To evaluate the effectiveness of interrupt percutaneous endoscopy lumbar discectomy (PELD) through interlaminar approach for L5, S1 disc protrusion. Methods Between November 2006 and August 2010, 115 patients with L5, S1 disc protrusion were treated, including 79 males and 36 females with an average age of 38 years (range, 14-79 years). All patients showed the dominated symptom of the S1 nerve root. The working channel was establ ished by puncturing through interlaminar approach under the local anesthesia. After the needle was used to make sure no nerve root or dural sac on working face, the disc tissue was excised directly by bl ind sight. Then the nerve root decompression was observed through the endoscope. In patients with free type, fragment compression was observed through the endoscope, and the disc tissue around the nerve roots was removed, then the free disc tissue around intervertebral space was excised. Results One patient who failed to puncture changed to miniopen discectomy; 3 patients who failed changed to post lateral approach; and the others underwent interrupt PELD through interlaminar approach. Eighty patients were followed up 18 months on average (range, 12-36 months). The average Oswestry Disabil ity Index (ODI) was reduced to 13% ± 5% at 12 months after operation and to 12% ± 8% at last follow- up from 73% ± 12% at preoperation, showing significant differences (P lt; 0.01). According to modified Macnab ,s criterion, the results were excellent in 59 cases, good in 15 cases, fair in 3 cases, and poor in 3 cases at last follow-up, and the excellent and good rate was 92.5%. Conclusion For the treatment of disc protrusion at the L5, S1 level, interrupt PELD through interlaminar approach should be ideal with short operation time, small trauma, and quick recovery.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the efficacy and safety of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) for L5/S1 disc herniation via transforaminal approach (TF-PELD) versus interlaminar approach (IL-PELD).MethodsPubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI and WanFang Data databases were electronically searched to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and the cohort studies of TF-PELD versus IL-PELD for L5/S1 disc herniation from inception to October 2017. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies, then, meta-analysis was performed by using RevMan 5.3 software.ResultsA total of 1 RCT and 7 cohort studies involving 414 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis indicated that: compared with IL-PELD group, TF-PELD group had longer operative time (MD=17.42, 95%CI 12.86 to 21.97, P<0.000 01) and more frequency of intraoperative fluoroscopy (MD=8.42, 95%CI 6.18 to 10.65,P<0.000 01), respectively. However, there were no significant differences between two groups in the post-operative visual analogue scale (MD=0.01, 95%CI –0.23 to 0.25,P=0.94), the post-operative Oswestry disability index (MD=–0.46, 95%CI –2.42 to 1.49, P=0.64), the excellent and good outcomes rate (RR=1.00, 95%CI 0.89 to 1.12, P=0.96), and the rate of complications (RR=0.73, 95%CI 0.45 to 1.18, P=0.20).ConclusionCurrent evidence shows that TF-PELD and IL-PELD are equally effective and safe for L5/S1 disc herniation, but IL-PELD is superior to TF-PELD in less operative time and less radiation exposure. Due to limited quality and quantity of the included studies, more high quality studies are needed to verify above conclusion.