Comparison of the efficacy of fully endoscopic spine surgery using transforaminal and interlaminar approaches in the treatment of prolapsed lumbar 4/5 disc herniation

Percutaneous Endoscopic Suprapedicular Decompression in the Treatment of Down-Migrated Lumbar DiscHerniation

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate the clinical efficacy of percutaneous endoscopic suprapedicular decompression in treatment of down-migrated lumbar disc herniation.

METHODS

The clinical data of 43 patients with down-migrated lumbar disc herniation treated with endoscopic surgery at our hospital between January 2022 and January 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. Twenty-two and 21 patients underwent percutaneous endoscopic decompression using the suprapedicular and transforaminal endoscopic surgical system approaches, respectively. The perioperative, follow-up, and imaging data of the groups were compared.

RESULTS

Surgery was uneventful in both groups. The number of intraoperative fluoroscopies and duration of surgery were significantly lower in the suprapedicular group (P < 0.05). The patients in both groups were followed up for at least 12 months. At the last follow-up, lumbar pain and leg pain visual analog scale, Oswestry Disability Index, and 36-Item Short Form Health Survey scores were significantly improved in both groups compared with preoperative values (P < 0.05); the differences in these indexes between the 2 groups were not significant preoperatively (P > 0.05). However, at the last postoperative follow-up, lumbar pain visual analog scale scores were significantly better in the suprapedicular group (0.83 ± 0.85 vs. 2.54 ± 1.32, P < 0.05). There was no significant change in intervertebral space height or lumbar lordotic angle compared with preoperative values in either group at the last follow-up (P > 0.05). However, the spinal canal cross-sectional area significantly increased (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The treatment of down-migrated lumbar disc herniation via a suprapedicular approach enabled the incision of the superior margin of the pedicle as needed under direct vision, involved less fluoroscopy while preserving facet joint stability, and enabled targeted removal of the herniated nucleus pulposus, thus greatly reducing residual nucleus pulposus. This surgical procedure was safe, rapid, and showed satisfactory therapeutic efficacy.

A Modified Laminotomy for Interlaminar Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy: Technical Report and Preliminary Results

OBJECTIVE

To introduce a technique of laminotomy using a common trephine to enlarge the interlaminar space at L4/5 segment for interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy (IELD) and report the anatomical basis of this procedure, technical details, as well as primary clinical outcomes of a consecutive patient cohort with L4/5 lumbar disc herniation (LDH).

METHODS

On anteroposterior fluoroscopy, the intersection of the medial edge of the inferior articular process and the inferior endplate of L4 vertebra was taken as the target. Using a common trephine, laminotomy was performed to remove a big portion of the posterior wall of the canal under the guidance of endoscopy. From June 2018 to December 2021, the consecutive patients who underwent L4/5 IELD were prospectively studied. Clinical outcomes were assessed at the day before surgery, 1 day, 1 month, 3 months, 12 months after surgery, and the last follow-up. Numerical Rating Scale, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), and MacNab criteria were used to evaluate back and leg pain, the quality of life, and clinical efficacy, respectively.

RESULTS

There were 64 men and 44 women, with an age of 50.3 ± 14.9 years. The operating time was 74.54 ± 17.42 minutes. The mean follow-up time was 32.7 ± 18.6 months (range, 12-64 months). The complications of IELD included numbness, neck pain, and recurrence. Both leg pain (6.2 ± 1.9 vs. 1.8 ± 0.8, p < 0.001) and back pain (3.1 ± 2.3 vs. 1.7 ± 0.9, p < 0.001) quickly improved after this procedure and maintained (1.1 ± 1.5, 1.1 ± 1.3) at final follow-up. Physical disability due to back pain, as assessed using RMDQ, was improved remarkably after surgery (15.0 ± 5.8 vs. 2.9 ± 4.1, p < 0.001). In addition, MacNab outcome grade was evaluated as good-to-excellent in 96 cases (88.9%).

CONCLUSION

A convenient technique of laminotomy using a common trephine was proposed for the L4/5 IELD. It can efficiently enlarge the interlaminar entry to perform endoscopic discectomy. This procedure is particularly suitable for treating LDH with concomitant lumbar spinal stenosis and migrated herniated disc.

Comparison of the Interlaminar and Transforaminal Approaches for Full-endoscopic Discectomy for the Treatment of L4/5 Lumbar Disc Herniation

This study aims to compare the outcomes of interlaminar and transforaminal approaches for full-endoscopic discectomy (FED) for treating L4/5 lumbar disc herniation (LDH).A retrospective study of patients with L4/5 LDH treated with interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy (IELD, n = 19) or transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy (TELD, n = 105) was conducted. Patient background, radiological findings, and operative data were collected. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and European Quality of Life-5 Dimension (EQ-5D) scores were recorded preoperatively and 1 and 2 years postoperatively.Although ODI and EQ-5D scores 1 and 2 years postoperatively improved statistically in the IELD and TELD groups, there were no statistical differences between the groups. IELD was predominantly performed in patients who were taller and heavier. The mean operative times and the frequency of laminectomy for IELD and TELD were 67.2 and 44.6 min and 63.2 and 17.1%, respectively (P < 0.001). The radiological findings showed that the concave configuration of the L4 lamina, interlaminar space width, and foraminal width were statistically different between the groups. There were no complications in either of the groups. Reoperation was required for recurrence in two and five patients in the IELD and TELD groups (P = 0.29), respectively.Operative outcomes were identical between the two groups. Although the operative time was longer in the IELD group, both approaches were safely and effectively performed. Depending on the patient's physique and preoperative radiological findings, the more suitable approach for L4/5 LDH should be chosen.