Full Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy Versus Laminectomy for Cauda Equina Syndrome.

BACKGROUND

Typically, open surgery is advocated for cauda equina patients. The goal of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of full endoscopic lumbar discectomy and laminectomy in the treatment of cauda equina syndrome (CES) caused by lumbar disc herniation.

METHODS

Forty-three patients with CES either underwent endoscopic or laminectomy surgery from May 2015 to April 2016, and data were collected and retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into 2 groups according to the surgical methods: the endoscopy group (with 21 patients, 14 males and 7 females, and an average age of 42.67 with a standard deviation of 9.70 years) and the laminectomy group (with 22 patients, 16 males and 6 females, and an average age of 44.55 with a standard deviation of 9.36 years). The modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) "leg-trunk-bladder" score was used to assess the efficacy of the respective surgical methods.

RESULTS

Analysis showed longer surgery time, more bleeding, and longer hospital stay in the laminectomy group than in the endoscopy group with statistical significance. The postoperative JOA scores improved in both groups when compared with those before the operation, and the differences were statistically significant. There were no significant differences in JOA scores between the 2 groups at preoperation and 6-month and 1-year follow-ups. There was 1 patient in each group whose CES symptoms worsened after endoscopy. However, immediate reoperation resulted in satisfactory outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

CES clinical symptom resolution was equal with endoscopy and laminectomy both in short-term and midterm follow-up. However, endoscopic treatment was advantageous by reducing the amount of bleeding, duration of surgery, and hospitalization days when compared to laminectomy.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Feasibility study Endoscopic Decompression for Cauda Equina.