Department of Orthopaedics, University of Munich (LMU), Grosshadern Campus, Munich, Germany.
Pain Physician. 2013 Jul-Aug;16(4):335-44.
Neuropathic pain originating from spinal disc herniations is a very common problem. The majority of disc surgeries are performed to alleviate this pain once conservative measures and targeted injections have failed. Endoscopic spinal surgery is increasingly popular because it minimizes access trauma and hastens recovery from the intervention. This clinically oriented review evaluates controlled studies that investigate the clinical results and the complications of full-endoscopic lumbar and cervical procedures for symptomatic disc herniations in comparison to a microsurgical standard procedure. This review focuses exclusively on modern, full-endoscopic disc surgery irrespective of the specific access technique (e.g., interlaminar vs. transforaminal) and irrespective of the spinal region.
Comprehensive review of the literature.
To assess the clinical outcomes and complication rates of full-endoscopic disc surgery compared to the microsurgical standard procedures.
A PubMed and Embase search was performed, considering entries up to January 2013. All 504 results were screened and categorized. Only 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and one controlled studies (CS) could finally be considered for evaluation. All 5 manuscripts were meticulously analyzed with regards to randomization mode, inclusion/exclusion criteria, clinical results, and complication rates.
Overall, the endoscopic techniques had shorter operating times, less blood loss, less operative site pain, and faster postoperative rehabilitation/shorter hospital stay/faster return to work than the microsurgical techniques. There were no significant differences in the main clinical outcome criteria between the endoscopic and the microsurgical techniques in any of the trials. All 5 studies had fewer complications with the endoscopic technique and this was statistically significant in 2 of the studies. One study showed a lower rate of revision surgeries requiring arthrodesis with the endoscopic technique.
All 5 studies that could be considered originate from experienced investigators and all 4 RCTs came from one group. This limits the transferability of their results to surgeons less experienced in endoscopic disc surgery.
The studies show that full-endoscopic disc surgery can achieve the same clinical results in symptomatic cervical and lumbar disc herniations as the microsurgical standard techniques. This does not appear to come at the price of higher complication rates.
源于椎间盘突出的神经性疼痛是一个非常普遍的问题。大多数椎间盘手术都是在保守治疗和靶向注射失败后进行的,以缓解这种疼痛。内窥镜脊柱手术越来越受欢迎,因为它最大限度地减少了进入创伤,并且从干预中恢复得更快。本临床导向的综述评估了对照研究,这些研究调查了全内窥镜腰椎和颈椎手术治疗症状性椎间盘突出症的临床结果和并发症,与微创手术标准程序进行了比较。本综述专门关注现代全内窥镜椎间盘手术,无论特定的进入技术(例如,椎板间与经椎间孔)和脊柱区域如何。
文献综述。
评估全内窥镜椎间盘手术与微创手术标准程序相比的临床结果和并发症发生率。
进行了 PubMed 和 Embase 搜索,考虑了截至 2013 年 1 月的条目。对所有 504 个结果进行了筛选和分类。最终只能考虑 4 项随机对照试验(RCT)和 1 项对照研究(CS)进行评估。所有 5 篇论文都经过了细致的分析,涉及随机模式、纳入/排除标准、临床结果和并发症发生率。
总体而言,与微创手术相比,内窥镜技术具有更短的手术时间、更少的失血、更少的手术部位疼痛以及更快的术后康复/更短的住院时间/更快的重返工作岗位。在任何一项试验中,内窥镜技术和微创手术在主要临床结果标准方面均无显著差异。在所有 5 项研究中,内窥镜技术的并发症更少,其中 2 项研究具有统计学意义。一项研究表明,内窥镜技术需要进行融合手术的翻修手术率较低。
可考虑的 5 项研究均来自经验丰富的研究人员,4 项 RCT 均来自一个研究组。这限制了其结果在不熟悉内窥镜椎间盘手术的外科医生中的可转移性。
这些研究表明,全内窥镜椎间盘手术在治疗症状性颈腰椎间盘突出症方面可以取得与微创手术标准技术相同的临床效果。这似乎并没有以更高的并发症发生率为代价。