ObjectiveTo observe the effectiveness and safety of percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal bilateral decompression for severe central lumbar spinal stenosis.MethodsA retrospective analysis of 44 patients with single-segment severe central lumbar spinal stenosis with bilateral lower extremity symptoms between October 2015 and December 2017 was performed. Among them, 36 cases underwent bilateral decompression through bilateral transforaminal approach, and 8 cases underwent bilateral decompression through unilateral transforaminal approach. There were 25 males and 19 females, the age ranged from 56 to 89 years with an average of 68.6 years. The disease duration was 5-39 months with an average of 14.5 months. Involved segments: L3, 4 in 6 cases, L4, 5 in 33 cases, and L5, S1 in 5 cases. The dural sac cross-sectional area (DSCA) of the MRI was (66.36±8.48) mm2. Morphological grading (MG) classification: 29 cases of grade C, 15 cases of grade D. The visual analogue scale (VAS) score of preoperative low back pain was 2.3±1.0 and the VAS score of lower extremity pain was 7.8±1.2; the Oswestry disability index (ODI) was 77.8±7.3. Postoperative VAS scores, ODI scores, MG classification, and DSCA were recorded and compared with preoperative ones, and clinical outcomes were assessed by using the modified MacNab criteria.ResultsAll patients successfully underwent surgery and the wounds healed by first intention. All 44 patients were followed up 13-46 months with an average of 24.8 months. One patient developed postoperative lower extremity paralysis and 1 patient developed a dural tear. There was no infection, recurrence, or revision surgery during the follow-up. Postoperative imaging showed that the central spinal canal was enlarged and the area of the dural sac was significantly increased compared with preoperative one. The VAS score of low back pain was 2.4±0.6 and 2.5±0.8 at 1 month after operation and at last follow-up, showing no significant difference when compared with preoperative scores (P>0.05). The VAS of lower limb pain was 2.1±0.6 and 2.0±1.1 at 1 month after operation and at last follow-up, which was significantly improved when compared with preoperative scores (P<0.05); but no significant difference was found between at 1 month after operation and at last follow-up (P>0.05). At last follow-up, the ODI score was 19.7±6.4, and the DSCA was (104.93±12.56) mm2, which was significantly improved when compared with preoperative values (P<0.05). The MG classification was also significantly higher than preoperative one (Z=−5.789, P=0.000). According to the modified MacNab criteria, the results were excellent in 32 cases, good in 9 cases, and fair in 3 cases, with an excellent and good rate of 93.2%.ConclusionPercutaneous endoscopic transforaminal bilateral decompression for treating severe central lumbar spinal stenosis has the advantages of less trauma, adequate decompression, and rapid recovery. The short-term effectiveness is good.
Objective To investigate the effectiveness of unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBED), percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD), and traditional fenestration discectomy (FD) in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH). Methods The clinical data of 347 LDH patients who met the selection criteria and underwent discectomy between January 2017 and December 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. They were divided into FD group (160 cases), PELD group (86 cases), and UBED group (101 cases) according to operation methods. There was no significant difference in gender, age, surgical level distribution, disease duration, and preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score and Oswestry disability index (ODI) between groups (P>0.05). The operation time, hospitalization stay, treatment cost, and incidence of surgery-related complications were recorded and compared between groups. The patients’ pain and functional recovery were evaluated by VAS score and ODI before and after operation. Results The operation time of FD group was significantly shorter than that of PELD group and UBED group, and the hospitalization stay was significantly longer than that of PELD group and UBED group (P<0.05); there was no significant difference between PELD group and UBED group (P>0.05). The treatment cost in UBED group was significantly higher than that in PELD group, and in PELD group than in FD group (P<0.05). All the patients were followed up 6-24 months, with an average of 14.6 months. VAS score of lower extremity and ODI in 3 groups significantly improved after operation when compared with that before operation (P<0.05). At 1 day after operation, VAS score of lower extremity of UBED group was significantly better than that in PELD group and FD group (P<0.05), but there was no significant difference between PELD group and FD group (P>0.05). There was no significant difference in VAS scores of lower extremity between the 3 groups at 1 and 3 months after operation (P>0.05). The difference of ODI before and after operation in FD group and UBED group was slightly better than that in PELD group (P<0.05), and there was no significant difference between FD group and UBED group (P>0.05). Incidence of surgery-related complications in FD group (20.0%) was significantly higher than that in PELD group (12.8%) and UBED group (6.9%), and PELD group was significantly higher than UBED group (P<0.05). All the incision infection occurred in FD group (12 cases), symptomatic disc cyst and myeloid hypertension-like occurred in 1 case each in PELD group.Conclusion UBED, PELD, and FD have similar effectiveness on lower extremity pain in early LDH. Compared with FD, UBED and PELD have the advantage of shorter hospitalization stay and fewer complications.