Journal of Pain Research (Apr 2022)
Comparison of Percutaneous Endoscopic Interlaminar Discectomy and Open Fenestration Discectomy for Single-Segment Huge Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Two-year Follow-up Retrospective Study
Abstract
Cheng Ma,1,* He Li,1,* Teng Zhang,1 Yifan Wei,1 Helong Zhang,1 Fenglei Yu,1 You Lv,2 Yongxin Ren1 1Department of Orthopaedics, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, 210029, Jiangsu, People’s Republic of China; 2Department of Orthopaedics, Lianyungang Clinical College of Nanjing Medical University, The First People’s Hospital of Lianyungang, Lianyungang, 222061, Jiangsu, People’s Republic of China*These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: Yongxin Ren, Tel +86 13585162283, Email [email protected]: Both percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) and open fenestration discectomy (OFD) are effective and safe surgical procedures for the treatment of LDH. The purpose of this retrospective study was to compare the surgical outcomes of percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) and OFD for single-segment huge lumbar disc herniation (HLDH).Patients and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 91 patients diagnosed with single-segment HLDH and treated with OFD or PEID. Visual analog scale (VAS), modified Japanese orthopedic association (mJOA) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) were used to assess clinical outcomes at preoperation and postoperatively at 3, 6, 12, and 24months. Modified Macnab criteria were applied to evaluate clinically satisfaction at the final follow-up.Results: In both groups, the VAS and ODI scores at 3, 6, 12, and 24months postoperatively showed a significant decrease and the mJOA score at 3, 6, 12, and 24months postoperatively was significantly increased compared to preoperative results (P< 0.001). According to Macnab criteria at the final follow-up, the overall clinically satisfactory rate was 86.67% in the OFD group and 86.96% in the PEID group. There were no significant differences in VAS, ODI, and mJOA scores between the two groups at preoperation and postoperative 3, 6, 12, and 24months, respectively. In the PEID group, the length of hospitalization and the length of incision were significantly shorter than that in the OFD group (P< 0.0001). However, there was no significant difference in operative time between groups (P=0.81).Conclusion: Collectively, postoperative clinical results were equally favorable for both procedures, with no statistically significant difference between PEID and OFD at the two-year of follow-up. No serious complication was observed in two groups. Compared with the traditional surgery, PEID has the following benefits: less trauma, less bleeding, speedy recovery, and shorter hospitalization. Therefore, PEID may be a promising alternative to traditional surgery.Keywords: percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy, percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy, open fenestration discectomy, single-segment, huge lumbar disc herniation
