Percutaneous full-endoscopic transforaminal discectomy versus open microdiscectomy in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation: randomized controlled trial

Moustafa Mohamed Kandeel, Magdy Gamal Abdel Kader Yousef, Abdelfattah Mohamed Fathy Saoud, Zakaria Hassan Ibrahim Abu-Elghait
{"title":"Percutaneous full-endoscopic transforaminal discectomy versus open microdiscectomy in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation: randomized controlled trial","authors":"Moustafa Mohamed Kandeel, Magdy Gamal Abdel Kader Yousef, Abdelfattah Mohamed Fathy Saoud, Zakaria Hassan Ibrahim Abu-Elghait","doi":"10.1186/s41983-024-00788-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Lumbar disc herniation is one of the most common degenerative spine conditions. In our center, the standard surgical technique for treatment of lumbar disc herniation is open microdiscectomy. The full-endoscopic transforaminal discectomy is done for selective cases of lumbar disc herniation under local anesthesia, achieving good results. This study aims to compare the clinical outcomes, operative data, and complications of the treatment of lumbar disc herniation with “percutaneous full-endoscopic transforaminal discectomy” (TED) and the gold standard “open microdiscectomy\" (MD). This was a randomized controlled trial that included 65 patients with lumbar disc herniation: 32 in the TED group and 33 in the MD group. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups with regard to the visual analogue scale (VAS) for leg pain, the VAS for back pain, or the Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire (ODI) score at the end of the 1-year follow-up. The operative time in minutes was statistically shorter in the TED group, with a mean value of 50.38 (± 11.65) and 61.09 (± 12.32) in the MD group. The blood loss was 77.33 CC (± 23.14) in the TED group and 170 CC (± 56.06) in the MD group. The mean duration of hospital stay in days was statistically shorter in the TED group. Exposure to radiation in minutes was higher in the TED group: 1.09 (± 0.33) and 0.18 (± 0.08) in the TED group and MD group, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of complications. TED showed superiority over MD with regard to blood loss, operative time and shorter hospital stays, but with increased radiation exposure. There was no difference in clinical outcomes regarding VAS for leg and back pain and ODI score at 1 year follow-up with no significant difference in complications.","PeriodicalId":74995,"journal":{"name":"The Egyptian journal of neurology, psychiatry and neurosurgery","volume":"15 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Egyptian journal of neurology, psychiatry and neurosurgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41983-024-00788-x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Lumbar disc herniation is one of the most common degenerative spine conditions. In our center, the standard surgical technique for treatment of lumbar disc herniation is open microdiscectomy. The full-endoscopic transforaminal discectomy is done for selective cases of lumbar disc herniation under local anesthesia, achieving good results. This study aims to compare the clinical outcomes, operative data, and complications of the treatment of lumbar disc herniation with “percutaneous full-endoscopic transforaminal discectomy” (TED) and the gold standard “open microdiscectomy" (MD). This was a randomized controlled trial that included 65 patients with lumbar disc herniation: 32 in the TED group and 33 in the MD group. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups with regard to the visual analogue scale (VAS) for leg pain, the VAS for back pain, or the Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire (ODI) score at the end of the 1-year follow-up. The operative time in minutes was statistically shorter in the TED group, with a mean value of 50.38 (± 11.65) and 61.09 (± 12.32) in the MD group. The blood loss was 77.33 CC (± 23.14) in the TED group and 170 CC (± 56.06) in the MD group. The mean duration of hospital stay in days was statistically shorter in the TED group. Exposure to radiation in minutes was higher in the TED group: 1.09 (± 0.33) and 0.18 (± 0.08) in the TED group and MD group, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of complications. TED showed superiority over MD with regard to blood loss, operative time and shorter hospital stays, but with increased radiation exposure. There was no difference in clinical outcomes regarding VAS for leg and back pain and ODI score at 1 year follow-up with no significant difference in complications.
治疗腰椎间盘突出症的经皮全内窥镜经椎间孔椎间盘切除术与开放式显微椎间盘切除术:随机对照试验
腰椎间盘突出症是最常见的脊柱退行性病变之一。在本中心,治疗腰椎间盘突出症的标准手术技术是开放式显微椎间盘切除术。全内窥镜经椎间孔椎间盘切除术适用于局部麻醉下的选择性腰椎间盘突出症病例,取得了良好的效果。本研究旨在比较 "经皮全内窥镜经椎间孔椎间盘切除术"(TED)和金标准 "开放式显微椎间盘切除术"(MD)治疗腰椎间盘突出症的临床效果、手术数据和并发症。这是一项随机对照试验,纳入了 65 名腰椎间盘突出症患者:TED 组 32 人,MD 组 33 人。在为期一年的随访结束时,两组患者在腿痛视觉模拟量表(VAS)、背痛视觉模拟量表(VAS)或 Oswestry 腰痛残疾问卷(ODI)评分方面均无明显统计学差异。据统计,TED组的手术时间更短,平均值为50.38(± 11.65)分钟,而MD组为61.09(± 12.32)分钟。TED 组的失血量为 77.33 CC(± 23.14)毫升,MD 组为 170 CC(± 56.06)毫升。据统计,TED 组的平均住院天数较短。以分钟为单位的辐射暴露在 TED 组较高:TED组和MD组分别为1.09(± 0.33)分钟和0.18(± 0.08)分钟。并发症发生率在统计学上没有明显差异。在失血量、手术时间和住院时间缩短方面,TED优于MD,但辐射暴露增加。腿部和背部疼痛的VAS评分以及随访1年的ODI评分在临床结果上没有差异,并发症方面也没有显著差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信