statistical difference.

Treatment of upper lumbar disc herniation with percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy through two different approaches

To explore clinical efficacy of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy through two different approaches in treating upper lumbar disc herniation. From March 2015 to August 2019, 32 patients with upper lumbar disc herniation treated by percutaneous endoscopic lumbar dicecromy(PELD) were analyzed retrospectively and divided into percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy (PETD) and percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) group according to different methods. There were 19 patients in PETD group, including 10 males and 9 females aged from 30 to 65 years old with an average of (44.70±12.08) years old;5 patients on L1, 2, 6 patients on L2, 3, 8 patients on L3, 4;6 patients were central herniation, 8 patients were paracentric herniation, and 5 patients were migration of herniation. There were 13 patients in PEID group, including 4 males and 9 females aged from 25 to 55 years old with an average of (42.23±12.09) years old;the courses of disease ranged from 1 to 7 months with an average of (2.90±3.02) months;3 patients on L1, 2, 4 patients on L2, 3, 6 patients on L3, 4;2 patients were central herniation, 4 patients were paracentric herniation, 3 patients were migration of herniation, 4 patients were prolapse free type protrusion. VAS and ODI score before operation, postoperative at 3 days, 3 and 6 months were compared between two groups, advanced MacNab standard at 1 year after operation were applied to evaluate clinical effects. Operation were successful operated in 32 patients and obtained following up without nerve injury and infection of intervertebral space. One patient in PETD groups occurred dural sac tear in operation, but no adverse reaction afteroperation. PETD group was followed up from 12 to 24 months with an average of (15.80±3.48) months, while PEID group was followed up from 12 to 30 months with an average of (16.70±4.66) months, while there was no statistical difference between two groups (P>0.05). VAS and ODI score at different time points after operation were higher than that of before operation (P<0.05). According to advanced MacNab standard at 1 year after operation, 11 patients obtained excellent results, 6 good, 1 moderate and 1 poor in PETD group;while 7 patients got excellent results, 4 good, 2 moderate in PEID group. Both of two surgical approach could achieve satisfactory efficacy in treating upper lumbar disc herniation, PETD is more suitable for central herniation, paracentric herniation and patients with mild displacement, PEID has advantage on prolapse free type protrusion.

Percutaneous Transforaminal Endoscopic Discectomy and Fenestration Discectomy to Treat Posterior Ring Apophyseal Fractures: A Retrospective Cohort Study

ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) and fenestration discectomy (FD) for posterior ring apophyseal fractures (PRAF).MethodsThis study was a retrospective cohort control study. A total of 96 patients with lumbar PRAF who underwent surgical treatment at the Henan Provincial People's Hospital of Henan University from September 2013 to December 2017 were retrospectively examined, of which 51 were treated by PTED and 45 by FD. The average age of those in the PTED group was 28.24 years, including 38 males and 13 females. The average age of those in the FD group was 28.07 years, with 33 males and 12 females. Operation time, total blood loss, hospitalization days, preoperative and postoperative visual analog scale (VAS), and Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores were evaluated. Modified MacNab criteria were used to evaluate the clinical effect at the last follow‐up.ResultsBoth operations were successful and no serious complications occurred. All patients were followed up for 12–30 (average 16.7 ± 3.2) months, and no patients were lost to follow‐up. No statistically significant difference was found in the mean age and gender between the PTED group and the FD group (P < 0.05). Operation time, total blood loss, and length of hospital stay were significantly lower in the PTED group (87.65 ± 13.15 min, 12.78 ± 4.95 mL, and 6.80 ± 1.67 days, respectively) than in the FD group (114.11 ± 14.39 min, 30.89 ± 7.09 mL, and 11.71 ± 1.98 days, respectively) (P < 0.05). The VAS and ODI scores of the two groups at postoperative day 1 (PTED: 3.82 ± 0.97, 37.73% ± 3.72%; FD: 3.62 ± 1.09, 36.62% ± 3.05%), and at 3 months (PTED: 2.90 ± 1.08, 26.02% ± 2.90%; FD: 3.07 ± 0.99, 27.16% ± 4.02%), 6 months (PTED: 2.31 ± 0.88, 22.53% ± 2.67%; FD: 2.36 ± 0.77, 21.18% ± 3.35%), and the last follow‐up (PTED: 1.90 ± 0.83, 19.88% ± 3.01%; FD: 1.89 ± 0.86, 18.22% ± 3.03%) were significantly different from the preoperative scores (PTED: 6.53 ± 1.00, 55.24% ± 4.54%; FD: 6.78 ± 1.31, 53.56% ± 5.73%) (P < 0.05). The VAS and ODI scores at 3 months postoperatively, 6 months postoperatively, and the last follow up were not significantly different between the two groups (P > 0.05). In the PTED group, 2 patients developed a transient nerve stimulation symptom within 1 day after surgery and 1 patient had recurrence at 3 months after surgery. In the FD group, 2 patients had severe dural ruptures due to adhesion during surgery, 1 patient developed infection complications, and 2 patients relapsed at 2 and 3 months after surgery. At the last follow‐up, the modified MacNab criteria for clinical effect were 93.3% and 94.1% in the FD and PTED groups, respectively.ConclusionWhile PTED has the same efficacy as FD for treating PRAF, it is associated with shorter operation time, less trauma, and quicker recovery.

Transforaminal approach versus interlaminar approach: A meta-analysis of operative complication of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy.

Background:To systematically analyze the differences of complications between percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) and percutaneous interlaminar endoscopic discectomy (PIED) in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation.Methods:We performed a systematic search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane databases, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, CNKI, and Wanfang Data for all relevant studies. All statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager Version 5.3.Results:A total of 15 articles with 1156 study subjects were included, with 550 patients in PTED group and 606 patients in PIED group. The results of the meta-analysis showed that postoperative dysesthesia (odds ratio [OR] = 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.33–1.13), nerve root injury (OR = 1.22, 95% CI, 0.30–5.02), surgical site wound complications (OR = 1.26, 95% CI, 0.29–5.40), recurrence (OR = 1.09, 95% CI, 0.54–2.21), conversion to open surgery (OR = 1.26, 95% CI, 0.33–4.81), incomplete decompression (OR = 1.62, 95% CI, 0.43–6.09), and total complication (OR = 0.72, 95% CI, 0.49–1.06) showed no significant differences between the PTED group and the PIED group, while the PTED group had significantly better results in dural tear compared with the PIED group (OR = 0.31, 95% CI, 0.13–0.79).Conclusions:Dural tear was significantly less occured in PTED compared with PIED. The postoperative dysesthesia, nerve root injury, surgical site wound complications, recurrence, conversion to open surgery, incomplete decompression, and total complication did not differ significantly between PTED and PIED in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation.

Analysis on clinical effects of two surgical approaches in percutaneous spinal endoscopy for L5S1 disc herniation

To analyze the clinical effects, complications and operational key points of the percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy (PETD) and percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) in treating L5S1 disc herniation. The clinical data of 158 patients with L5S1 disc herniation treated from July 2015 to March 2018 were restospectively analyzed. According to different surgical approaches, the patients were divided into PETD group or PEID group, 79 cases in each group. In PETD group, there were 41 males and 38 females, with an average age of (41.38±6.25) years and course of disease of (10.06±3.14) months. In PEID group, there were 43 males and 36 females, with an average age of (41.18±5.78) years and course of disease of (9.99±2.83) months. The operation length, intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative fluoroscopy times, days of hospital stay, and complications were recorded between two groups. Visual analogue score (VAS), Japanese Orthopedic Association(JOA) score, Oswestry Disability Index(ODI), modified Macnab criteria were used to assessed clinical effects after operation. All patients completed surgery and were followed up for more than 1 year. (1) There were no significant differences in the intraoperative blood loss or hospitalization length between two groups(P>0.05). The operation length and intraoperative fluoroscopy times in PETD group were significantly higher than in PEID group (P<0.05). (2)VAS, JOA scores, ODI at 1 week, 6 months, or 12 months after operation were significantly improved between two groups (P<0.05), but there was no statistical significance between two groups(P>0.05). (3)The excellence rate was 89.87% (71 / 79) in PETD group and 87.34% (69 / 79) in PEID group at the latest follow-up, with no statistical significance(P>0.05). (4)Complications occurred in 2 cases in PETD group and in 3 cases in PEID group, with no significant differences between two groups. The short term efficacy of the PETD is equal to that of the PEID for the L5S1 disc herniation, but PEID is superior in the operation length, the access of stereotaxic puncture and intraoperative fluoroscopy times. The complications can be effectively reduced by following the indications, mastering the endoscopic technique, operating carefully and being familiar with the key points of common complications.

Percutaneous Endoscopic Transforaminal Discectomy versus Conventional Open Lumbar Discectomy for Upper Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Comparative Cohort Study

Background Percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy (PETD) is regarded as a viable alternative option for upper lumbar disc herniation (LDH). However, few studies have evaluated PETD for upper LDH, and no study has compared the advantages of endoscopic procedures versus conventional surgery. The present study was aimed at comparing the surgical outcome and safety of PETD versus conventional open lumbar discectomy in the treatment of upper LDH. Methods Data from 42 patients treated for upper LDH from July 2015 to July 2018 were retrospectively analyzed, including 21 patients treated with PETD (PETD group) and 21 patients treated with conventional posterior lumbar discectomy (open group). The two groups were compared regarding demographic information, physical examination, radiological evaluations, and perioperative indicators. The clinical outcomes were assessed in accordance with the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analog scale (VAS), and modified MacNab criteria. Results The postoperative ODI and VAS scores were significantly improved in both groups compared with the preoperative baseline values (P < 0.001), and the satisfactory rate was 90.5% in both groups in accordance with the modified MacNab criteria. There were no significant differences between the two groups in the clinical outcomes and complication rate (P < 0.001), and the satisfactory rate was 90.5% in both groups in accordance with the modified MacNab criteria. There were no significant differences between the two groups in the clinical outcomes and complication rate (P < 0.001), and the satisfactory rate was 90.5% in both groups in accordance with the modified MacNab criteria. There were no significant differences between the two groups in the clinical outcomes and complication rate (Conclusions PETD has a similar outcome to the conventional surgical method for the treatment of upper LDH but provides the typical advantages of minimally invasive procedures such as reduced iatrogenic injury, minimal activity restrictions, and accelerated ambulation recovery postoperatively.

Comparative Analysis of the Therapeutic Efficiency and Radiographic Measurement Between the Transforaminal Approach and Interlaminar Approach in Percutaneous Endoscopic Discectomy.

To investigate and compare the therapeutic efficiency and radiographic measurement between the transforaminal approach and interlaminar approach in percutaneous endoscopic discectomy. From January 2017 to January 2018, 86 patients suffering from single lumbar disc herniation were included in this retrospective analysis and divided into the percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy (PETD) group and percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) group according to different surgical approaches. Data on age, gender, course of the disease, smoking status, and body mass index (BMI) were also obtained. Moreover, lumbar spine X-ray (anterior? posterior, lateral, and excessive flexion and extension), CT scan, and MRI were performed preoperatively for all patients. Another MRI of the lumbar spine was performed within the week after the operation. Clinical efficacy was calculated to assess the clinical effect of the therapy using the visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at 1 day before surgery, 3 months after surgery, 1 year after surgery, and the last follow-up visit. All patients were followed up for above two year. 44 and 42 cases were enrolled, respectively, in the PETD and PEID groups. 62 males and 24 females were included in this study. The mean ages of the PETD and PEID groups were 34.58 ± 6.70 and 33.72 ± 7.12 years, respectively (p=0.763). The symptoms showed evident improvement after surgery, but there were no significant differences regarding VAS scores, ODI scores, spinal canal occupation rate and lumbar lordosis except disc height and pfirrmann grade between the two groups (p > 0.05). The revision surgery rates of the PETD and PEID groups at the last follow-up time were 2.3% and 4.8%, respectively (p=0.612). One patient in the PETD group underwent PEID revision surgery because of residual disk herniation. Re-operation were performed on 2 patients in the PEID group due to recurrencee. Approaches of the PEID and PETD are pivotal to address lumbar disc herniation (LDH) disease. Selection of surgery approach depends on anatomical structure, physiological characteristic and operative skill of the surgeon.

Accurate location and minimally invasive treatment of lumbar lateral recess stenosis with combined SNRB and PTED.

ObjectiveTo establish a management strategy for multi-segment lumbar lateral recess stenosis.MethodsA retrospective study was performed in patients in whom suspected responsible nerve roots underwent sequential selective nerve root block (SNRB). Based on pain remission rate after blocking, the contribution of nerve root compression to symptoms was classified as absolutely (≥70%) or relatively (30–70%) responsible or non-responsible (<30%). Conservative treatment was continued if visual analogue scale (VAS) at 3 days after blocking a single nerve root or VAS at 3 days after blocking multiple nerve roots was ≥50%; otherwise, percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) was performed. Pain and functional scores were evaluated on day 3, 6 months and 1 year after SNRB or PTED.ResultsFifty-seven of 80 patients had a single absolutely responsible root, 20 had 2 responsible roots, and 3 had 3 responsible roots. Among them, 41, 10, and 1 patient underwent PTED, respectively. Both the PTED and conservative groups improved significantly in VAS remission rate and functional scores compared with admission. Moreover, the PTED group had a better VAS remission rate compared with the conservative group.ConclusionA combination of SNRB with PTED was effective for diagnosing and treating multi-segment lumbar lateral recess stenosis.

Treatment of L₄,₅ lumbar disc herniation with percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy through two different approaches

To analyze the clinical efficacy, indications and operative points of transforaminal approach and interlaminar approach in the treatment of L₄,₅ lumbar disc herniation. A retrospective analysis was performed on 48 patients with L₄,₅ lumbar disc herniation treated by percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy from November 2016 to June 2018. Among them, 32 patients underwent percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy(PETD), including 17 males and 15 females, with an average age of (60.22±16.55) years, and the course of disease was(2.18±2.68) months;16 patients underwent percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy(PEID), including 7 males and 9 females, with an average age of (42.25±15.89) years, and the course of disease was(2.90±3.02) months. VAS, ODI of two groups before operation, 3 days, 3 months, and 6 months after operation were analyzed, and modified Macnab standard was used to evaluate the clinical effects. All the 48 patients successfully completed the surgical treatment, and all patients were followed up. There was no significant difference in gender, course of disease and follow-up time between two groups (P>0.05). The age of PETD group was(60.22±16.55) years and PEID group was (42.25±15.89) years, there was statistical difference between two groups (P<0.05 ). In the PETD group, there were 10 patients with advanced age, non-free type(24 cases) was more than free type(8 cases), and shoulder type(27 cases) more than axillary type(1 case) and ventral type(4 cases). PETD was used in 5 patients with lateral type and 2 patients with extreme lateral type. In PEID group, the axillary type(8 cases) was more than the shoulder type(2 cases) and the ventral type(6 cases), PEID was used in 4 patients with high prolapse free type(I and IIregions). VAS scores and ODI of patients in two groups at each postoperative follow-up point were significantly improved compared with those before surgery(P<0.05). According to modified Macnab standard to evaluate the clinical effect, in PETD group, 24 cases obtained excellent results, 5 good, 2 fair, 1 poor, while in PEID group, 12 excellent, 3 good, 0 fair, 1 poor. Both two surgical approachs can achieve satisfactory efficacy in treating L₄,₅ lumbar disc herniation, but PETD is more suitable for elderly patients, non-free type, lateral type, extremely lateral type and shoulder type of lumbar disc herniation. High prolapse(I and II regions) and axillary type lumbar prominent should select PEID.

A Cost-utility Analysis of Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy for L5-S1 Lumbar Disc Herniation: Transforaminal versus Interlaminar.

A cost-utility analysis (CUA). The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy (PETD) and percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) techniques for the treatment of L5-S1 lumbar disc herniation (LDH). The annual cost of treatment for lumbar disc herniation is staggering. As the two major approaches of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD): percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy (PETD) and percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) have gained recognition for the treatment of L5-S1 lumbar disc herniation (LDH) and showed similar clinical outcome. ost-utility analysis (CUA) can help clinicians make appropriate decisions about optimal health care for L5-S1 LDH. Fifty and 25 patients were included in the PETD and PEID groups of the study. Patients' basic characteristics, health care costs, and clinical outcome of PETD and PEID group were collected and analyzed. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated and validated by EuroQol five-dimensional (EQ-5D) questionnaire. Cost-effectiveness was determined by the incremental cost per QALY gained. The mean total cost of the PETD group was $5275.58 ± 292.98 and the PEID group was $5494.45 ± 749.24. No significant differences were observed in hospitalization expenses, laboratory and radiographic evaluations expenses, surgical expenses, and drug costs. Surgical equipment and materials costs, and anesthesia expense in the PEID group were significantly higher than in the PETD group (P < 0.001). Clinical outcomes, including Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores, and Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA), also showed no significant differences between the two groups. The cost-effectiveness ratio of PETD and PEID were $6816.05 ± 717.90/QALY and $7073.30 ± 1081.44/QALY, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of PEID over PETD was $21887.00/QALY. Observed costs per QALY gained for L5-S1 LDH with PETD or PEID were similar for patients, demonstrating that the two different approaches of PELD are equally cost-effective and valuable interventions. 5.

Percutaneous Transforaminal Endoscopic Discectomy versus Micro-Endoscopic Discectomy for Lumbar Disc Herniation

BackgroundPercutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) and micro-endoscopic discectomy (MED) are alternative minimally invasive, widely performed procedures for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH). This study compared the clinical outcomes of these 2 surgical techniques in treating LDH.Material/MethodsA comprehensive literature search was performed in PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Google Scholar to identify all relevant studies comparing PTED and MED in treating LDH.ResultsEight comparative studies assessing a total of 805 patients were included for the final analysis. The results indicated that PTED needs a shorter incision [−1.02 (−1.21 to −0.83), p<0.001], less time in bed [−2.14 (−3.34 to −0.94), p<0.001], and shorter hospital stay [−1.92 (−2.90 to −0.94), p<0.001], whereas MED is superior regarding intraoperative fluoroscopy [7.47 (2.78 to 12.17), p=0.002] and total cost [0.69 (0.38 to 1.00), p<0.001]. No significant differences were found on operation time, intraoperative blood loss, or complications. Significant lower back pain was found in the PTED group at 1 week postoperatively [−0.52 (−0.95 to −0.10), p=0.02] and 1 year postoperatively or the last follow-up [−0.41 (−0.76 to −0.06), p=0.02]; significant lower leg pain was also detected at 1 week postoperatively [−0.52 (−0.75 to −0.30), p<0.001]. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) was significant better at 1 week postoperatively in the PTED group [−4.41 (−7.03 to −1.79), p=0.001]. No significant differences were detected at other time points regarding pain score and ODI.ConclusionsBoth PTED and MED are safe and effective techniques for treating LDH. However, taking all clinical outcomes together, PTED might be a preferable treatment modality for LDH.

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.

Percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy in the treatment of senior patients with lumbar degenerative disc disease.

The aim of the current study was to analyze the efficacy of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) in the treatment of lumbar degenerative disc disease for senior patients. The clinical and follow-up data of senior patients were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into a PTED group and an open surgery group. Parameters were analyzed, including surgery time, intraoperative fluoroscopy time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative complications, visual analog scale (VAS) and Japan Orthopedic Association (JOA) scores. Compared with the open surgery group, the surgery time and intraoperative blood loss were decreased, while the intraoperative fluoroscopy time was increased, in the PTED group (P<0.001). Significant improvements in VAS and JOA scores were identified within both groups from preoperative to 12 months following surgery (P<0.001). VAS and JOA scores were significantly improved in the PTEN group compared with the open surgery group at 1 week after surgery (P<0.001), but there was no significant difference between groups prior to and at 12 months following surgery. The incidence of venous thrombosis of the lower extremities in the PTED group was decreased compared with the open surgery group (P<0.05). In the open surgery group, patients suffered from multiple postoperative complications, including constipation, urinary system infection, wound infection, gastrointestinal hemorrhagic stress ulcer, pneumonia, pulmonary embolism, mortality following myocardial infarction, mortality following cerebral infarction, and hemiplegia following cerebral hemorrhage. By contrast, patients in the PTED group did not experience any of these complications. In conclusion, PTED resulted in reduced trauma and a lower incidence of severe complications compared with open surgery, which suggests that PTED is a safe and effective minimally invasive surgery for senior patients with lumbar degenerative disc disease.

Meta-analysis of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy vs. fenestration discectomy in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation

The aim of this study was to systematically review the efficacy of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) and fenestration discectomy (FD) in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH). We performed asystematic search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane databases, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, CNKI, and Wanfang Data for all relevant studies. All statistical analyses wer performed using Review Manager version5.3. Dichotomous data were calculated by odds ratio (OR) and continuous data were calculated by mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Atotal of 17articles with 1390study subjects were included, with 733patients in the PTED group and 657patients in the FD group. The results of the meta-analysis showed that postoperative the visual analog scale (VAS) score (mean difference [MD] -0.13; 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.22 to -0.03; P = 0.009) and postoperative complications (MD 0.52; 95% CI 0.26 to 1.04; P = 0.06) showed no significant differences between the PTED group and the FD group, while the PTED group had significantly better results in operation time (MD 0.47; 95% CI -11.34 to 12.28; P = 0.94), length of incision (MD -3.74; 95% CI -4.28 to -3.19; P < 0.00001), amount of bleeding (MD -63.66, 95% CI -77.65 to -49.67; P < 0.00001), time of postoperative bed rest (MD -90.19; 95% CI -106.82 to -73.56; P < 0.00001), hospitalization time (MD -5.90; 95% CI -7.21 to -4.59; P < 0.00001), and postoperative Oswestry disability index (ODI) score (MD -0.59; 95% CI -1.11 to -0.08; P = 0.02) compared with the FD group. The Percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy is associated with better postoperative ODI score, better results in length of incision, lower blood loss, shorter operation time, postoperative bed time and hospitalization time. The complications did not differ significantly between PTED and FD in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation. These findings provide evidence to support PTED is efficacious for LDH; however, scar repair of a ruptured anulus fibrosus needs a long time and the patients undergoing PTED should be advised to stay in bed for a long time even if the symptoms are markedly relieved. These results are not limited to randomized controlled trials and lack data about the long-term outcome.

Comparison of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in treating upper lumbar disc herniation

Objective: To compare the efficacy of percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy (PTED) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in the treatment of high lumbar disc herniation. Methods: The clinical data of patients with high lumbar disc herniation from February 2010 to February 2015 were retrospective analyzed. According to the inclusion criteria, a total of 63 cases were enrolled, including PTED group 33 cases, TLIF group 30 cases. The improvement of the two groups before and after surgery was assessed by visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry dysfunction index (ODI). The operative time, intraoperative blood loss, drainage volume at 48 h postoperatively, hospitalization time, number of fluoroscopy, complication, recurrence rate and postoperative recovery were compared between the two groups. The follow-up period was 12 to 33 months. Results: The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, drainage amount and hospitalization time in PTED group were significantly less than those in TLIF group[(71±19) vs (121±22) min, (30±21) vs (317±50) ml, 0 vs (93±29) ml, (3.5±1.9) vs (12.5±2.1) d]. The number of fluoroscopy in PTED group was significantly higher than TLIF group[(16.2±8.3) vs (6.7±4.2)](all P<0.05). There was no significant difference in VAS score and ODI improvement rate between the two groups after operation (both P>0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the excellent rate of surgery and the recurrence rate (both P>0.05). Conclusions: PTED has the advantages of less trauma and bleeding, rapid postoperative recovery in the treatment of upper lumbar disc herniation compared with TLIF, and the curative effect and recurrence rate are similar with TLIF. Therefore, PTED is an effective method for the treatment of upper lumbar disc herniation.

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).

A comparison of the transforaminal versus the interlaminar approach to percutaneous endoscopic surgeries in treating lumbar disc herniation

Objective To evaluate the indications and clinical results of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) and percutaneous interlaminar endoscopic discectomy (PIED) for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH). Methods A total of 126 patients of LDH were retrospectively analyzed, who were admitted to Department of Neurosurgery, Beijing Hospital and Department of Neurosurgery, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University from April 2014 to June 2015. According to the surgical approach, the patients were divided into the PTED (66 cases) and PIED (60 cases) groups.Pre- and postoperative pain was assessed using the visual analog scale (VAS) and the patient’s functional status was evaluated using the Oswestry disability index (ODI). Various aspects were compared between the two groups that included operation time, times of intraoperative radioactive examinations, length of hospital stay, complications and postoperative recovery.The follow-up time is 3 to 23 months. Results In both groups, the patients' mean VAS scores and ODI were significantly decreased compared with data before operation(all P 0.05). The operation time(85.6±19.0 min) and frequencies of radiation exposure (28.1±10.3) in the PTED group were significantly higher than in the PIED group(operation time: 59.6±13.0 min, frequency of radiation exposure: 4.9±1.5); while the postoperative bedridden time(4.6±0.9 h) and complication rate (4.5%) in the PTED group were significantly lower than in the PIED group (bedridden time: 9.9±3.7 h, complication rate: 13.3%). Conclusions PTED and PIED are generally safe and efficacious in treatment of LDH.Selection of surgical approaches should be based on LDH types and locations. Key words: Intervertebral disc degeneration; Lumbar vertebrae; Diskectomy, percutaneous; Transforaminal; Interlaminar

Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy for L5-S1 Disc Herniation Via an Interlaminar Approach Versus a Transforaminal Approach: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Study With 2-Year Follow Up.

A prospective, randomized controlled study of patients with L5-S1 lumbar disc herniations, operated with endoscopic discectomy through an interlaminar or transforaminal approach. To compare the results of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy in L5-S1 disc herniation through an interlaminar or transforaminal approach. The transforaminal and interlaminar techniques are both acceptable approaches for L5-S1 disc herniation. This is the first study to compare these two approaches in terms of their surgical effects and advantages. From January 2010 to June 2010, 60 patients with L5-S1 disc herniation were randomly recruited into two groups; one group underwent percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) and the other group underwent percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy (PETD). There were 30 patients in each group. The operation time, intraoperative radiation time, postoperative bed rest time, hospitalization time, and complications were compared between the groups. The surgical effectiveness was assessed according to the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and modified MacNab criteria. All the patients completed follow up with a mean of 27.6 months (range, 24-37 months). In the PEID group, the mean operation time was 65.0 ± 14.9 minutes, and the intraoperative radiation time was 0.60 ± 0.24 seconds. For the PETD group, the mean operation time was 86.0 ± 15.4 minutes, and the intraoperative radiation time was 6.50 ± 1.52 seconds. There were significant differences in operation time and radiation time between the two groups (P < 0.01) but not in the postoperative bed rest time, hospitalization time, or complication rate (P > 0.05). The postoperative ODI and VAS were obviously improved in both groups when compared with preoperation (P < 0.01). According to the MacNab criteria, the satisfactory rates were 93.3% and 90.0% in the two groups, without a significant difference (P > 0.05). PEID can escape the blockade of crista iliaca, and advantages include a faster puncture orientation, a shorter operation time, and less intraoperative radiation exposure. PETD requires higher punctuation skill and more intraoperative radiation exposure. 4.

Outcomes of Microendoscopic Discectomy and Percutaneous Transforaminal Endoscopic Discectomy for the Treatment of Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Comparative Retrospective Study.

Study DesignRetrospective, case control evaluation of 86 patients who underwent microendoscopic discectomy (MED) and percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH).PurposeTo evaluate the safety and the outcomes of MED and PTED for the treatment of LDH.Overview of LiteratureMED and PTED are minimally invasive surgical techniques for lower back pain. Studies to date have shown that MED and PTED are safe and effective treatment modalities for LDH.MethodsA retrospective study was performed in patients with LDH treated with MED (n=50) and transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED; n=36) in our hospital. All patients were followed-up with self-evaluation questionnaires, Oswestry disability index (ODI), medical outcomes study 36-item short form health survey and MacNab criteria. All the patients in both groups were followed up to 12 months after the operation.ResultsODI questionnaire responses were not statistically different between the MED and PTED groups (53.00 vs. 48.72) before treatment. Average scores and minimal disability after 5 days to 12 months of follow-up were 4.96 in the MED group and 3.61 in the PTED group. According to MacNab criteria, 92.0% of the MED group and 94.4% of the PTED group had excellent or good results with no significant difference.ConclusionsThere was no significant difference between MED and PTED outcomes. Further large-scale, randomized studies with long-term follow-up are needed.