scholarly journals A Postoperative Phenomenon of Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy: Rebound Pain

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chang Zhang ◽  
Ziquan Li ◽  
Keyi Yu ◽  
Yipeng Wang
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Discectomy ◽  
Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy ◽  
Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy

scholarly journals Linical efficacy of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis in elderly patients: a retrospective study

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hua Li ◽  
Yufu Ou ◽  
Furong Xie ◽  
Weiguo Liang ◽  
Gang Tian ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Elderly Patients ◽  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Lumbar Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Lumbar Discectomy ◽  
Lumbar Spine Surgery ◽  
Decompression Surgery ◽  
Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy ◽  
Pain Scores ◽  
Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy ◽  
Lumbar Spinal

Abstract Background Although percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) is increasingly being used to treat lumbar degenerative disease, the treatment of elderly patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) involves considerable uncertainty. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of PELD for the treatment of LSS in elderly patients aged 65 years or older. Methods In this retrospective review, 136 patients aged 65 years or older who underwent PELD to treat LSS were evaluated. The patients were divided into two groups, group A (ages 65–74) and group B (age ≥ 75), and perioperative data were analyzed. The Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, visual analog scale (VAS) score, and MacNab classification were used to evaluate postoperative clinical efficacy. Results All patients successfully underwent the operation with satisfactory treatment outcomes. Compared to preoperative scores, the self-reported scores or pain while performing daily activities were significantly improved in both treatment groups (P < 0.05). No statistically significant between-group differences were observed in operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative bed rest, and postoperative hospital stay (P > 0.05). The overall postoperative complication rate was similar between the two groups. Moreover, no statistically significant differences in VAS-back pain scores, VAS-leg pain scores, JOA scores, and MacNab classification were found between the groups at the 3-month and 1.5-year follow-up examinations (P > 0.05). Conclusion PELD is safe and effective for the treatment of LSS in elderly patients. Age is not a contraindication for decompressive lumbar spine surgery. PELD has advantages such as reduced trauma, fewer anesthesia-related complications, and a fast postoperative recovery. Elderly patients should be considered good candidates for lumbar decompression surgery using minimally invasive techniques.

Risk of reoperation and infection after percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy and open lumbar discectomy

2021 ◽  
Vol 103-B (8) ◽  
pp. 1392-1399
Author(s):  
Tae Wook Kang ◽  
Si Young Park ◽  
Hoonji Oh ◽  
Soon Hyuck Lee ◽  
Jong Hoon Park ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Disc ◽  
Surgical Techniques ◽  
Lumbar Discectomy ◽  
Infection Rates ◽  
Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy ◽  
Primary Endpoints ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
History Of ◽  
Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy ◽  
Reoperation Rates

Aims Open discectomy (OD) is the standard operation for lumbar disc herniation (LDH). Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD), however, has shown similar outcomes to OD and there is increasing interest in this procedure. However despite improved surgical techniques and instrumentation, reoperation and infection rates continue and are reported to be between 6% and 24% and 0.7% and 16%, respectively. The objective of this study was to compare the rate of reoperation and infection within six months of patients being treated for LDH either by OD or PELD. Methods In this retrospective, nationwide cohort study, the Korean National Health Insurance database from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2018 was reviewed. Data were extracted for patients who underwent OD or PELD for LDH without a history of having undergone either procedure during the preceding year. Individual patients were followed for six months through their encrypted unique resident registration number. The primary endpoints were rates of reoperation and infection during the follow-up period. Other risk factors for reoperation and infection were also evalulated. Results Out of 549,531 patients, 522,640 had undergone OD (95.11%) and 26,891 patients had undergone PELD (4.89%). Reoperation rates within six months were 2.28% in the OD group, and 5.38% in the PELD group. Infection rates were 1.18% in OD group and 0.83% in PELD group. The risk of reoperation was lower for patients with OD than for patients with PELD (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.38). The risk of infection was higher for patients with OD than for patients undergoing PELD (HR, 1.325). Conclusion Compared with the OD group, the PELD group showed higher reoperation rates and lower infection rates. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(8):1392–1399.

scholarly journals A Comparison of Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy and Open Lumbar Microdiscectomy for Lumbar Disc Herniation in the Korean: A Meta-Analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manyoung Kim ◽  
Sol Lee ◽  
Hyeun-Sung Kim ◽  
Sangyoon Park ◽  
Sang-Yeup Shim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Disc Herniation ◽  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Lumbar Disc ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Lumbar Discectomy ◽  
Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy ◽  
Lumbar Microdiscectomy ◽  
Surgical Methods ◽  
Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy

Background. Among the surgical methods for lumbar disc herniation, open lumbar microdiscectomy is considered the gold standard. Recently, percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy is also commonly performed for lumbar disc herniation for its various strong points. Objectives. The present study aims to examine whether percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy and open lumbar microdiscectomy show better results as surgical treatments for lumbar disc herniation in the Korean population. Methods. In the present meta-analysis, papers on Korean patients who underwent open lumbar microdiscectomy and percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy were searched, both of which are surgical methods to treat lumbar disc herniation. The papers from 1973, when percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy was first introduced, to March 2018 were searched at the databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane Library. Results. Seven papers with 1254 patients were selected. A comparison study revealed that percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy had significantly better results than open lumbar microdiscectomy in the visual analogue pain scale at the final follow-up (leg: mean difference [MD]=-0.35; 95% confidence interval [CI]=-0.61, -0.09; p=0.009; back: MD=-0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI]=-1.42, -0.17; p=0.01), Oswestry Disability Index (MD=-2.12; 95% CI=-4.25, 0.01; p=0.05), operation time (MD=-23.06; 95% CI=-32.42, -13.70; p<0.00001), and hospital stay (MD=-4.64; 95% CI=-6.37, -2.90; p<0.00001). There were no statistical differences in the MacNab classification (odds ratio [OR]=1.02; 95% CI=0.71, 1.49; p=0.90), complication rate (OR=0.72; 95% CI=0.20, 2.62; p=0.62), recurrence rate (OR=0.83; 95% CI=0.50, 1.38; p=0.47), and reoperation rate (OR=1.45; 95% CI=0.89, 2.35; p=0.13). Limitations. All 7 papers used for the meta-analysis were non-RCTs. Some differences (type of surgery (primary or revisional), treatment options before the operation, follow-up period, etc.) existed depending on the selected paper, and the sample size was small as well. Conclusion. While percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy showed better results than open lumbar microdiscectomy in some items, open lumbar microdiscectomy still showed good clinical results, and it is therefore reckoned that a randomized controlled trial with a large sample size would be required in the future to compare these two surgical methods.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document