{"title":"腰椎间盘突出症的经皮内窥镜腰椎间盘切除术与开放式椎间孔镜腰椎间盘切除术:一项超过 5 年随访的倾向评分匹配回顾性研究。","authors":"Tusheng Li, Junyou Zhang, Zhili Ding, Qiang Jiang, Yu Ding","doi":"10.1186/s13018-024-05239-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>We compared the long-term outcomes of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) with those of open fenestration discectomy (OFD) in treating lumbar disc herniation (LDH).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>281 patients were included from January 2013 to December 2018, of whom 228 underwent PELD and 53 underwent OFD. General information of patients was collected and imbalances in covariates between groups were corrected using propensity score matching (PSM). Then, the clinical function scores, imaging data, and complications were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among participants, 102 patients were successfully matched and were followed for 62-128 months. Compared to the OFD group, the PELD group indicated greater improvements in visual analog scale score of low back pain (VAS-BP), Japanese orthopedic association (JOA), and Oswestry disability index (ODI) at 7 days postoperatively and the last follow-up (P < 0.05). At 24 months postoperatively and the last follow-up, the disc height index (DHI), ratio of grays (RVG), and range of motion (ROM) were higher and the compass value was lower (P < 0.05) in the PELD group compared to the OFD group, suggesting that the PELD procedure better maintained the mobility and stability of the responsible segment after surgery. The recurrence rates between the PELD (9.80%) and OFD (7.84%) groups did not reveal statistical differences (P > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>PELD and OFD both provide acceptable clinical outcomes for LDH. However, PELD is superior to OFD in terms of relieving low back pain, delaying disc degeneration, and maintaining segmental stability.</p>","PeriodicalId":16629,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research","volume":"19 1","pages":"753"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11559210/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy versus open fenestration discectomy for lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective propensity score-matched study with more than 5 years of follow-up.\",\"authors\":\"Tusheng Li, Junyou Zhang, Zhili Ding, Qiang Jiang, Yu Ding\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13018-024-05239-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>We compared the long-term outcomes of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) with those of open fenestration discectomy (OFD) in treating lumbar disc herniation (LDH).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>281 patients were included from January 2013 to December 2018, of whom 228 underwent PELD and 53 underwent OFD. General information of patients was collected and imbalances in covariates between groups were corrected using propensity score matching (PSM). Then, the clinical function scores, imaging data, and complications were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among participants, 102 patients were successfully matched and were followed for 62-128 months. Compared to the OFD group, the PELD group indicated greater improvements in visual analog scale score of low back pain (VAS-BP), Japanese orthopedic association (JOA), and Oswestry disability index (ODI) at 7 days postoperatively and the last follow-up (P < 0.05). At 24 months postoperatively and the last follow-up, the disc height index (DHI), ratio of grays (RVG), and range of motion (ROM) were higher and the compass value was lower (P < 0.05) in the PELD group compared to the OFD group, suggesting that the PELD procedure better maintained the mobility and stability of the responsible segment after surgery. The recurrence rates between the PELD (9.80%) and OFD (7.84%) groups did not reveal statistical differences (P > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>PELD and OFD both provide acceptable clinical outcomes for LDH. However, PELD is superior to OFD in terms of relieving low back pain, delaying disc degeneration, and maintaining segmental stability.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16629,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research\",\"volume\":\"19 1\",\"pages\":\"753\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11559210/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-024-05239-0\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-024-05239-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy versus open fenestration discectomy for lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective propensity score-matched study with more than 5 years of follow-up.
Objective: We compared the long-term outcomes of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) with those of open fenestration discectomy (OFD) in treating lumbar disc herniation (LDH).
Methods: 281 patients were included from January 2013 to December 2018, of whom 228 underwent PELD and 53 underwent OFD. General information of patients was collected and imbalances in covariates between groups were corrected using propensity score matching (PSM). Then, the clinical function scores, imaging data, and complications were compared.
Results: Among participants, 102 patients were successfully matched and were followed for 62-128 months. Compared to the OFD group, the PELD group indicated greater improvements in visual analog scale score of low back pain (VAS-BP), Japanese orthopedic association (JOA), and Oswestry disability index (ODI) at 7 days postoperatively and the last follow-up (P < 0.05). At 24 months postoperatively and the last follow-up, the disc height index (DHI), ratio of grays (RVG), and range of motion (ROM) were higher and the compass value was lower (P < 0.05) in the PELD group compared to the OFD group, suggesting that the PELD procedure better maintained the mobility and stability of the responsible segment after surgery. The recurrence rates between the PELD (9.80%) and OFD (7.84%) groups did not reveal statistical differences (P > 0.05).
Conclusion: PELD and OFD both provide acceptable clinical outcomes for LDH. However, PELD is superior to OFD in terms of relieving low back pain, delaying disc degeneration, and maintaining segmental stability.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research is an open access journal that encompasses all aspects of clinical and basic research studies related to musculoskeletal issues.
Orthopaedic research is conducted at clinical and basic science levels. With the advancement of new technologies and the increasing expectation and demand from doctors and patients, we are witnessing an enormous growth in clinical orthopaedic research, particularly in the fields of traumatology, spinal surgery, joint replacement, sports medicine, musculoskeletal tumour management, hand microsurgery, foot and ankle surgery, paediatric orthopaedic, and orthopaedic rehabilitation. The involvement of basic science ranges from molecular, cellular, structural and functional perspectives to tissue engineering, gait analysis, automation and robotic surgery. Implant and biomaterial designs are new disciplines that complement clinical applications.
JOSR encourages the publication of multidisciplinary research with collaboration amongst clinicians and scientists from different disciplines, which will be the trend in the coming decades.