Qin Rongqing, Liu Baoshan, Hao Jie, Zhou Pin, Yao Yu, Zhang Feng, Chen Xiaoqing
Medical College of Nantong University, Nantong, Jiangsu, China; Department of Orthopedics, Affiliated Hospital of Nantong University, Nantong, Jiangsu, China.
Medical College of Nantong University, Nantong, Jiangsu, China.
World Neurosurg. 2018 Dec;120:352-362. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2018.08.236. Epub 2018 Sep 8.
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the clinical efficacy between percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) versus posterior open lumbar microdiscectomy (OLMD) for the treatment of symptomatic lumbar disc herniation.
We performed a comprehensive retrieval of related studies in 4 electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library). Randomized or nonrandomized controlled trials reported from January 1990 to December 2017 that compared PELD versus OLMD for the treatment of symptomatic lumbar disc herniation were acquired. The quality of randomized controlled trials was evaluated by the criteria of the Cochrane Back Review Group, and the quality of cohort studies was assessed according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The primary outcome measurements included preoperative and postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) score of sciatica; the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) before and after surgery; the Excellent and Good outcome rate based on Macnab criteria. The secondary outcome measurements included the incidence of complication, residual disk, recurrence, and reoperation; operation time; hospital stay; and time to return to work. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed each study for quality.
Nine studies with 1585 patients were included in our meta-analysis. Two were randomized controlled trials and the remaining 7 were retrospective cohort studies. The forest plots showed that no statistically significant difference was observed between the 2 groups in terms of preoperative and postoperative VAS score of sciatica, ODI before and after surgery, the Excellent and Good outcome rate, the complication rate, and the incidence of recurrence and reoperation. However, the PELD group had a higher incidence of residual disk or incomplete decompression than did the OLMD group. In addition, no significant difference was detected in the operation time between the 2 groups, but the PELD group was associated with shorter hospital stay and time of return to work.
Based on the present meta-analysis, no significant difference existed in VAS and ODI scores between the 2 surgical procedures, and they were also similar in terms of operation time, complication rate, and incidence of recurrence and reoperation, but PELD showed shorter hospital stay and time of return to work. Thus, under the premise of careful manipulation and complete decompression, we consider that PELD is a relatively more minimally invasive technique, which could be an alternative to OLMD.
本系统评价和荟萃分析旨在比较经皮内镜下腰椎间盘切除术(PELD)与后路开放式腰椎显微椎间盘切除术(OLMD)治疗有症状腰椎间盘突出症的临床疗效。
我们在4个电子数据库(PubMed、Embase、Web of Science和Cochrane图书馆)中全面检索相关研究。获取1990年1月至2017年12月期间报道的比较PELD与OLMD治疗有症状腰椎间盘突出症的随机或非随机对照试验。随机对照试验的质量根据Cochrane背部审查小组的标准进行评估,队列研究的质量根据纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表进行评估。主要结局指标包括术前和术后坐骨神经痛的视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分;手术前后的Oswestry功能障碍指数(ODI);基于Macnab标准的优良率。次要结局指标包括并发症、残留椎间盘、复发和再次手术的发生率;手术时间;住院时间;以及恢复工作的时间。两位作者独立提取数据并评估每项研究的质量。
我们的荟萃分析纳入了9项研究,共1585例患者。其中2项为随机对照试验,其余7项为回顾性队列研究。森林图显示,两组在术前和术后坐骨神经痛的VAS评分、手术前后的ODI、优良率、并发症发生率以及复发和再次手术的发生率方面均未观察到统计学上的显著差异。然而,PELD组残留椎间盘或减压不完全的发生率高于OLMD组。此外,两组手术时间无显著差异,但PELD组住院时间和恢复工作时间较短。
基于目前的荟萃分析,两种手术方法在VAS和ODI评分上无显著差异,在手术时间、并发症发生率以及复发和再次手术的发生率方面也相似,但PELD显示住院时间和恢复工作时间较短。因此,在操作仔细且减压彻底的前提下,我们认为PELD是一种相对更微创的技术,可作为OLMD的替代方法。