Minhong Zhou, Linxia Wang, Xixi Xu, Lijuan Wang, Peifang Wang
{"title":"Comparative Analysis of Clinical Outcomes: Posterior Cervical Endoscopic Discectomy versus Fenestration Laminectomy Discectomy for Cervical Disc Herniation.","authors":"Minhong Zhou, Linxia Wang, Xixi Xu, Lijuan Wang, Peifang Wang","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>It aimed to investigate the difference in clinical efficacy between posterior cervical endoscopic discectomy (PCED) and Fenestration laminectomy discectomy (FLD) in cervical disc herniation (CDH).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective study analyzed 100 CDH patients undergoing nucleotomy and assigned them into the FLD and PCED groups, 50 cases for each group. The differences in operation time, intraoperative blood loss, skin incision, off-bed time, and hospital stay were evaluated. Numeric rating scales (NRS), Oswestry disability Index (ODI), Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA), excellent and good clinical efficacy, quality of life (QoL) SF-36 score, and complication rate were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The results showed that compared with the FLD group, the PCED group had increased operation time, decreased intraoperative blood loss, skin incision length, off-bed time, and hospital stay (P < .01). Compared with the FLD group, the PCED group had decreased NRS and ODI scores and increased JOA scores at 1 d, 3 d, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months after operation (P < .05). Compared with the FLD group, the excellent and good rate of the PCED group increased significantly after 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years (52.0% vs 64.0%, 58.0% vs. 80.0%, 68.0% vs 90.0%, P < .05). Relative to the FLD group, the physical function, emotional function, vitality, social function, and mental health score of the PCED group increased obviously at 2 years after operation (P < .01). The postoperative complication rate was 0% in both FLD and PCED groups. PCED has good long-term clinical efficacy in the treatment of CDH, with excellent recovery and high safety.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>PCED showed favorable long-term clinical efficacy in the treatment of CDH, with excellent recovery and high safety. Compared to FLD, PCED resulted in reduced intraoperative blood loss, shorter incision length, and faster recovery. It also led to improved pain scores, functional outcomes, and quality of life measures. The absence of postoperative complications further supports the use of PCED as an effective treatment option for CDH.</p>","PeriodicalId":7571,"journal":{"name":"Alternative therapies in health and medicine","volume":" ","pages":"65-71"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Alternative therapies in health and medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INTEGRATIVE & COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: It aimed to investigate the difference in clinical efficacy between posterior cervical endoscopic discectomy (PCED) and Fenestration laminectomy discectomy (FLD) in cervical disc herniation (CDH).
Methods: This retrospective study analyzed 100 CDH patients undergoing nucleotomy and assigned them into the FLD and PCED groups, 50 cases for each group. The differences in operation time, intraoperative blood loss, skin incision, off-bed time, and hospital stay were evaluated. Numeric rating scales (NRS), Oswestry disability Index (ODI), Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA), excellent and good clinical efficacy, quality of life (QoL) SF-36 score, and complication rate were compared.
Results: The results showed that compared with the FLD group, the PCED group had increased operation time, decreased intraoperative blood loss, skin incision length, off-bed time, and hospital stay (P < .01). Compared with the FLD group, the PCED group had decreased NRS and ODI scores and increased JOA scores at 1 d, 3 d, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months after operation (P < .05). Compared with the FLD group, the excellent and good rate of the PCED group increased significantly after 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years (52.0% vs 64.0%, 58.0% vs. 80.0%, 68.0% vs 90.0%, P < .05). Relative to the FLD group, the physical function, emotional function, vitality, social function, and mental health score of the PCED group increased obviously at 2 years after operation (P < .01). The postoperative complication rate was 0% in both FLD and PCED groups. PCED has good long-term clinical efficacy in the treatment of CDH, with excellent recovery and high safety.
Conclusion: PCED showed favorable long-term clinical efficacy in the treatment of CDH, with excellent recovery and high safety. Compared to FLD, PCED resulted in reduced intraoperative blood loss, shorter incision length, and faster recovery. It also led to improved pain scores, functional outcomes, and quality of life measures. The absence of postoperative complications further supports the use of PCED as an effective treatment option for CDH.
期刊介绍：
Launched in 1995, Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine has a mission to promote the art and science of integrative medicine and a responsibility to improve public health. We strive to maintain the highest standards of ethical medical journalism independent of special interests that is timely, accurate, and a pleasure to read. We publish original, peer-reviewed scientific articles that provide health care providers with continuing education to promote health, prevent illness, and treat disease. Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine was the first journal in this field to be indexed in the National Library of Medicine. In 2006, 2007, and 2008, ATHM had the highest impact factor ranking of any independently published peer-reviewed CAM journal in the United States—meaning that its research articles were cited more frequently than any other journal’s in the field.
Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine does not endorse any particular system or method but promotes the evaluation and appropriate use of all effective therapeutic approaches. Each issue contains a variety of disciplined inquiry methods, from case reports to original scientific research to systematic reviews. The editors encourage the integration of evidence-based emerging therapies with conventional medical practices by licensed health care providers in a way that promotes a comprehensive approach to health care that is focused on wellness, prevention, and healing. Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine hopes to inform all licensed health care practitioners about developments in fields other than their own and to foster an ongoing debate about the scientific, clinical, historical, legal, political, and cultural issues that affect all of health care.
分享
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
