单节段后外侧腰椎间盘突出症椎板间显微内镜椎间盘切除术与显微椎间盘切除术的比较研究。

IF 1.3 Q2 OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY
Mohamed Mohi Eldin, Ahmed Salah El Din Hassan, Omar Youssef Abdallah AboHamed, Ahmed Abdelaziz Nazem Hassan, Ahmed Hussein Omar
{"title":"单节段后外侧腰椎间盘突出症椎板间显微内镜椎间盘切除术与显微椎间盘切除术的比较研究。","authors":"Mohamed Mohi Eldin, Ahmed Salah El Din Hassan, Omar Youssef Abdallah AboHamed, Ahmed Abdelaziz Nazem Hassan, Ahmed Hussein Omar","doi":"10.4103/jcvjs.jcvjs_32_24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patients with neurological impairments or those unresponsive to conservative therapy may undergo surgical discectomy. The techniques include open discectomy (OD), microdiscectomy (MD), microendoscopic discectomy (MED), and percutaneous endoscopic discectomy. MED combines the benefits of MD and OD with minimal tissue damage. This study compared MD versus MED outcomes in patients with sciatica from lumbar disc herniation.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>This prospective clinical study included 50 patients who underwent single-level discectomy at Cairo University Hospital. The patients were divided into two groups: 25 patients who underwent MD in Group I and 25 who underwent MED in Group II.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In our study, 64% (16/25) of the MED group rated their postoperative condition as excellent, 28% (7/25) as good, 4% (1/25) as fair, and 4% (1/25) as poor, according to the modified McNab criteria. In the MD group, 60% (15 patients) reported excellent satisfaction; 28% (7 patients), good; 8% (2 patients), fair; and 4% (1 patient), poor satisfaction. Overall, 90% (45 patients) of patients across both groups had excellent to good outcomes, irrespective of the discectomy type. When categorizing excellent and good outcomes as successes and fair and poor as failures, the MED group's success rate was 92%, compared to 88% for MD. There was no significant difference in patient satisfaction between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>MED and MD showed equivalent efficacy in treating radicular pain caused by lumbar disc herniation. Patients in both groups showed significant improvements in Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores. No significant differences were found between the groups in VAS, ODI, or complication rates, validating both surgical techniques for lumbar disc herniation. Compared with OD, MED showed reduced blood loss, smaller incisions, shorter hospital stays, and longer operation times. Although MED requires a steep learning curve, it remains safe even during the initial learning period, with outcomes and complication rates similar to those of MD.</p>","PeriodicalId":51721,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Craniovertebral Junction and Spine","volume":"16 2","pages":"142-147"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12313031/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Inter-laminar micro-endoscopic discectomy versus microdiscectomy in single-level posterolateral lumbar disc herniation: A comparative study.\",\"authors\":\"Mohamed Mohi Eldin, Ahmed Salah El Din Hassan, Omar Youssef Abdallah AboHamed, Ahmed Abdelaziz Nazem Hassan, Ahmed Hussein Omar\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/jcvjs.jcvjs_32_24\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patients with neurological impairments or those unresponsive to conservative therapy may undergo surgical discectomy. The techniques include open discectomy (OD), microdiscectomy (MD), microendoscopic discectomy (MED), and percutaneous endoscopic discectomy. MED combines the benefits of MD and OD with minimal tissue damage. This study compared MD versus MED outcomes in patients with sciatica from lumbar disc herniation.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>This prospective clinical study included 50 patients who underwent single-level discectomy at Cairo University Hospital. The patients were divided into two groups: 25 patients who underwent MD in Group I and 25 who underwent MED in Group II.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In our study, 64% (16/25) of the MED group rated their postoperative condition as excellent, 28% (7/25) as good, 4% (1/25) as fair, and 4% (1/25) as poor, according to the modified McNab criteria. In the MD group, 60% (15 patients) reported excellent satisfaction; 28% (7 patients), good; 8% (2 patients), fair; and 4% (1 patient), poor satisfaction. Overall, 90% (45 patients) of patients across both groups had excellent to good outcomes, irrespective of the discectomy type. When categorizing excellent and good outcomes as successes and fair and poor as failures, the MED group's success rate was 92%, compared to 88% for MD. There was no significant difference in patient satisfaction between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>MED and MD showed equivalent efficacy in treating radicular pain caused by lumbar disc herniation. Patients in both groups showed significant improvements in Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores. No significant differences were found between the groups in VAS, ODI, or complication rates, validating both surgical techniques for lumbar disc herniation. Compared with OD, MED showed reduced blood loss, smaller incisions, shorter hospital stays, and longer operation times. Although MED requires a steep learning curve, it remains safe even during the initial learning period, with outcomes and complication rates similar to those of MD.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51721,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Craniovertebral Junction and Spine\",\"volume\":\"16 2\",\"pages\":\"142-147\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12313031/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Craniovertebral Junction and Spine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/jcvjs.jcvjs_32_24\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/7/3 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Craniovertebral Junction and Spine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jcvjs.jcvjs_32_24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/7/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:神经功能受损或对保守治疗无反应的患者可行椎间盘切除术。技术包括开放椎间盘切除术(OD)、显微椎间盘切除术(MD)、显微内镜椎间盘切除术(MED)和经皮内镜椎间盘切除术。MED结合了MD和OD的优点,并且组织损伤最小。这项研究比较了MD和MED治疗腰椎间盘突出症坐骨神经痛的疗效。患者和方法:这项前瞻性临床研究包括在开罗大学医院接受单节段椎间盘切除术的50例患者。患者分为两组:第一组25例MD,第二组25例MED。结果:在我们的研究中,根据修改的McNab标准,64%(16/25)的MED组患者将其术后状况评为优秀,28%(7/25)为良好,4%(1/25)为一般,4%(1/25)为差。在MD组,60%(15例)的患者报告了极好的满意度;28%(7例),良好;8%(2例),一般;4%(1例)满意度较差。总体而言,无论椎间盘切除术类型如何,两组中90%(45例)的患者均有优异至良好的预后。当将优异和良好的结果归类为成功,将一般和差的结果归类为失败时,MED组的成功率为92%,而MD组的成功率为88%。两组患者满意度无显著差异。结论:MED与MD治疗腰椎间盘突出症神经根性疼痛疗效相当。两组患者的视觉模拟评分(VAS)和Oswestry残疾指数(ODI)评分均有显著改善。两组间VAS、ODI或并发症发生率无显著差异,证实了两种手术技术治疗腰椎间盘突出症的有效性。与OD相比,MED出血量少,切口小,住院时间短,手术时间长。尽管MED需要一个陡峭的学习曲线,但即使在最初的学习阶段,它仍然是安全的,其结果和并发症发生率与MD相似。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Inter-laminar micro-endoscopic discectomy versus microdiscectomy in single-level posterolateral lumbar disc herniation: A comparative study.

Background: Patients with neurological impairments or those unresponsive to conservative therapy may undergo surgical discectomy. The techniques include open discectomy (OD), microdiscectomy (MD), microendoscopic discectomy (MED), and percutaneous endoscopic discectomy. MED combines the benefits of MD and OD with minimal tissue damage. This study compared MD versus MED outcomes in patients with sciatica from lumbar disc herniation.

Patients and methods: This prospective clinical study included 50 patients who underwent single-level discectomy at Cairo University Hospital. The patients were divided into two groups: 25 patients who underwent MD in Group I and 25 who underwent MED in Group II.

Results: In our study, 64% (16/25) of the MED group rated their postoperative condition as excellent, 28% (7/25) as good, 4% (1/25) as fair, and 4% (1/25) as poor, according to the modified McNab criteria. In the MD group, 60% (15 patients) reported excellent satisfaction; 28% (7 patients), good; 8% (2 patients), fair; and 4% (1 patient), poor satisfaction. Overall, 90% (45 patients) of patients across both groups had excellent to good outcomes, irrespective of the discectomy type. When categorizing excellent and good outcomes as successes and fair and poor as failures, the MED group's success rate was 92%, compared to 88% for MD. There was no significant difference in patient satisfaction between the two groups.

Conclusion: MED and MD showed equivalent efficacy in treating radicular pain caused by lumbar disc herniation. Patients in both groups showed significant improvements in Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores. No significant differences were found between the groups in VAS, ODI, or complication rates, validating both surgical techniques for lumbar disc herniation. Compared with OD, MED showed reduced blood loss, smaller incisions, shorter hospital stays, and longer operation times. Although MED requires a steep learning curve, it remains safe even during the initial learning period, with outcomes and complication rates similar to those of MD.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
9.10%
发文量
57
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
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