Significance and pitfalls of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for large central lumbar disc herniation

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.

Foraminoplasty Performed with a Trephine and a New Tool in Transforaminal Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy: A Single-Center Retrospective Study

OBJECTIVE

Foraminoplasty is an important step in transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy (TELD). A trephine is widely used in foraminoplasty. However, foraminoplasty using a trephine alone sometimes fails to remove the resected bone, resulting in the bone remaining in the foramen or spinal canal, which can potentially cause neurological irritation or injury. The objective of this study is to introduce a self-designed tool, referred to as an anchoring drill, for use with a trephine in foraminoplasty in TELD and to evaluate its advantages.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed to identify patients who underwent L4-5 TELD between January 2019 to January 2022. Foraminoplasty was performed in all patients. Depending on whether the anchoring drill was used or not, patients were divided into two groups. Surgery-related parameters and complications were reviewed. Visual analog scale (VAS) and Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores were also assessed for all patients. SPSS statistical software was used for statistical calculation.

RESULTS

A total of 100 patients were included (55 in the anchoring drill group and 45 in the trephine group). The incidence of residual bone fragments after foraminoplasty of the anchoring drill group was 9.09%, which was lower than that of the trephine group, at 33.33% (p < 0.05). The mean endoscopic operation time of the anchoring drill group was shorter than that of the trephine group (p < 0.05). The mean fluoroscopy time and duration of foraminoplasty showed no significant differences between the two cohorts. The total perioperative complication incidence was lower in the anchoring drill group, in which the neural irritation incidence showed a significant difference (anchoring drill group: 3.64%, trephine group: 17.78%, p < 0.05). VAS and JOA scores were significantly improved after the operation for all patients (p < 0.001), however, no statistical differences were found between the two groups at each follow-up visit.

CONCLUSION

The combination of a trephine with an anchor drill was demonstrated to be safe and effective in foraminoplasty in TELD, improving the success rate of foraminoplasty and reducing neurological complications compared to using trephine alone.

One-hole split endoscopy technique versus unilateral biportal endoscopy technique for L5-S1 lumbar disk herniation: analysis of clinical and radiologic outcomes

BACKGROUND

Lumbar disk herniation (LDH) is one of the most common diseases of the spine, especially occurring in L4-5 and L5-S1 intervertebral disks, and surgery is a choice when conservative treatment is ineffective. The purpose of this study is to investigate the clinical efficacy and radiologic outcomes of one-hole split endoscopy (OSE) technique versus unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) technique in the treatment of L5-S1 lumbar disk herniation (LDH).

METHODS

A total of 133 patients of a single center surgically treated for L5-S1 LDH between 2019 and 2021 were retrospectively included in this study, of which 70 were treated by UBE technique and the rest were treated by OSE technique. Hospitalization time, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, fluoroscopy times, incision length and related complications were recorded. Bone resection area (BRA), articular process resection rate, range of motion (ROM), sagittal translation (ST), disk height (DH), Visual Analog Score (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Macnab criteria were used to evaluated the clinical efficacy.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference in hospitalization time or fluoroscopy times between the two groups. The operation time was shorter in the UBE group than that in the OSE group; however, the incision length was longer. Intraoperative blood loss and BRA were larger in the UBE group than in the OSE group. There was no significant difference in ROM, ST, DH, or postoperative facet resection rate between the two groups. There was no significant difference in ROM, ST, or postoperative facet resection rate compared with preoperative indicators in each group, but there was a significant difference in DH among distinct groups. At any time point, the lower back and leg VAS and ODI in each group were significantly improved compared to those before the operation, with no significant difference between the two groups. There was one case of dural tear in the UBE group. One case of transient hypoesthesia occurred in each of the two groups. The excellent-good rates of the UBE group and the OSE group were 88.6% and 90.5%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The OSE technique is an effective minimally invasive surgical option as well as the UBE technique in the treatment of L5-S1 LDH.

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.

Minimally Neural Retractive, Total Annular Resection, Transforaminal Endoscopic (TARTE) Approach for Severely Canal Compromising Lumbar Disk Herniation Accompanied by a Neurologic Deficit

OBJECTIVE

 Treatment of severely canal compromising lumbar disk herniations (LDH), occupying more than 50% of the canal area, are associated with technical difficulty and worse outcomes. This study aimed to describe new techniques of transforaminal endoscopic lumbar diskectomy (TELD) with less neural retraction, and total annular resection for broad-based severely canal compromising disk herniation. We also evaluated the feasibility and safety of the techniques, and analyzed the clinical and radiologic outcomes of 32 patients presenting with neurologic deficits.

METHODS

 A retrospective cohort study was performed with 32 consecutive patients who underwent TELD for broad-based severely canal compromising LDH between January 2018 and January 2020. We removed the LDH using two novel techniques: (1) the "mobile outside-in" approach and total annular resection method and (2) internal decompression and subsequent pushdown method of the migrated fragment. The cross-sectional area (CSA) on magnetic resonance image was evaluated preoperatively and compared with the postoperative image within 7 days and between 6 months and 1 year. The visual analog scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), MacNab's criteria, and motor power of the involved lower extremities were evaluated pre- and postoperatively.

RESULTS

 A total of 32 patients, with an average age of 37.5 years (range: 17-66), underwent surgery. The mean VAS score for back pain improved from 7.84 ± 1.02 to 1.31 ± 0.54 and the ODI score improved from 74.3 ± 7.82 to 20.4 ± 3.71 at final follow-up. According to MacNab's criteria, 23 patients had excellent and 9 patients had good outcomes at final follow-up. All patients operated on at the L4-L5 level had great toe/ankle dorsiflexion and/or ankle plantar flexion weakness; knee extension weakness was found at the L2-L3 and L3-L4 levels. Motor function improved significantly; the mean values and range preoperatively, and at 1 month, 3 months, and final follow-up, were 3.41 ± 0.95 (1-4), 4.56 ± 0.56 (3-5), 4.88 ± 0.34 (4-5), and 4.97 ± 0.18 (4-5), respectively (p < 0.001, at all follow-up). The mean values and range of the preserved CSA proportion, preoperatively and within 1 week after surgery, and at final follow-up were 34.9 ± 10.9 (15-61), 81.06 ± 10.24 (63-97), and 93.03 ± 5.37 (76-99), respectively (p < 0.001, at all follow-up).

CONCLUSION

 The transforaminal endoscopic approach for broad-based severely canal compromising LDH can be considered a feasible surgical option for an experienced surgeon. With total annular resection and pushdown of migrated fragments, safe and complete removal of LDH was possible in patients with a neurologic deficit. Total annular resection may increase the overall but not the early recurrence rate.

Outcome of Transforaminal Endoscopic Discectomy in Rural India in a Single-Level Lumbar Disc Prolapse Under Local Anesthesia

Aim  The aim of this study was to undertake a clinical study to evaluate the outcomes of transforaminal endoscopic discectomy under local anesthesia and to study the complication rate. Study Design  It is a prospective study. Methods  We prospectively analyzed outcomes of 60 patients with a single-level lumbar disc prolapse in rural India from December 2018 to April 2020 who underwent endoscopic discectomy under local anesthesia. Follow-up was done using the visual analogue score (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scoring systems with a minimum follow-up up to 1 year postoperatively. Results  In our study of 60 patients, there was 38 cases of L4-L5 disc pathology, 13 L5-S1 discs, and 9 L3-L4 discs. Our study showed a significant clinical reduction in mean VAS score that was 7.07/10 preoperatively and reduced to 3.88/10 at the third month and 3.64/10 at 1 year of follow-up ( p -value < 0.05) showing clinical significance. The ODI scoring done preoperatively was an average mean of 57.37% pointing to how crippled the patients were with lumbar disc prolapse and showed a significant reduction to 29.32% postoperatively at 1 year ( p -value < 0.05) showing clinical significance. This reduction in ODI directly corelates to how almost all patients returned to normal life coping to all activities and were completely pain free at 1 year of follow-up. Conclusion  Endoscopic spine surgery in lumbar disc prolapse is highly effective and can deliver a good functional outcome if done with correct preoperative planning and approach.

Percutaneous Transforaminal Endoscopic Discectomy Versus Microendoscopic Discectomy for Lumbar Disk Herniation: Five-year Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective randomized controlled study.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety between percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) and microendoscopic discectomy (MED).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Two kinds of minimally invasive discectomy, PTED and MED, are now widely used for treating lumbar disk herniation (LDH). The long-term comparative results of these two techniques still remained uncertain.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this single-center, open-label, randomized controlled trial, patients were included if they had persistent signs and symptoms of radiculopathy with corresponding imaging-confirmed LDH and were randomly allocated to PTED or MED groups. The primary outcome was the score of Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the secondary outcomes included the score of Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey bodily pain (SF36-BP) and physical function (SF36-PF), European Quality of Life-Five Dimensions (EQ-5D), Visual Analog Scales for back pain (VAS-back) and leg pain (VAS-leg).

RESULTS

A total of 241 patients were accepted to enroll in our randomized controlled trial, of which 119 were randomly assigned to the PTED group, and the rest 122 were assigned to the MED group. A total of 194 out of 241 patients (80.5%) completed the five-year follow-up. PTED group was associated with shorter postoperative in-bed time and length of hospital stay. Both primary and secondary outcomes did not differ significantly between the two treatment groups at each follow-up time point. During the five-year follow-up, seven recurrent cases occurred in PTED and MED groups, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Over the five-year follow-up period, PTED and MED were both efficacious in the treatment of LDH. The long-term clinical outcomes and recurrent rates were comparable between the treatment groups. PTED represents a more minimally invasive technique with the advantages of rapid recovery.

Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy Using a Double-Cannula Guide Tube for Large Lumbar Disc Herniation

Objective

To compare the effect of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) using a double‐cannula guide tube (DGT), traditional PELD, and open lumbar discectomy (OLD) to treat large lumbar disc herniations (LLDHs).

Methods

Seventy patients who presented with LLDH without cauda equina syndrome and were treated with surgery in our hospital from October 2015 to October 2017 were included. The detailed index included the visual analog scale (VAS) for back and radicular leg pain and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) in the immediate preoperative period and at the final follow‐up. The operation time, radiation exposure time, surgical satisfaction rate, and modified MacNab criteria score were also recorded.

Results

The leg and back pain of the patients in these groups improved significantly in the postoperative period. No significant differences were observed in leg pain improvement between the other two groups; however, patients in the PELD group (with or without DGT) presented with significantly higher improvement in back pain than the OLD group (t = 9.965, p < 0.001). The final ODI scores were 12.1 ± 4.9, 11.2 ± 2.9, and 16.4 ± 3.6 in the PELD, PELD‐DGT, and OLD groups, respectively. Patients in the PELD and PELD‐DGT groups presented with significantly lower postoperative ODI scores than those in the OLD group (t = 20.834, p < 0.001). The mean postoperative hospital stays were significantly shorter in the PELD group and PELD with DGT group than in the OLD group (t = 46.688, p < 0.001). The mean operation time was significantly shorter in the PELD‐DGT group than those in the PELD group (t = 25.281, p = 0.001). No perioperative complications were observed in either group. Based on the modified MacNab criteria, excellent and good outcomes were achieved in 20 out of 21 patients (95.2%) in the PELD group, 23 out of 24 patients (95.8%) in the PELD‐DGT group, and 22 out of 25 patients (88.0%) in the OLD group. The rates of excellent and good outcomes were higher in the PELD and PELD‐DGT groups than in the OLD group, but there were no significant differences (χ² = 1.454, p = 0.835).

Conclusions

PELD using DGT is a safe and effective option for LLDH and features advantages such as improvements in back pain, a lower hospitalization cost than OLD, a shorter operation time, and less fluoroscopy than traditional PELD.

Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy for Huge Lumbar Disc Herniation with Complete Dural Sac Stenosis via an Interlaminar Approach: An Observational Retrospective Cohort Study

Purpose

Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) is a minimally invasive spinal surgery for huge lumbar disc herniation (HLDH). The aim of this study was to investigate the short-term clinical effectiveness of PELD for HLDH with complete dural sac stenosis via an interlaminar approach.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 56 patients diagnosed with HLDH with complete dural sac stenosis and treated with PELD via an interlaminar approach. Numerical rating scale (NRS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), and modified Japanese orthopedic association (mJOA) were used to evaluate preoperative conditions as well as outcomes at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months postoperatively. At the final follow-up, the clinical effects were evaluated using modified MacNab criteria.

Results

All patients were followed for at least 12 months. At 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively, the NRS and ODI scores were significantly decreased, and the mJOA score significantly increased compared with preoperative results (P<0.001). According to the Macnab criteria at the final follow-up, it was excellent in 42 patients (75%), good in 9 (16.1%), and fair in 5 (8.9%). The overall clinical satisfactory rate was 91.1%.

Conclusion

Our study results suggest that percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) is available for the treatment of HLDH with complete dural sac stenosis, whose benefits are rapid recovery, complete removal of the herniated disc, effective spinal canal decompression, fewer complications, and significant relief of clinical symptoms.

Comparative Study between Full-Endoscopic Discectomy and Microendoscopic Discectomy for the Treatment of Lumbar Disc Herniation

Background and objectives: Lumbar disc herniation (LDH) is a common disease in the meridian of life. Although surgical discectomy is commonly used to treat LDH, there are several different strategies. We compared the outcomes of uniportal full-endoscopic discectomy (FED) with those of microendoscopic discectomy (MED) in treating LDH. Materials and Methods: FED was performed using a 4.1-mm working channel endoscope, and MED was performed using a 16-mm diameter tubular retractor and endoscope. Data of patients with LDH treated with FED (n = 39) or MED (n = 27) by the single surgeon were retrospectively reviewed. Patient background information and operative data were collected. Pre- and postoperative low back and leg pain were evaluated using the numerical rating scale (NRS) score. Pre- and postoperative disc height index (DHI) values were calculated from plain radiographs, and the disc height loss was evaluated using the ratio (DHI ratio); Results: The median (interquartile range (IQR) Q25–75) operation times for FED and MED were 42 (33–61) and 43 (33–50) minutes, respectively. The median (IQR Q25–75) pre- and postoperative NRS scores for low back pain were 5 (2–7) and 1 (0–4), respectively, for FED and 6 (3–8) and 1 (0–2), respectively, for MED. The median (IQR Q25–75) pre- and postoperative NRS scores for leg pain were 7 (5–8) and 0 (0–2), respectively, for FED and 6 (5–8) and 0 (0–2), respectively, for MED. These data were not different between the FED and MED groups. The median (IQR Q25–75) DHI ratios of FED and MED were 0.94 (0.89–1.03) and 0.90 (0.79–0.95), respectively. The DHI ratio was significantly higher (p < 0.05) in the FED group than in the MED group, and there was less blood loss; Conclusions: The pain-relieving effect of FED in treating LDH was almost identical to that of MED. However, FED was superior to MED in preventing disc height loss, which is one of the indicators of postoperative disc degeneration.

Chemonucleolysis with Chondroitin Sulfate ABC Endolyase for Treating Lumbar Disc Herniation: Exploration of Prognostic Factors for Good or Poor Clinical Outcomes

Background and Objectives: Chondroitin sulfate ABC endolyase (condoliase) was launched as a new drug for chemonucleolysis in 2018. Few studies assessed its clinical outcomes, and many important factors remain unclear. This study aimed to clarify the preoperative conditions in which condoliase could be highly effective. Materials and Methods: Of 47 patients who received condoliase, 34 were enrolled in this study. The mean age of the patients was 33 years. The average duration since the onset of disease was 8.6 months. We evaluated patients’ low back and leg pain using a numerical rating scale (NRS) score at two time points (before therapy and 3 months after therapy). We divided the patients into two groups (good group (G): NRS score improvement ≥ 50%, poor group (P): NRS score improvement < 50%). The parameters evaluated were age, disease duration, body mass index (BMI), and positive or negative straight leg raising test results. In addition, the loss of disc height and preoperative radiological findings were evaluated. Results: In terms of low back and leg pain, the G group included 9/34 (26.5%) and 21/34 (61.8%) patients, respectively. Patients’ age (low back pain G/P, 21/36.5 years) was significantly lower in the G group for low back pain (p = 0.001). High-intensity change in the protruded nucleus pulposus (NP) and spinal canal occupancy by the NP ≥ 40% were significantly high in those with leg pain in the G groups (14/21, p = 0.04; and 13/21, p = 0.03, respectively). Conclusions: The efficacy of improvement in leg pain was significantly correlated with high-intensity change and size of the protruded NP. Condoliase was not significantly effective for low back pain but could have an effect on younger patients.

Comparison of Transforaminal Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy with and without Foraminoplasty for Lumbar Disc Herniation: A 2-Year Follow-Up

Background

Both transforaminal percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy with foraminoplasty (TF PELF) and transforaminal percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy without foraminoplasty (TF PELD) were developed for lumbar disc herniation (LDH) patients. However, the safety and effectiveness between the TF PELF and TF PELD have not been investigated.

Methods

Of the included 140 LDH patients, 62 patients received TF PELF (PELF group) and 78 patients received TF PELD (PELD group). The operation time, the duration of staying at the hospital, and complication incidences were recorded. All patients were followed up for 2 years, where low back and leg visual analogue scale (VAS) pain ratings and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were compared between the 2 groups before and after surgery. Modified Macnab criterion was estimated for all patients at postoperative 2 years.

Results

There were no significant difference of the operation time, number of days staying at the hospital, and the incidence of complications between the 2 groups (P > 0.05). Two cases in the PELF group and 1 case in the PELD group received a second surgery due to unrelieved symptoms postoperatively. Low back and leg VAS and ODI scores decreased in both groups after operation (P < 0.01), respectively, but were not significant between the 2 groups over time (P > 0.05). Six patients in the PELF group and 3 patients in the PELD group did not continue the follow-up; thus, only 131 patients completed Macnab evaluation. The satisfactory rate was reported as 80.4% in the PELF group and 90.7% in the PELD group (P > 0.05).

Conclusions

This study suggested that the safety and effectiveness of TF PELF are comparable to TF PELD for LDH patients.

Outcomes of percutaneous endoscopic trans-articular discectomy for huge central or paracentral lumbar disc herniation

PURPOSE

This study reports a new technique known as percutaneous endoscopic trans-articular discectomy (PETAD) for huge central/paracentral lumbar disc herniation (LDH).

METHODS

Sixteen patients with huge central/paracentral LDH who underwent PETAD in our department from July 2015 to July 2016 were retrospectively analyzed. Clinical outcomes were evaluated according to pre-operative and post-operative visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores and the MacNab criteria. Immediate post-operative MRI and CT were conducted to confirm complete removal of LDH along with follow-up flexion-extension X-ray to observe lumbar stability.

RESULTS

The huge central/paracentral LDH was completely removed by PETAD in 16 patients, as confirmed by post-operative MRI and CT. Leg pain was eased after removal of the disc herniations. The satisfactory (excellent/good) results were 93.7%. The mean follow-up duration was 15.6 (range, 3-24) months. The mean pre-operative VAS and ODI scores were 5.72 ± 1.18 (range, 4-9) and 60.1 (range, 51-87), respectively, which decreased to 1.26 ± 0.81 (range, 0-3) and 18.1 (range, 10-31), respectively at the third month post-operatively and to 0.78 ± 0.62 (range, 0-1) and 7.2 (range, 0-15), respectively by the last follow-up visit. No recurrence and segmental instability was observed in any of the 16 patients during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSION

PETAD could be a good alternative for treatment of huge central/paracentral LDH.