Ma Cheng, Li He, Zhang Teng, Wei Yifan, Zhang Helong, Yu Fenglei, Lv You, Ren Yongxin
Department of Orthopaedics, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, 210029, Jiangsu, People's Republic of China.
Department of Orthopaedics, Lianyungang Clinical College of Nanjing Medical University, The First People's Hospital of Lianyungang, Lianyungang, 222061, Jiangsu, People's Republic of China.
J Pain Res. 2022 Apr 13;15:1061-1070. doi: 10.2147/JPR.S352595. eCollection 2022.
Both percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) and open fenestration discectomy (OFD) are effective and safe surgical procedures for the treatment of LDH. The purpose of this retrospective study was to compare the surgical outcomes of percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) and OFD for single-segment huge lumbar disc herniation (HLDH).
We retrospectively analyzed 91 patients diagnosed with single-segment HLDH and treated with OFD or PEID. Visual analog scale (VAS), modified Japanese orthopedic association (mJOA) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) were used to assess clinical outcomes at preoperation and postoperatively at 3, 6, 12, and 24months. Modified Macnab criteria were applied to evaluate clinically satisfaction at the final follow-up.
In both groups, the VAS and ODI scores at 3, 6, 12, and 24months postoperatively showed a significant decrease and the mJOA score at 3, 6, 12, and 24months postoperatively was significantly increased compared to preoperative results (<0.001). According to Macnab criteria at the final follow-up, the overall clinically satisfactory rate was 86.67% in the OFD group and 86.96% in the PEID group. There were no significant differences in VAS, ODI, and mJOA scores between the two groups at preoperation and postoperative 3, 6, 12, and 24months, respectively. In the PEID group, the length of hospitalization and the length of incision were significantly shorter than that in the OFD group (<0.0001). However, there was no significant difference in operative time between groups (=0.81).
Collectively, postoperative clinical results were equally favorable for both procedures, with no statistically significant difference between PEID and OFD at the two-year of follow-up. No serious complication was observed in two groups. Compared with the traditional surgery, PEID has the following benefits: less trauma, less bleeding, speedy recovery, and shorter hospitalization. Therefore, PEID may be a promising alternative to traditional surgery.
经皮内镜下腰椎间盘切除术(PELD)和开放性开窗椎间盘切除术(OFD)都是治疗腰椎间盘突出症(LDH)有效且安全的手术方法。本回顾性研究的目的是比较经皮内镜下椎间孔椎间盘切除术(PEID)和OFD治疗单节段巨大腰椎间盘突出症(HLDH)的手术效果。
我们回顾性分析了91例诊断为单节段HLDH并接受OFD或PEID治疗的患者。采用视觉模拟评分法(VAS)、改良日本骨科协会评分(mJOA)和Oswestry功能障碍指数(ODI)评估术前及术后3、6、12和24个月的临床疗效。采用改良Macnab标准在末次随访时评估临床满意度。
两组术后3、6、12和24个月的VAS和ODI评分均较术前显著降低,术后3、6、12和24个月的mJOA评分较术前显著升高(<0.001)。根据末次随访时的Macnab标准,OFD组的总体临床满意率为86.67%,PEID组为86.96%。两组术前及术后3、6、12和24个月的VAS、ODI和mJOA评分分别无显著差异。PEID组的住院时间和切口长度明显短于OFD组(<0.0001)。然而,两组之间的手术时间无显著差异(=0.81)。
总体而言,两种手术的术后临床效果同样良好,在两年的随访中PEID和OFD之间无统计学显著差异。两组均未观察到严重并发症。与传统手术相比,PEID具有以下优点:创伤小、出血少、恢复快、住院时间短。因此,PEID可能是传统手术的一个有前景的替代方法。