Effects of different surgical treatments on pain, disability, anxiety and quality of life in lumbar disc herniation.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare the effects of microscopic microdiscectomy and microendoscopic discectomy on pain, disability, fear of falling, kinesiophobia, anxiety, quality of life in patients with lumbar disc herniation (LDH). METHODS: A total of 90 patients who underwent microscopic microdiscectomy (n = 40) and microendoscopic discectomy (n = 50) for LDH were included in this study. The patients' pain, disability, fear of falling, kinesiophobia, anxiety, and quality of life were evaluated before the surgery, in the early postoperative period and three months after. RESULTS: In patients who underwent microendoscopic discectomy, the results of pain, disability, fear of falling, kinesiophobia and anxiety were statistically decreased compared with the microscopic microdiscectomy in the early postoperative period and three months later (p < 0.05). Also, a statistically higher increase was observed in the general health perception of patients who underwent microendoscopic discectomy three months after the operation (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Microendoscopic microdiscectomy, remains the most effective and widely applied method with advantages on pain, quality of life, and improved physical functions.

OBJETIVO: Este estudio tiene como objetivo comparar los efectos de la microdiscectomía microscópica y la discectomía microendoscópica sobre el dolor, la discapacidad, el miedo a caer, la kinesiofobia, la ansiedad y la calidad de vida en pacientes con hernia de disco lumbar (LDH). MÉTODOS: Se incluyeron en este estudio un total de 90 pacientes sometidos a microdiscectomía microscópica (n = 40) y discectomía microendoscópica (n = 50) por LDH. Se evaluó el dolor, la discapacidad, el miedo a caer, la kinesiofobia, la ansiedad y la calidad de vida de los pacientes antes de la cirugía, en el postoperatorio temprano y tres meses después. RESULTADOS: En los pacientes sometidos a discectomía microendoscópica, los resultados de dolor, discapacidad, miedo a caer, kinesiofobia y ansiedad disminuyeron estadísticamente en comparación con la microdiscectomía microscópica en el postoperatorio temprano y tres meses después (p < 0.05). Además, se observó un aumento estadísticamente mayor en la percepción de salud general de los pacientes sometidos a discectomía microendoscópica tres meses después de la operación (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIÓN: La microdiscectomía microendoscópica sigue siendo el método más eficaz y ampliamente aplicado con ventajas sobre el dolor, la calidad de vida y la mejora de las funciones físicas.

Comparison of one-hole split endoscopic discectomy and microendoscopic discectomy in the treatment of lumbar disk herniation: a one-year retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: We aim to compare and assess the surgical parameters and follow-up information of one-hole split endoscopic discectomy (OSE) and microendoscopic discectomy (MED) in the treatment of LDH. METHODS: This study included 154 patients with degenerative lumbar disk disease. Sixty-eight patients underwent OSE and 86 patients MED. The VAS score for lower back and lower limb radiation pain, ODI score, modified MacNab score, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of the incision, amount of C-reactive protein, and recurrence and complication rates were examined as indicators for clinical outcomes and adverse events. RESULTS: After surgery, the VAS and ODI scores in the two groups significantly decreased. On the third day after surgery, the VAS and ODI scores of the OSE group were significantly better than those of the MED group. The VAS and ODI scores preoperatively and at 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months following the procedure did not substantially vary between the two groups. There was less EBL and a shorter incision with OSE than with MED. There was no significant difference in the rate of complications between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Compared with MED, OSE is a new alternative option for LDH that can achieve similar and satisfactory clinical outcomes. Furthermore, OSE has many advantages, including less EBL and a smaller incision. Further clinical studies are needed to confirm the effectiveness of OSE.

Postoperative recovery scores and pain management: a comparison of modified thoracolumbar interfascial plane block and quadratus lumborum block for lumbar disc herniation.

PURPOSE: In this prospective, randomized study, we aimed to compare the global recovery scores and postoperative pain management between US-guided mTLIP block versus QLB after lumbar spine surgery. METHODS: 60 patients with ASA score I-II planned for microendoscopic discectomy under general anesthesia were included. We allocated the patients into two groups: the QLB group (n = 30) or the mTLIP group (n = 30). QLB and mTLIP was performed with 30 ml 0.25% bupivacaine in the groups. Paracetamol 1 g IV 3 × 1 was ordered to the patients at the postoperative period. If the NRS score was ≥ 4, 1 mg/kg tramadol IV was administered as rescue analgesia. RESULTS: There was a significant between-group difference in the mean global QoR-40 scores 24 h postsurgery. Both the static and dynamic NRS scores were significantly lower in the postoperative 1-16 h period in the mTLIP group. There was no significant between-group difference in the NRS scores 24 h postsurgery. There was no significant between-group difference in postoperative rescue analgesia consumption. However, the need for rescue analgesia was lower in the postoperative first 5 h in the mTLIP group, and survival probability was higher in the mTLIP group according to Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. There was no significant difference between the groups in the rate of adverse events. CONCLUSION: mTLIP provided superior analgesia compared to posterior QLB. The QoR-40 scores in the mTLIP group were higher than those in the QLB group.

Efficiency and Safety of Laparoscopic Radical Cystectomy for Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer, and Postoperative Recurrence.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficiency of open radical cystectomy (ORC) in relation to laparoscopic radical cystectomy (LRC) for muscle-invasive bladder cancer, and incidence of postoperative recurrence. METHODS: A total of 90 patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer admitted to our urology department from January 2019 to May 2022 were included in this study. Using the random number table, the patients were assigned equally to ORC and LRC groups. The perioperative data of the patients were collected and recorded. The outcome indicators comprised erythrocyte pressure and creatinine levels, blood gas analysis, type of urinary diversion, and histopathology of surgically removed tumors. RESULTS: Operation time of LRC was significantly longer than that of ORC, but other perioperative indices of LRC were better than those of ORC (p < 0.05). Hematocrit levels in LRC group were higher than those in ORC group at postoperative 1 day and before discharge (p < 0.05). However, creatinine levels were lower in LRC group than in ORC group at postoperative 1 day and before discharge (p < 0.05). Moreover, LRC resulted in better blood gas indices than ORC (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in the type of urinary diversion and histopathological results from surgically removed tumor between the two groups (p > 0.05). Patients who received LRC had a lower incidence of complications than those given ORC (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: LRC reduced perioperative complications, decreased mean length of hospital stays, and enhanced recovery of gastrointestinal and renal functions. These data suggest that LRC is safer and more efficient than ORC. However, further studies are required prior to clinical application of this procedure.

Efficiency and Safety of Laparoscopic Radical Cystectomy for Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer, and Postoperative Recurrence

Objective: To evaluate the efficiency of open radical cystectomy (ORC) in relation to laparoscopic radical cystectomy (LRC) for muscle-invasive bladder cancer, and incidence of postoperative recurrence. Methods: A total of 90 patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer admitted to our urology department from January 2019 to May 2022 were included in this study. Using the random number table, the patients were assigned equally to ORC and LRC groups. The perioperative data of the patients were collected and recorded. The outcome indicators comprised erythrocyte pressure and creatinine levels, blood gas analysis, type of urinary diversion, and histopathology of surgically removed tumors. Results: Operation time of LRC was significantly longer than that of ORC, but other perioperative indices of LRC were better than those of ORC (p < 0.05). Hematocrit levels in LRC group were higher than those in ORC group at postoperative 1 day and before discharge (p < 0.05). However, creatinine levels were lower in LRC group than in ORC group at postoperative 1 day and before discharge (p < 0.05). Moreover, LRC resulted in better blood gas indices than ORC (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in the type of urinary diversion and histopathological results from surgically removed tumor between the two groups (p > 0.05). Patients who received LRC had a lower incidence of complications than those given ORC (p < 0.05). Conclusions: LRC reduced perioperative complications, decreased mean length of hospital stays, and enhanced recovery of gastrointestinal and renal functions. These data suggest that LRC is safer and more efficient than ORC. However, further studies are required prior to clinical application of this procedure (AU)

Comparison of Three Common Intervertebral Disc Discectomies in the Treatment of Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Based on Multiple Data.

OBJECTIVE: Due to recent developments and the wide application of percutaneous transforaminal discectomy (PTED), we herein compare it with microendoscopic discectomy (MED) and traditional open surgery (OD) through surgical indicators and postoperative outcomes to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of minimally invasive surgery PTED. METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in line with PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO2018: CRD42018094890). We searched four English and two Chinese databases from the date of their establishment to May 2022. Randomized controlled trials and case-control studies of PTED versus MED or PTED versus OD in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation were retrieved. RESULTS: A total of 33 studies with 6467 cases were included. When comparing MED with PTED, the latter had less intraoperative blood loss, smaller incision, shorter postoperative bed times, shorter hospitalization times, better postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) for low back pain, and postoperative dysfunction index (Oswestry Disability Index, ODI) and higher recurrence rates and revision rates. However, operation times, postoperative VAS leg scores and complications, and successful operation rates were similar in both groups. Comparison of PTED with OD revealed in the former less intraoperative blood loss and smaller incision, shorter postoperative bed times, shorter hospitalization times, shorter operation times, and higher recurrence rates and revision rates. Nonetheless, comprehensive postoperative VAS scores, VAS leg pain scores, VAS low back pain, ODI and incidence of complications, and successful operation rates were similar between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The therapeutic effect and safety of PTED, MED and OD in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation were comparable. PTED had obvious advantages in that it is minimally invasive, with rapid recovery after surgery, but its recurrence rates and revision rates were higher than MED and OD. Therefore, it is not possible to blindly consider replacing MED and OD with PTED.

Complications associated with lumbar discectomy surgical techniques: a systematic review.

Background: Open discectomy (OD) and microdiscectomy (MD) are routine procedures for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS), such as micro-endoscopic discectomy (MED) and full endoscopic discectomy (FED), offers potential advantages (less pain, less bleeding, shorter hospitalisation and earlier return to work), but their complications have not yet been fully evaluated. The aim of this paper was to identify the frequency of these complications with a focus on MIS in comparison to OD/MD. Methods: The authors conducted a Medline database search for randomised controlled and prospective cohort studies reporting complications associated with MIS and MD/OD from 1997 to February 2020. Included studies were assessed for bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality assessment form. Mean complication rates for each technique were calculated by dividing the total number of each complication by the total number of patients included in the studies which reported that specific complication. Results: Of the 1,095 articles retrieved from Medline, 35 met the inclusion criteria. OD, MD, MED and FED were associated with: recurrent lumbar disc hernias in 4.1%, 5.1%, 3.9% and 3.5% respectively; re-operations in 5.2%, 7.5%, 4.9% and 4% respectively; wound complications in 3.5%, 3.5%, 1.2% and 2% respectively; durotomy in 6.6%, 2.3%, 4.4% and 1.1% respectively; neurological complications in 1.8%, 2.8%, 4.5% and 4.9% respectively. Nerve root injury was reported in 0.3% for MD, 0.8% for MED and 1.2% for FED. Discussion: This up-to-date systematic review of complications after various techniques of lumbar discectomy (including a large pool of patients who had MIS) confirms previous findings of low and comparable rates. However variable levels of bias were reported amongst included studies, which reported complications with varying levels of clinical detail.

Comparison of the Outcomes of Microendoscopic Discectomy Versus Full-Endoscopic Discectomy for the Treatment of L4/5 Lumbar Disc Herniation.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective Comparative Study. OBJECTIVES: To compare the outcomes of microendoscopic discectomy (MED) versus full-endoscopic discectomy (FED) for treating L4/5 lumbar disc herniation (LDH). METHODS: A retrospective study was performed on patients with L4/5 LDH treated using MED (n = 249) or FED (n = 124). A 16-mm tubular retractor and endoscope was used for MED, while a 4.1-mm working channel endoscope was used for FED. Patient background and operative data were collected. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) scores were recorded preoperatively and at 1 and 2 years postsurgery. RESULTS: The background data of the two groups were similar. The mean operation times for MED and FED were 59.3 and 47.7 min (respectively), and the mean volumes of removed nucleus pulposus were .65 and 1.03 g, respectively. These differences were significant (P < .001). Six dural tears and one postoperative hematoma were observed in the MED group; none were observed in the FED group. During the follow-up period, 16 MED and 7 FED patients required re-operation due to recurrence (P = 1.00). Although the ODI and EQ-5D scores significantly improved at 1 and 2 years postsurgery in both groups, the differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Operative outcomes were almost identical in both groups. We did not observe any operative or postoperative complications in FED. We, therefore, recommend FED as the first option for the treatment of L4/5 LDH since it has a better safety profile and is minimally invasive.

Efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopy versus other spine surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) versus other forms of spine surgery. Methods: Electronic databases were systematically searched up to February 2022. The authors used Review Manager 5.3 to manage the data and perform the review. Results: After the preliminary selection of 239 studies from electronic databases, the full inclusion criteria were applied; 16 studies were found to be eligible for inclusion. These 16 studies enrolled 1,488 patients: 653 patients in the UBE group, 570 in the microendoscopic discectomy group, 153 in the percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy group, and 70 in the posterior lumbar interbody fusion group. UBE was superior to microendoscopic discectomy regarding 1-day Visual Analog Scale(VAS) back pain scores (P < 0.00001). No difference was found between UBE and microendoscopic discectomy regarding 1-day Visual Analog Scale leg pain scores (P = 0.25), long-term VAS back pain scores (P = 0.06), long-term VAS leg pain scores (P = 0.05), Oswestry Disability Index scores (P = 0.09) or complications (P = 0.19). Pooled analysis indicated that UBE was similar to percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy regarding 1-day VAS back pain scores (P = 0.71), 1-day VAS leg pain scores (P = 0.37), long-term VAS back pain scores (P = 0.75), long-term VAS leg pain scores (P = 0.41), Oswestry Disability Index scores (P = 0.07) and complications (P = 0.88). One study reported no difference between UBE and posterior lumbar interbody fusion regarding long-term VAS back pain, long-term VAS leg pain, or Oswestry Disability Index scores. Conclusions: UBE is superior to microendoscopic discectomy to relieve back pain 1 day postoperatively. However, these two procedures are similar regarding 1-day leg pain relief, long-term effects, and safety. UBE and percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy are similar regarding 1-day pain relief, long-term effects and safety. More evidence is needed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of UBE versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion.

Microendoscopic lumbar discectomy with general versus local anesthesia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: While general anesthesia (GA) is the most commonly used anesthetic method during lumbar microendoscopic discectomy (MED), local ± epidural anesthesia (LA) has been gaining popularity as an alternate method. Theoretical advantages of LA include reduced morbidity of anesthesia and improved surgeon-patient communication facilitating less nerve root manipulation and yielding improved surgical outcomes. The objective of this systematic review is to examine the impact of anesthesia type on patient reported outcomes (PROs) and complications with MED. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the available literature examining MED performed under GA or LA was performed. The PubMed, EMBASE and SCOPUS databases were searched from inception to August 16, 2021, utilizing strict inclusion and exclusion criteria with all studies reporting greater than 6 months of follow-up and PRO data. PROs including Visual Analog Scale (VAS)-leg/back, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) and/or 36-Item Short Form (SF-36) physical component scores were collected. Complication, recurrent disc herniation, durotomy and reoperation rates as well as surgical factors were collected. All outcomes were compared between pooled studies examining GA or LA. Risk of bias was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results: A total of 23 studies consisting of 2,868 patients (1,335 GA, 1,533 LA) were included in the meta-analysis. There were no significant differences between GA and LA groups in regard to overall complication rate, durotomy rate, recurrent disc herniation rate, reoperation rate, blood loss, or surgical time (p > 0.05). Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in ODI and JOA (p<0.0004), however leg and back VAS was only improved in GA (p<0.0025) and not in LA (p>0.058), and SF-36 only in LA (p=0.003). Conclusions: Patients undergoing MED under both anesthetic techniques demonstrated significant improvements in ODI and JOA, with no significant differences in complication or reoperation rates. However, patients undergoing GA demonstrated significant improvement in VAS leg and back pain at last follow-up while LA did not. LA may be offered to carefully selected patients and prior studies have demonstrated reduced costs and risks with LA. Conclusions are limited by a high level of study bias and heterogeneity. Further investigation is needed to assess the true effects of GA and LA on outcomes after MED.

[Comparative study of microscope assisted minimally invasive anterior fusion and mobile microendoscopic discectomy assisted fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases].

Objective: To investigate the effectiveness of microscope assisted anterior lumbar discectomy and fusion (ALDF) and mobile microendoscopic discectomy assisted lumbar interbody fusion (MMED-LIF) for lumbar degenerative diseases. Methods: A clinical data of 163 patients with lumbar degenerative diseases who met the criteria between January 2018 and December 2020 was retrospectively analyzed. Fifty-three cases were treated with microscope assisted ALDF (ALDF group) and 110 cases with MMED-LIF (MMED-LIF group). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of gender, age, disease type, surgical segments, preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) scores of low back pain and leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), intervertebral space height, lordosis angle, and spondylolisthesis rate of the patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis ( P>0.05). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and hospital stay of the two groups were recorded. The effectiveness was evaluated by VAS scores of low back pain and leg pain and ODI. Postoperative lumbar X-ray films were taken to observe the position of Cage and measure the intervertebral space height, lordosis angle, and spondylolisthesis rate of the patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis. Results: The operations were successfully completed in both groups. The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and hospital stay in ALDF group were less than those in MMED-LIF group ( P<0.05). The patients in both groups were followed up 12-36 months, with an average of 24 months. The VAS scores of low back pain and leg pain and ODI after operation were lower than those before operation in the two groups, and showed a continuous downward trend, with significant differences between different time points ( P<0.05). There were significant differences between two groups in VAS score of low back pain and ODI ( P<0.05) and no significant difference in VAS score of leg pain ( P>0.05) at each time point. The improvement rates of VAS score of low back pain and ODI in ALDF group were significantly higher than those in MMED-LIF group ( t=7.187, P=0.000; t=2.716, P=0.007), but there was no significant difference in the improvement rate of VAS score of leg pain ( t=0.556, P=0.579). The postoperative lumbar X-ray films showed the significant recovery of the intervertebral space height, lordosis angle, and spondylolisthesis rate at 2 days after operation when compared with preoperation ( P<0.05), and the improvements were maintained until last follow-up ( P>0.05). The improvement rates of intervertebral space height and lordosis angle in ALDF group were significantly higher than those in MMED-LIF group ( P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the reduction rate of spondylolisthesis between the two groups ( t=1.396, P=0.167). During follow-up, there was no loosening or breakage of the implant and no displacement or sinking of the Cage. Conclusion: Under appropriate indications, microscope assisted ALDF and MMED-LIF both can achieve good results for lumbar degenerative diseases. Microscope assisted ALDF was superior to MMED-LIF in the improvement of low back pain and function and the recovery of intervertebral space height and lordosis angle.

Long-term reoperation rates and causes for reoperations following lumbar microendoscopic discectomy and decompression: 10-year follow-up.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the 10-year rates and causes of reoperations following lumbar microendoscopic discectomy for disc herniation (MEDH) and microendoscopic decompression for spinal stenosis (MEDS), as well as to define the reoperations at index and different lumbar levels. METHODS: Between June 2005 and May 2011, the same surgeon had been using MEDH and/or MEDS on 355 consecutive patients. The follow-up rate was 88.3%. The causes and rates of reoperations (RORs) were determined at 10 years after the initial operations. RESULTS: The 10-year reoperation rate for all patients combined was 22.1% (67/303). The 10-year reoperation rate for all cases that underwent repeat operations in the same segment was 16.5% (50/303); the most frequent reason for reoperation (FRR) was recurrence of disc herniation (ROR, 25/251 = 9.96%), the second FRR was an increase of postoperative spondylolisthesis and/or instability (ROR, 8/303 = 2.64%), and the third FRR was surgical site infection (ROR, 5/303 = 1.65%). Ten-year reoperation rate for all cases that underwent repeat operation at different lumbar levels was 5.61% (17/303); the most FRR was new disc herniation at another lumbar level (ROR, 10/303 = 3.30%), the second FRR was residual segmental stenosis (ROR, 4/303 = 1.32%), and the third FRR was new segmental stenosis at other lumbar levels (ROR, 2/303 = 0.66%). CONCLUSIONS: Three-fourths of all repeat operations were conducted in the same segment and one-fourth were performed at different lumbar levels. We believe that it is important to understand and prevent related problems.

Percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy versus microendoscopic discectomy for upper lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective comparative study.

BACKGROUND: The present study aimed to investigate the clinical outcomes of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) and microendoscopic discectomy (MED) in the treatment of upper lumbar disc herniation (ULDH). METHODS: A total of 62 ULDH patients treated with PTED or MED were enrolled in this study and were randomly divided into group A (PTED, n=31) and group B (MED, n=31). The characteristics, surgical duration, incision length, blood loss, volume of drainage, length of hospital stay, and the complications and recurrences of patients were recorded and compared between the two groups. The Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores were compared preoperatively, postoperatively, and at the final follow-up between group A and group B. The postoperatively clinical outcomes of patients were evaluated according to the modified MacNab criterion. RESULTS: The incision length, the duration of surgery, intraoperative blood loss, volume of drainage, and length of hospital stay in group A were less than those in group B (P<0.01). Compared with group B, the JOA scores of the patients in group A were significantly enhanced at 1 month (P<0.01), 3 months (P<0.01), and 6 months (P<0.01), the VAS scores were significantly improved at 1 month (P<0.01), 3 months (P<0.01), 6 months (P<0.05), and 12 months (P<0.05), and the ODI scores exhibited significant improvements at 1 month (P<0.01) and 3 months (P<0.05). CONCLUSION: PTED provides better results in the treatment of ULDH compared with MED. It is beneficial to improve the quality of life of patients and is worthy of promotion in clinical application.

Comparison of the application value of two commonly used minimally invasive spinal surgery in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation.

The aim of the study was to compare the application value of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) and microendoscopic discectomy (MED) in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH). From January 2017 to July 2018, 108 LDH patients undergoing surgical treatment in our hospital were collected and divided into PTED group (treated with PTED, n=50) and MED group (treated with MED, n=58). The operation parameter index level, complications, recurrence and pain score (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI) and Japanese Orthopaedic Association Scale (JOA) were compared between the two groups. VAS, ODI and JOA scores of the two groups were significantly decreased after operation (P<0.05), but there was no significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05). Complications and recurrence of the two groups were similar (P>0.05). MED was superior to PTED in the number of intraoperative fluoroscopy and operation time, while PTED was superior to MED in intraoperative blood loss, incision length, length of hospital stay and bed rest time (P<0.05). Both PTED and MED can effectively treat LDH. Referring to clinical data, PTED may be the first choice for LDH treatment.

Follow-up results of microendoscopic discectomy compared to day surgery using percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) is satisfactory for hospitalized patients with lumbar disc herniation (LDH). Currently, only a few studies have reported about the day surgery patients undergoing PELD. METHODS: A total of 267 patients with LDH underwent PELD during day surgery and were followed up for at least 3 years. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the visual analog scale (VAS) for leg and lower back pain (VAS-B and VAS-L, respectively) and the Oswestry disability index (ODI). The radiological outcomes, such as lumbar lordosis (LL), sacral slope (SS), the disc-height ratio, and disc instability, were recorded and compared. The clinical effects between patients treated by PELD during day surgery and microendoscopic discectomy (MED) for contemporaneous hospitalized 116 patients with LDH were compared. RESULTS: Patients treated by PELD had lower blood loss and shorter hospital stay (P <  0.001) compared to those treated by MED. VAS-L, VAS-B, and ODI decreased significantly after PELD than before the operation and 3 years postoperatively. The postoperative VAS-B in the PELD group was significantly decreased than in the MED group (P = 0.001). The complications rate was 9.4% in the PELD group and 12.1% in the MED group (P = 0.471). The 1-year postoperative recurrence rate in the PELD group was much higher than that in MED group (P = 0.042). The postoperative LL and SS in the PELD group improved significantly compared to the values in the MED group (P <  0.001). According to the disc-height ratio at 3-year follow-up, a significant height loss was observed in the MED group than in the PELD group (P = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: Although the 1-year postoperative recurrence rate was relatively high, the day surgery for LDH undergoing PELD had advantages in terms of less blood loss intraoperatively, short hospital stay, efficacy for back pain, and efficiency to maintain lumbar physiological curvature.

Comparison of Percutaneous Transforaminal Endoscopic Discectomy and Microendoscopic Discectomy for the Surgical Management of Symptomatic Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study with a Minimum of 2 Years' Follow-Up.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) and microendoscopic discectomy (MED) are alternative minimally invasive procedures for the treatment of symptomatic lumbar disc herniation (LDH). However, insufficient literature exists to highlight the differences between the procedures. OBJECTIVES: This study intended to clarify whether PTED results in better clinical outcomes compared with MED in the surgical management of single-level LDH. STUDY DESIGN: A multicenter retrospective cohort study. SETTING: This study took place in 2 spinal minimally invasive centers in Beijing, China. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective study was conducted in consecutive patients diagnosed with symptomatic LDH receiving PTED or MED in 2 spinal minimally invasive centers from April 2009 to July 2016. A total of 1,053 patients were recruited, of which 632 underwent PTED and 421 underwent MED. All patients were followed with a minimum of 2 years; a set of clinical outcomes were extracted and analyzed. RESULTS: The operation time was similar between groups (71.2 ± 15.1 minutes in the PTED group and 69.4 ± 12.5 minutes in the MED group; P = 0.518); length of incision was significantly shorter; intraoperative blood loss was less in the PTED group (P < 0.001); hospital stay was 3.6 ± 1.5 days in the PTED group and 5.4 ± 2.8 days in the MED group with significant differences detected (P = 0.018); however, intraoperative fluoroscopy was longer with significantly higher cost with the PTED group (P < 0.001). Transient dysesthesia and wound complications were more common in the MED group (P = 0.039 and P = 0.026, respectively); however, no significant differences were found with total complications (P = 0.139). Significant lower Visual Analog Scale pain score (back and leg) were detected on day 1 postoperatively (P = 0.007 and P = 0.018, respectively). No significant differences were found at all other time points (P > 0.05). Significantly better Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score was detected postoperatively at 1 month in the PTED group (19.6 ± 9.8 vs. 27.2 ± 9.3; P = 0.016); ODI score at other time points did not differ significantly between groups (P > 0.05). Modified MacNab criteria showed that most patients experienced excellent and good results with no significant differences between groups (P = 0.511). LIMITATION: This was a multicenter retrospective study wherein the surgeons may have introduced bias to the study. CONCLUSIONS: Both PTED and MED present to be an acceptable long-term efficacy for the treatment of LDH. Although PTED is associated with longer intraoperative fluoroscopy and a little more cost, it should still be considered superior to MED considering the benefits of lesser invasion, shorter hospital stays, quicker pain relief, and functional recovery.

Microendoscopic Discectomy Combined with Annular Suture Versus Percutaneous Transforaminal Endoscopic Discectomy for Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Prospective Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Microendoscopic discectomy (MED) and percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) are 2 of the most popular minimally invasive spinal surgery techniques. We are investigating whether minimally invasive early annular closure can achieve a better clinical effect in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH). OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical and imaging outcomes between MED combined with annular suture and PTED in the treatment of LDH. STUDY DESIGN: A prospective observational study with follow-up of 36 months. SETTING: The First People's Hospital of Lianyungang in China. METHODS: A total of 135 prospective consecutive patients underwent MED + annular suture or PTED. Patients were assessed postoperatively at 3 days and 3, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months. The outcome measures were visual analog scales for back pain (VAS-back) and leg pain (VAS-leg) scores, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score, the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey bodily pain (SF36-BP), and physical function (SF36-PF) scales, disc height, and recurrence rate. RESULTS: One hundred and six patients have completed the 3-year follow-up. The operation time and length of stay in the MED + annular suture group were longer than that in the PTED group (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001). VAS-back score, VAS-leg score, ODI score, SF36-BP, and SF36-PF significantly improved at follow-up time points after surgery compared to before surgery, but no significant differences were found at postoperative and 36 months between the groups. The disc height in the MED + annular suture group was significantly greater than that in the PTED group after 3 months. Within 36-month follow-up, imaging re-herniation was reported in 4 patients in the MED + annular suture group, and 9 patients in the PTED group (P = 0.170). Symptomatic re-herniation occurred in one patient in the MED + annular suture group and in 4 patients in the PTED group (P = 0.190). LIMITATIONS: First, this was not a randomized controlled trail, which could provide more evidence-based conclusions. Second, we did not accurately measure and compare the amount of nucleus pulposus removed, although less nucleus pulposus was removed in MED + annular suture. CONCLUSION: PTED has the advantages of shorter length of incision, shorter operation time, and shorter length of stay. MED + annular suture is associated with greater preservation of disc height, and showed certain advantages of lower recurrence rate, although there was no statistical difference.

Clinical outcomes of MED and iLESSYS® Delta for the treatment of lumbar central spinal stenosis and lateral recess stenosis: A comparison study.

Microendoscopic discectomy (MED) is an established procedure used to treat lumbar central spinal stenosis (LCSS) and lateral recess stenosis (LRS). The Interlaminar Endoscopic Surgical System iLESSYS® Delta approach has been developed from the traditional interlaminar endoscopic technique for the treatment of LCSS and LRS. In the present study, MED was used as a reference to evaluate this newly developed approach. A total of 82 and 52 patients with radicular leg pain and/or neurogenic claudication symptoms were treated by spinal canal decompression using the MED or iLESSYS® Delta approach, respectively. The clinical outcomes of the patients were analyzed using the Modified MacNab's criteria, visual analogue scale (VAS) leg pain score, VAS back pain score and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score. Finally, the effectiveness of the decompression was evaluated on a cross-sectional area of the dural sac (CSAD) at the disc level. The incision length in the iLESSYS® Delta group was significantly decreased compared with the MED group (P<0.05); however, the duration of the operation in the iLESSYS® Delta group was significantly longer compared with the MED group (P<0.05). The VAS score of the back and ODI score in the iLESSYS® Delta group were significantly decreased compared with the MED group at the 1-week follow-up (P<0.0125). The postoperative CSAD was also significantly increased in both groups compared with before the operation (P<0.05); however, there were no significant differences in the postoperative CSAD between the two groups. The good-to-excellent rates of the MED and iLESSYS® Delta approach were 89.0 and 90.4%, respectively, whereas the complication rates of the MED and iLESSYS® Delta system were 3.66 and 3.85% in the two groups, respectively. In conclusion, the iLESSYS® Delta approach was identified to be comparable with the MED approach for treating LCSS and LRS, demonstrating both precise and limited decompression. In addition, the iLESSYS® Delta approach may reduce the short-term back pain and promote faster recovery compared with the MED.

Learning Curve of Microendoscopic Discectomy in Single-Level Prolapsed Intervertebral Disc in 120 Patients.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study of prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate learning curve of tubular microendoscopic discectomy (MED) in lumbar prolapsed intervertebral disc (PIVD) patients based on surgical and clinical parameters and delineate the challenges faced in early cases while practicing MED in large series of patients. METHODS: This study was an institutional review board-approved retrospective study of the first 125 consecutive patients with single-level lumbar PIVD managed with tubular MED from 2008 to 2016 with a minimum 2-year follow-up. A total of 120 patients available at final follow-up were divided into quartiles (30 each) as per the date of surgery, with each consecutive group serving as a control for the previous group. Preoperatively and postoperatively clinical parameters (pain scores [Visual Analogue Scale; VAS], functional disability [Oswestry Disability Index; ODI] score, modified MacNab criteria), perioperative parameters (operative time, blood loss, hospital stay), technical issues (guide wire migration, tube docking-related problems, dural tear), and postoperative complications (postoperative leg pain, neural injury, infection, recurrence) were evaluated. Statistical analysis-logarithm curve-fit regression analysis and ANOVA test. RESULTS: The sample consisted of 75 males and 45 females (mean age: 42.54 years) with no significant difference among the quartiles. There was significant difference (P < .005) noted in mean operative time (quartile 1, 87.33 minutes; quartile 2, 58.5 minutes) and mean blood loss (quartile 1, 76.33 mL; quartile 2, 32.66 mL) between quartile 1 and quartile 2, with no further significant reduction in quartile 3 and quartile 4. Significant difference (P < .005) in clinical parameters (VAS preoperative/postoperative 5.28/0.99; ODI preoperative/postoperative 32.18/12.08) were noted but was not associated with surgical experience. Overall, 90% (108 out of 120) of the patients had good to excellent results according to the modified MacNab criteria. The mean hospital stay did not show any significant difference among the quartiles. Guide wire migrated issues, neural injury, dural tear, and tube docking-related problems were significantly reduced after quartile 1. However, recurrence occurred at any phase. Infection occurred in one patient in quartile 1. Although blood loss and operative time showed a declining trend, it was not significant after quartile 2. So asymptote lay in quartile 1 and we recommend that novice surgeon should perform 25 to 30 cases to achieve mastery in this technique. CONCLUSION: For mastering the art of tubular MED for lumbar PIVD and to reduce its learning curve, novice surgeons can avoid the challenges and problems faced during initial cases with improvement in surgical skills by practicing on cadavers, wet labs, and bone-saw models following certain recommendations that we have after achieving asymptote. Familiarity with instrumentation, communication between surgical team, and defined expectations from radiology technicians are key to reduce the learning curve.

Is It Possible to Replace Microendoscopic Discectomy with Percutaneous Transforaminal Discectomy for Treatment of Lumbar Disc Herniation? A Meta-Analysis Based on Recurrence and Revision Rate.

OBJECTIVES: Due to recent developments and the wide application of percutaneous transforaminal discectomy (PTED) in China, we herein compare its clinical effects with microendoscopic discectomy (MED) for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation in terms of recurrence and revision rates. METHODS: Six databases, namely, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Ovid, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and Wanfang, were searched by computer. The literature was screened according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the quality of the included literature was evaluated. After extracting the data from the papers, Review Manager 5.2 software (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK) was applied to analyze these data. Finally, sensitivity and publication bias analyses of the results were conducted. RESULTS: A total of 12 studies consisting of 2400 patients were included in this meta-analysis. A comparison of PTED with MED revealed higher postoperative recurrence and postoperative revision rates for PTED (odds ratio [OR] recurrence, 1.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01 to 2.53; p=0.05 and OR revision, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.18 to 2.64, p=0.006). CONCLUSION: PTED has a number of advantages because it is a minimally invasive surgery, but its recurrence and revision rates are higher than MED. Therefore, MED should not be completely replaced by PTED.