Comparison of a progressive bone drilling system and a visualized reaming system in percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy: a comparative study.

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Yang Yu, Meng Li, Kuilin Zhang, Qiang Shi
{"title":"Comparison of a progressive bone drilling system and a visualized reaming system in percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy: a comparative study.","authors":"Yang Yu, Meng Li, Kuilin Zhang, Qiang Shi","doi":"10.1007/s00586-025-09061-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) is an alternative, minimally invasive procedure for the treatment of symptomatic lumbar disc herniation (LDH). Two foraminoplasty techniques exist, however, insufficient literature exists highlighting the differences between these procedures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A multicentre retrospective study was conducted in consecutive patients diagnosed with symptomatic LDH who received PTED at spine centres from March 2015 to June 2019. A total of 798 patients were recruited, of whom 432 underwent progressive bone drilling system (PBDS) for foraminoplasty and 366 received a visualized reaming system (VRS).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The average radiation exposure and operative time in the PBDS group were significantly greater than those in the VRS group (P < 0.05). Compared with those before the operation, the postoperative VAS and ODI scores in both groups were significantly improved (P < 0.05). Additionally, the VAS score for leg pain and the JOA/ODI score in the PBDS group were significantly lower than those in the VRS group at both the 1-week and 1-month follow-up (P < 0.05). The good-to-excellent rates of the PBDS group and VRS group were 90.97% and 81.14%, whereas the complication occurrence rates were 11.80% and 15.30% in the PBDS group and VRS group, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>PBDS and VRS have acceptable efficacy at a midterm follow-up of 2 years in treating LDH with PTED. Although PBDS is associated with longer intraoperative fluoroscopy and operative times, it should still be considered superior to VRS considering the benefits of fewer complications, quicker pain relief, and functional recovery.</p>","PeriodicalId":12323,"journal":{"name":"European Spine Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-025-09061-y","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) is an alternative, minimally invasive procedure for the treatment of symptomatic lumbar disc herniation (LDH). Two foraminoplasty techniques exist, however, insufficient literature exists highlighting the differences between these procedures.

Methods: A multicentre retrospective study was conducted in consecutive patients diagnosed with symptomatic LDH who received PTED at spine centres from March 2015 to June 2019. A total of 798 patients were recruited, of whom 432 underwent progressive bone drilling system (PBDS) for foraminoplasty and 366 received a visualized reaming system (VRS).

Results: The average radiation exposure and operative time in the PBDS group were significantly greater than those in the VRS group (P < 0.05). Compared with those before the operation, the postoperative VAS and ODI scores in both groups were significantly improved (P < 0.05). Additionally, the VAS score for leg pain and the JOA/ODI score in the PBDS group were significantly lower than those in the VRS group at both the 1-week and 1-month follow-up (P < 0.05). The good-to-excellent rates of the PBDS group and VRS group were 90.97% and 81.14%, whereas the complication occurrence rates were 11.80% and 15.30% in the PBDS group and VRS group, respectively.

Conclusion: PBDS and VRS have acceptable efficacy at a midterm follow-up of 2 years in treating LDH with PTED. Although PBDS is associated with longer intraoperative fluoroscopy and operative times, it should still be considered superior to VRS considering the benefits of fewer complications, quicker pain relief, and functional recovery.

渐进式骨钻孔系统与可视化扩孔系统在经皮椎间孔内镜椎间盘切除术中的比较研究。
背景:经皮经椎间孔内窥镜椎间盘切除术(PTED)是治疗症状性腰椎间盘突出症(LDH)的另一种微创手术。存在两种椎间孔成形术,然而,没有足够的文献来强调这些方法之间的差异。方法:对2015年3月至2019年6月在脊柱中心连续接受PTED治疗的有症状LDH患者进行多中心回顾性研究。共招募798例患者,其中432例接受渐进式骨钻孔系统(PBDS)进行椎间孔成形术,366例接受可视化扩孔系统(VRS)。结果:PBDS组的平均辐射暴露量和手术时间明显大于VRS组(P)。结论:PBDS和VRS联合PTED治疗LDH的中期随访2年,疗效可接受。虽然PBDS与较长的术中透视和手术时间相关,但考虑到并发症较少、疼痛缓解更快和功能恢复的好处,它仍应被认为优于VRS。
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
European Spine Journal
European Spine Journal 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
10.70%
发文量
373
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: "European Spine Journal" is a publication founded in response to the increasing trend toward specialization in spinal surgery and spinal pathology in general. The Journal is devoted to all spine related disciplines, including functional and surgical anatomy of the spine, biomechanics and pathophysiology, diagnostic procedures, and neurology, surgery and outcomes. The aim of "European Spine Journal" is to support the further development of highly innovative spine treatments including but not restricted to surgery and to provide an integrated and balanced view of diagnostic, research and treatment procedures as well as outcomes that will enhance effective collaboration among specialists worldwide. The “European Spine Journal” also participates in education by means of videos, interactive meetings and the endorsement of educative efforts. Official publication of EUROSPINE, The Spine Society of Europe
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信