Eldin Mohamed Mohi, Hassan Ahmed Salah El Din, AboHamed Omar Youssef Abdallah, Hassan Ahmed Abdelaziz Nazem, Omar Ahmed Hussein
Department of Neurosurgery, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University Hospital (Kasr Al Ainy), Cairo, Egypt.
J Craniovertebr Junction Spine. 2025 Apr-Jun;16(2):142-147. doi: 10.4103/jcvjs.jcvjs_32_24. Epub 2025 Jul 3.
Patients with neurological impairments or those unresponsive to conservative therapy may undergo surgical discectomy. The techniques include open discectomy (OD), microdiscectomy (MD), microendoscopic discectomy (MED), and percutaneous endoscopic discectomy. MED combines the benefits of MD and OD with minimal tissue damage. This study compared MD versus MED outcomes in patients with sciatica from lumbar disc herniation.
This prospective clinical study included 50 patients who underwent single-level discectomy at Cairo University Hospital. The patients were divided into two groups: 25 patients who underwent MD in Group I and 25 who underwent MED in Group II.
In our study, 64% (16/25) of the MED group rated their postoperative condition as excellent, 28% (7/25) as good, 4% (1/25) as fair, and 4% (1/25) as poor, according to the modified McNab criteria. In the MD group, 60% (15 patients) reported excellent satisfaction; 28% (7 patients), good; 8% (2 patients), fair; and 4% (1 patient), poor satisfaction. Overall, 90% (45 patients) of patients across both groups had excellent to good outcomes, irrespective of the discectomy type. When categorizing excellent and good outcomes as successes and fair and poor as failures, the MED group's success rate was 92%, compared to 88% for MD. There was no significant difference in patient satisfaction between the two groups.
MED and MD showed equivalent efficacy in treating radicular pain caused by lumbar disc herniation. Patients in both groups showed significant improvements in Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores. No significant differences were found between the groups in VAS, ODI, or complication rates, validating both surgical techniques for lumbar disc herniation. Compared with OD, MED showed reduced blood loss, smaller incisions, shorter hospital stays, and longer operation times. Although MED requires a steep learning curve, it remains safe even during the initial learning period, with outcomes and complication rates similar to those of MD.
患有神经功能障碍的患者或对保守治疗无反应的患者可能需要接受手术椎间盘切除术。这些技术包括开放式椎间盘切除术(OD)、显微椎间盘切除术(MD)、显微内镜椎间盘切除术(MED)和经皮内镜椎间盘切除术。MED结合了MD和OD的优点,对组织的损伤最小。本研究比较了腰椎间盘突出症所致坐骨神经痛患者MD与MED的治疗效果。
这项前瞻性临床研究纳入了50例在开罗大学医院接受单节段椎间盘切除术的患者。患者被分为两组:第一组25例接受MD,第二组25例接受MED。
在我们的研究中,根据改良的麦克纳布标准,MED组64%(16/25)的患者将其术后状况评为优秀,28%(7/25)评为良好,4%(1/25)评为中等,4%(1/25)评为差。在MD组中,60%(15例患者)报告满意度优秀;28%(7例患者),良好;8%(2例患者),中等;4%(1例患者),满意度差。总体而言,两组中90%(45例患者)的患者治疗效果为优秀或良好,与椎间盘切除术类型无关。将优秀和良好的结果归类为成功,中等和差归类为失败时,MED组的成功率为92%,而MD组为88%。两组患者的满意度无显著差异。
MED和MD在治疗腰椎间盘突出症引起的神经根性疼痛方面显示出同等疗效。两组患者的视觉模拟评分(VAS)和奥斯威斯利功能障碍指数(ODI)评分均有显著改善。两组在VAS、ODI或并发症发生率方面均未发现显著差异,证实了两种治疗腰椎间盘突出症的手术技术的有效性。与OD相比,MED显示出血量减少、切口更小、住院时间更短、手术时间更长。尽管MED需要一个陡峭的学习曲线,但即使在最初的学习阶段它仍然是安全的,其治疗效果和并发症发生率与MD相似。