ObjectiveTo explore the clinical efficacy of percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) and interlaminar fenestration discectomy in the treatment of lumbar (L) 5-Sacral (S) 1 lumbar disc herniation (LDH).MethodsLDH patients were retrospectively included from January 2016 to Januray 2018. And the patients were divided into the PEID group and the fenestration group according to their choice of different surgical methods. The operation time, intra-operative blood loss, and bed rest time in the two groups were recorded. The preoperative and postoperative [1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and last follow-up (>12 months)] Visual Analogue Score (VAS) of the lumbago and leg pain between the two groups were compared; the preoperative and postoperative [1 week, and last follow-up (>12 months)] Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and also the postoperative [(>12 months)] therapeutic effect (modified MacNab) between the two groups were compared.ResultsA total of 66 patients were included, with 31 in the PEID group and 35 in the fenestration group. There was no significant difference in age, gender and course of disease between the two groups (P>0.05). There were leakage of cerebrospinal fluid and transient lumbago, leg pain and numbness, which were worse than those before operation in the PEID group (1 and 1 patient, respectively) and the fenestration group (2 and 3 patients, respectively). There were statistically significant differences between the PEID group and the fenestration group, in the operative time [(90.65±9.98) vs. (66.23±16.50) minutes], intra-operative blood loss [(51.77±18.64) vs. (184.29±78.38) mL], and bed time [(2.87±0.92) vs. (7.49±1.20) d] (t=−7.365, t’=−9.697, t=−17.374, P<0.001). There was no significant difference in the preoperative VAS score (lumbar-leg pain) and ODI index, and the ODI index at each postoperative time point, between the two groups (P>0.05). VAS score (lumbago) and VAS score (leg pain) in the PEID group at each postoperative time point were lower than those in the fenestration group (P<0.05); VAS scores (leg pain) at other time points were not statistically significant between the two groups (P > 0.05). VAS (lumbar-leg pain) score and ODI index at each postoperative time point were lower than those before the surgery. The was no statistically significant difference in the PEID group (90.32%) and fenestration group (85.71%) in the excellent rate (χ2=0.328, P=0.713).ConclusionsPEID has less surgical trauma, less bleeding, short bed rest, fast recovery, and better relief of postoperative lumbago symptoms. It is worthy of further promotion in clinical work.
In recent years, enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) has been widely used in spine surgery and achieved satisfactory results. In order to standardize the ERAS implementation process and application in percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar lumbar decompression/discectomy (PEID), we reviewed the literatures and cited evidence-based medicine data, and had a national comprehensive discussion among experts of the Group of Minimally Invasive Spinal Surgery and Enhanced Recovery, Professional Committee of Orthopedic Surgery and Enhanced Recovery, Association of China Rehabilitation Technology Transformation and Promotion. Altogether, the up-to-date expert consensus have been achieved. The consensus may provide the reference for clinical treatment in aspect of the standardization of surgical operations, the reduction of surgical trauma and complications, the optimization of perioperative pain and sleep management, the prevention of venous thrombosis, and the guidance of patients’ functional training and perioperative education.
Objective To compare the effectiveness of unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) technique with the interlaminar uniportal endoscopy (IUE) technique for the treatment of L5, S1 lumbar disc herniation. MethodsThe clinical data of 69 patients with L5, S1 lumbar disc herniation who met the selection criteria between January 2020 and December 2020 were retrospectively analysed. The patients were divided into UBE group (30 cases) and IUE group (39 cases) according to endoscopic surgical technique. The general data, such as gender, age, body mass index, disease duration, and preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) scores of low back/leg pain and Oswestry disability index (ODI), was not significantly different between the two groups (P>0.05). Perioperative outcomes [estimated blood loss (EBL), total operation time, extracanal operation time, intracanal decompression time, intraoperative radiation exposure dose, incision length, operative related complications, and postoperative hospitalization stay] and clinical outcomes (VAS score of low back/leg pain before operation and at 3 days, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after operation as well as the ODI before operation and at 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after operation) were recorded and compared between the two groups. ResultsAll patients completed the surgery successfully. The incision length, EBL, and extracanal operation time in UBE group were significantly longer than those in IUE group (P<0.05), and the intracanal decompression time in UBE group was significantly shorter than that in IUE group (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the total operation time, intraoperative radiation exposure dose, and postoperative hospitalization stay between the two groups (P>0.05). Patients in both groups were followed up 12-15 months (mean, 13.3 months). Dural tear ocurred in 1 patient of the UBE group, and recurrence ocurred in 1 patient of the IUE group, the others of both groups had no surgery-related complications and recovered well after operation. The VAS scores of low back/leg pain and ODI in both groups at each time point after operation significantly improved when compared with those before operation (P<0.05); there was no significant difference in VAS scores and ODI at each time point after operation between two groups (P>0.05). ConclusionThe effectiveness of UBE technique in the treatment of L5, S1 lumbar disc herniation is similar to that of IUE technique, and the efficiency of intraspinal operation is better than that of IUE technique. Although UBE technique is inferior to IUE technique in terms of surgical trauma, there is no significant difference in postoperative recovery between the two techniques.
ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness between unilateral laminotomy and bilateral decompression (ULBD) with unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) and uniportal interlaminar endoscopy (UIE) in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. Methods A clinical data of 52 patients with lumbar spinal stenosis, who met the selection criteria and treated with ULBD between March 2021 and November 2022, was retrospectively analyzed. The patients were allocated into UBE group (23 cases) and UIE group (29 cases) according to the surgical methods. There was no significant difference (P>0.05) in age, gender, body mass index, surgical segment, type of lumbar stenosis, and preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score of low back pain, VAS score of leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), disc height, and dural sac area between the two groups. Perioperative indexes (incision length, operation time, hospital stay, and surgical complications), clinical indicators (VAS score of low back pain, VAS score of leg pain, and ODI before operation and at 3 days, 1 month, 6 months, and 12 months after operation), and imaging indicators (disc height and dural sac area before operation and at 1, 12 months after operation, and dural sac expansion area) were recorded and compared between the two group. Results All operations in both groups were successfully completed. Compared with the UIE group, the UBE group had shorter operation time and longer incision length, with significant differences (P<0.05). But there was no significant difference in hospital stay and incidence of complications between the two groups (P>0.05). All patients were followed up 12-20 months (mean, 14 months). The VAS scores of low back pain and leg pain and ODI after operation significantly improved when compared with preoperative values (P<0.05), and there was no significant difference in the above indicators between different time points after operation (P>0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups at different time points (P>0.05). Imaging examination showed that there was no significant difference in disc height between the two groups at different time points after operation (P>0.05). However, the dural sac area and dural sac expansion area were significantly larger in the UBE group than in the UIE group (P<0.05). Conclusion ULBD with UBE and UIE can achieve satisfactory effectiveness in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. But the former has more thorough decompression and better dural sac expansion than the latter.
Objective To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopy discectomy (UBED) versus percutaneous uniportal endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) for the treatment of single lumbar disc herniation (sLDH). Methods A retrospective analysis was conducted on 52 patients with sLDH who underwent UBED or PEID at the Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University between January 2022 and June 2023. Surgical parameters, clinical outcomes, and imaging indicators were compared between the two groups. For normally distributed quantitative data, mean ± standard deviation was used for representation, while for non-normally distributed data, median (lower quartile, upper quartile) was used for representation. Results No significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of gender, age, disease duration, affected segments, preoperative Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores for low back and leg pain, preoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, preoperative disc height ratio (DHR), or preoperative sagittal rotation angle (SRA) (P>0.05). All patients successfully underwent surgery. In the UBED group, one case of cerebrospinal fluid leakage and one case of pseudomeningocele syndrome occurred postoperatively. In the PEID group, two cases of pseudomeningocele syndrome occurred postoperatively, and one case of recurrence was observed 1.5 years after surgery. Both groups showed significant improvements in VAS scores for low back and leg pain and ODI scores postoperatively and during follow-up compared to preoperative values (P<0.05). Significant differences were found between the UBED and PEID groups in terms of operation time [(138.3±28.0) vs. (113.5±34.2) min], intraoperative blood loss [(58.6±24.4) vs. (45.7±20.3) mL], postoperative drainage volume [(48.7±16.9) vs. (30.0±13.4) mL], postoperative ambulation time [3.4 (3.0, 4.0) vs. 2.3 (2.0, 3.0) d], and VAS scores for low back pain on postoperative Day 1 (2.87±0.55 vs. 2.24±0.65) (P<0.05). No significant difference was observed in intraoperative fluoroscopy frequency, VAS scores for leg pain on postoperative Day 1, VAS scores for low back and leg pain 6 months and 1 year after operation, postoperative hospital stay, postoperative complication rates, ODI scores 1 year after operation, DHR 1 year after operation, SRA 1 year after operation, or MacNab evaluation 1 year after operation (P>0.05). Conclusions Both UBED and PEID are safe and effective treatments for sLDH, with similar complication rates and clinical outcomes. However, PEID demonstrates advantages in reducing soft tissue damage and accelerating perioperative recovery.