Abstract:Objective To compare the clinical effects of three different minimally invasive surgery for L5/S1 lumbar disc herniation. Methods Two hundred and twenty-seven patients suffering from lumbar disc herniation with microsurgical lumbar discectomy (MSLD), percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy (PETD) or percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) from May 2013 to May 2016 were retrospectively reviewed and analyzed. There were 85 patients in MSLD group, 65 patients in PETD group and 77 patients in PEID group. Surgical time, bleeding, perioperative complication, bedridden time, hospitalization, recurrence, creatine kinase, visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), and SF-36 were recorded. Results All the patients underwent surgery successfully. PETD and PEID were significantly better than MSLD (all P values<0.05) in bedridden time and hospitalization. Preoperative and postoperative 1 month, 6 months and 12 months, the VAS score for patients in MSLD group were 7.0±1.8, 2.4±1.5, 2.3±1.1 and 1.6±0.7, the VAS score for patients in PETD group were 7.2±2.2, 2.2±1.3, 2.1±1.3 and 1.5±0.5, the VAS score for patients in PEID group were 6.9±1.7, 2.0±1.4, 2.0±1.4 and 1.5±0.9, and no significant differences were found in three groups at different time points (all P values>0.05). Preoperative and postoperative 1 month, 6 months and 12 months, the ODI for patients in MSLD group were 33.6%±7.9%, 11.3%±2.6%, 7.0%±2.5% and 4.8%±2.4%, the ODI score for patients in PETD group were 32.3%±8.6%, 10.8%±3.6%, 6.6%±2.6% and 4.7%±3.5%, the ODI for patients in PEID group were 32.6%±9.7%, 10.6%±2.7%, 6.2%±1.9% and 4.7%±2.8%, and no significant differences were found in three groups at different time points (all P values>0.05). Preoperative and postoperative 1 month, 6 months and 12 months, the SF-36 score for patients in MSLD group were 47.6±19.5, 50.2±19.8, 51.3±20.2 and 54.3±19.4, the SF-36 score for patients in PETD group were 48.4±20.0, 51.3±20.2, 51.3±21.9 and 53.4±18.6, the SF-36 score for patients in PEID group were 47.4±18.24, 52.4±22.91, 52.2±19.9 and 54.0±20.9, and no significant differences were found in three groups at different time points (all P values>0.05). Preoperative and postoperative 12 hours, 24 hours and 48 hours, the creatine kinase for patients were (65.76±6.48)μ/L, ( 98.79±12.08)μ/L, (119.34±16.27)μ/L and (139.23±14.23) u/L in MSLD group, were 65.98±7.48, 97.56±11.07, 117.32±10.34 and 137.48±13.89 in PETD group, were 66.47±8.76, 97.78±10.45, 116.25±9.89 and 138.36±16.27 in PEID group, and no significant differences were found in three groups at different time points (all P values>0.05). There were 2 recurrent cases in MSLD group, 6 in PETD group, and 8 in PEID group. Significant differences were found between the three groups for recurrence rates (χ2=5.051, P<0.05). According to MacNab criteria, there were no significant differences between the three operations (Z=0.442, P>0.05) at the last follow up. Conclusions For L5/S1 lumbar disc herniation, clinical effects of all the three minimally invasive surgery in this research are satisfactory. Each surgery has its own advantages, disadvantages and indications. Therefore, surgeons should choose the optimal treatment base on patient's situation to achieve the best therapeutic effect.
胡炜, 阚顺利, 曹泽岗, 张学利, 朱如森, 徐天同, 乔攀. 三种微创术式治疗L5/S1腰椎间盘突出的临床疗效比较[J]. 中华解剖与临床杂志, 2018, 23(3): 190-197.
Hu Wei, Kan Shunli, Cao Zegang, Zhang Xueli, Zhu Rusen, Xu Tiantong, Qiao Pan. Clinical effects of three minimally invasive surgery for L5/S1 lumbar disc herniation. Chinese Journal of Anatomy and Clinics, 2018, 23(3): 190-197.
Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, et al. Surgical versus non-operative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis four-year results of the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) [J]. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2010, 35(14): 1329-1338. DOI:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181e0f04d.
Choi KC, Kim JS, Ryu KS, et al. Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for L5-S1 disc herniation: transforaminal versus interlaminar approach[J]. Pain Physician, 2013, 16(6): 547-556.
[9]
Wu JJ, Chen HZ, Zheng C. Transforaminal percutaneous endoscopic discectomy and foraminoplasty after lumbar spinal fusion surgery[J]. Pain Physician, 2017, 20(5): E647-E651.
[10]
Ruetten S, Komp M, Godolias G. A New full-endoscopic technique for the interlaminar operation of lumbar disc herniations using 6-mm endoscopes: prospective 2-year results of 331 patients[J]. Minim Invasive Neurosurg, 2006, 49(2): 80-87. DOI:10.1055/s-2006-932172.
[11]
Launay O, Perrin G, Barrey C. Instrumented PLIF in lumbar degenerative spine: principles, indications, technical aspects, results, complications and pitfalls[M]. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2016.
[12]
Herren C, Sobottke R, Mannion AF, et al. Incidental durotomy in decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: incidence, risk factors and effect on outcomes in the Spine Tango registry[J]. Eur Spine J, 2017, 26(10): 2483-2495. DOI:10.1007/s00586-017-5197-1.
[13]
Yang JC, Kim SG, Kim TW, et al. Analysis of factors contributing to postoperative spinal instability after lumbar decompression for spinal stenosis[J]. Korean Journal of Spine, 2013, 10(3): 149. DOI:10.14245/kjs.2013.10.3.149.
[14]
Johnsson KE, Willner S, Johnsson K. Postoperative instability after decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis[J]. Spine(Phila Pa 1976), 1986, 11(2): 107-110. DOI:10.1097/00007632-198603000-00001.
[15]
Omidi-Kashani F, Hasankhani EG, Ashjazadeh A. Lumbar spinal stenosis: who should be fused? An updated review[J]. Asian Spine, 2014, 8(4): 521. DOI:10.4184/asj.2014.8.4.521.
Martín-Alonso J, Delgado-López PD, Castilla-Díez JM, et al. Role of surgery in spontaneous spondylodiscitis: experience in 83 consecutive patients[J]. Neurocirugia (Astur), 2018, 29(2): 64-78. DOI:10.1016/j.neucir.2017.09.001.
[18]
Zhu RS, Ren YM, Yuan JJ, et al. Does local lavage influence functional recovery during lumber discectomy of disc herniation: one year's systematic follow-up of 410 patients[J]. Medicine (Baltimore), 2016, 95(42): e5022. DOI:10.1097/MD.0000000000005022.