Tag: Microendoscopic discectomy

Posted on

Percutaneous Transforaminal Endoscopic Discectomy Versus Microendoscopic Discectomy for Lumbar Disc Herniation

SPINE Volume 45, Number 8, pp 493–503

Study Design. A prospective randomized controlled study.

Objective. To clarify whether percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) has better clinical outcomes and less surgical trauma compared with microendoscopic discectomy (MED).

Summary of Background Data. Two kinds of minimally invasive spine surgeries, PTED and MED, are now widely used for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH). It is still a controversial issue to choose the proper surgical approach.

Methods. In this single-center, open-label, randomized controlled trial, patients were included if they had persistent signs and symptoms of radiculopathy with corresponding imagingconfirmed LDH, and were randomly allocated to PTED or MED group. 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 and physical function scales, European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions, and Visual Analogue Scales for back pain and leg pain.

Results. A total of 250 participants were randomly assigned to two treatment groups, 241 of that received the specific surgical procedure. Two hundred twenty-two patients (92.1%) have completed the 2-year follow-up. Both the primary and secondary outcomes did not differ significantly between the two treatment groups at each prespecified follow-up time (P>0.05). For PTED, the postoperative improvement of ODI score in the median herniation subgroup was less compared with paramedian subgroup. For MED, less improvement of ODI score was found in far-lateral herniation subgroup compared with paramedian subgroup. Total complication rate over the course of 2 year was 13.44% in PTED group and 15.57% in MED group (P¼0.639). Ten cases (8.40%) in PTED group and five cases (4.10%) in MED group suffered from residue/recurrence of herniation, for which reoperation was required.

Conclusion. Over the 2-year follow-up period, PTED did not show superior clinical outcomes and did not appear to be safer procedure for patients with LDH compared with MED. PTED had inferior results for median disc herniation, whereas MED did not appear to be the best option for far-lateral disc herniation.

Level of Evidence: 2

Posted on

Percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy compared with microendoscopic discectomy for lumbar disc herniation

J Neurosurg Spine 28:300–310, 2018

A prospective randomized controlled study was conducted to clarify whether percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) results in better clinical outcomes and less surgical trauma than microendoscopic discectomy (MED).

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 lumbar disc herniation. Patients were randomly allocated to the PTED or the MED group by computer-generated randomization codes. The primary outcome was the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score 1 year after surgery. Secondary outcomes included scores of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey bodily pain and physical function scales, EuroQol Group’s EQ-5D , and the visual analog scales for back pain and leg pain. Data including duration of operation, in-bed time, length of hospital stay, surgical cost and total hospital cost, complications, and reoperations were recorded.

RESULTS A total of 153 participants were randomly assigned to 2 treatment groups (PTED vs MED), and 89.5% (137 patients) completed 1 year of follow-up. Primary and secondary outcomes did not differ significantly between the treatment groups at each prespecified follow-up point (p > 0.05). For PTED, there was less postoperative improvement in ODI score in the median herniation subgroup at 1 week (p = 0.027), 3 months (p = 0.013), 6 months (p = 0.027), and 1 year (p = 0.028) compared with the paramedian subgroup. For MED, there was significantly less improvement in ODI score at 3 months (p = 0.008), 6 months (p = 0.028), and 1 year (p = 0.028) in the far-lateral herniation subgroup compared with the paramedian subgroup. The total complication rate over the course of 1 year was 13.75% in the PTED group and 16.44% in the MED group (p = 0.642). Five patients (6.25%) in the PTED group and 3 patients (4.11%) in the MED group suffered from residue/recurrence of herniation, for which reoperation was required.

CONCLUSIONS Over the 1-year follow-up period, PTED did not show superior clinical outcomes and did not seem to be a safer procedure for patients with lumbar disc herniation compared with MED. PTED had inferior results for median disc herniation, whereas MED did not seem to be the best treatment option for far-lateral disc herniation. Clinical trial registration no.: NCT01997086 (clinicaltrials.gov).

Posted on

Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy: Revision Surgery for Recurrent Herniation After Microendoscopic Discectomy

WORLD NEUROSURGERY 99: 89-95, 2017

Most patients with recurrence of microendoscopic discectomy (MED) need to receive revision surgery. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) are common operative methods for MED recurrence, but no study has been made to compare the clinical outcomes of these 2 surgical methods as revision surgery for MED recurrence.

METHODS: A total of 105 patients who underwent either MIS-TLIF (58 patients) or PELD (47 patients) for revision of MED recurrence were included in this study. Perioperative outcomes (operation time, blood loss, and hospital stay), total cost, pain and functional scores (visual analog scale, Oswestry Disability Index, 12-item short form health survey) with a 12-month follow-up visit and review of complications and recurrence within 12 months postoperatively were recorded and assessed.

RESULTS: No significant difference of clinical outcome over time was observed between these 2 approaches. Compared with MIS-TLIF, PELD was associated with greater satisfaction in the early stage after surgery; this effect was equalized after 3 months postoperatively. PELD brought advantages in terms of shorter operation time, shorter hospital stay, less blood loss, and lower total cost compared with MIS-TLIF; however, PELD was also associated with a higher recurrence rate than MIS-TLIF.

CONCLUSIONS: Neither of these 2 surgical methods gave a clear advantage in long-term pain or function scores. Compared with MIS-TLIF, PELD could lead to a better perioperative result and less cost; however, the higher recurrence rate could not be ignored. Taking these characteristics into consideration was instrumental in pursuing personalized treatment for MED recurrence.

Posted on

Complications of endoscopic microdiscectomy using the EASYGO! system

Acta Neurochir DOI 10.1007/s00701-012-1321-5.

Microendoscopic discectomy (MED) is emerging as a minimally invasive alternative to conventional microsurgical discectomy (MSD). EASYGO! is a new system for spinal endoscopy that claims smooth transition from MSD to MED, with a reduced learning curve period. The aims of this study were to describe the complications that appeared during the learning curve period of MED and to compare their incidence with the rate and type of complications that occurred during a simultaneous non-randomised series of standard MSDs.

Methods Between July 2009 and December 2010, 138 patients underwent scheduled first-time discectomy in our institution, 37 using an MED approach and 101 by a conventional MSD. A MED learning curve was obtained by plotting every case with its respective operative time. Complications, length of hospital stay, need of further surgery and outcome were prospectively recorded in both groups.

Results The mean operative time was 66 min for the MSD group and 100 min for the MED group, although for the last 14 cases of the latter group the time was reduced. Curvefitting techniques showed that the inverse equation, ƒ(x)= 122.12/x+73.05, had the best correlation between case number and operative time. The learning curve was overcome after the 30th case. Complications occurred in 9.8 % of the MSD group and 8.1 % of the MED group (P=0.49). Average length of hospital stay was 2.36 days for the MED group and 3.36 days for the MSD group (P=0.01). The procedure successfully relieved patient symptoms in 68.63 % of the MSD group and 89.92 % of the MED group. No revision surgery was required in the MED group, but it was necessary in ten patients of the MSD group.

Conclusions Between 25 and 30 cases are needed to reach the learning curve’s asymptote of MED. Even during this initial learning period MED is a safe procedure, with comparable results to those obtained with conventional MSD and with a similar complication rate. The key points for reducing intraoperative complications are an adequate expertise in MSD, a precise selection of initial cases, a proper surgical planning and a careful technique, which are mandatory to avoid unnecessary neurological injury in an otherwise secure surgical approach.

Proudly powered by WordPress