Transforaminal Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy (TPELD) in Caudal Migrated Lumbar Disc Herniations: A Case Series and Literature Review

M. Abdelfattah, Mohamed K. Elkazaz, A. Khedr
{"title":"Transforaminal Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy (TPELD) in Caudal Migrated Lumbar Disc Herniations: A Case Series and Literature Review","authors":"M. Abdelfattah, Mohamed K. Elkazaz, A. Khedr","doi":"10.57055/2314-8969.1005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background data: Since the initial idea by Kambin and Gellman in 1973 of percutaneous posterolateral lumbar disc decompression, the evolution of minimally invasive interventions in disc herniation has been widely growing. The advancements in optics and surgical instruments allowed surgeons to perform true minimally invasive procedures in a wide range of spine pathologies. In addition, transforaminal percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (TPELD) has been widely used in various degenerative spine pathologies, owing to the presence of high-speed drills, fl exible forceps, scissors, curettes, and probes to manage pathologies such as disc herniation or canal stenosis. Study design: A prospective clinical case study was performed. Purpose: The primary objective of this study was to assess the feasibility of migrated lumbar disc excision by TPELD, and the secondary objective was to report any technical dif fi culty or complications related to the technique. Patients and methods: Between January 2018 and January 2020, 20 patients who underwent TPELD for radiologically veri fi ed caudally migrated lumbar disc prolapse after the failure of conservative therapy were reported. Preoperative and postoperative clinical evaluations were performed for back pain and leg pain by the visual analog scale (VAS) score and for patients ’ disability by Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). The radiological evaluations preoperatively and post-operatively were done by lumbosacral MRI complemented by lumbosacral radiography anteroposterior and lateral views. The follow-up visits for the evaluation were immediately after surgery and 6 months and 1 year postoperatively. Results: A total of 20 cases were involved in this series from January 2018 to January 2020. Nine females and 11 males were included in the study. Postoperatively, the clinical assessment showed improvement in the VAS score of the back pain and leg pain as the mean VAS scores for back pain and leg pain immediately were 4.55 ± 1.70 and 2.4 ± 0.68, respectively. At the 6-month follow-up, the mean VAS scores for back pain, leg pain, and ODI were 2.15 ± 1.03, 1.35 ± 0.74, and 22.2 ± 6.59, respectively. Finally, after 12 months, the mean VAS scores for back pain, leg pain, and ODI were 1.25 ± 0.71, 0.8 ± 0.52, and 15.85 ± 9.22, respectively. Conclusion: Minimally invasive TPELD proves to be a valuable utility in managing migrated disc fragments in lumbar disc Prolapse (LDP). However, it is a technically demanding procedure, but with appropriate tools and introducing angles, it ef fi ciently removes migrated fragments with the preservation of anatomy. Consequently, the stability of the spine is not harmed (2021ESJ248).","PeriodicalId":11610,"journal":{"name":"Egyptian Spine Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Egyptian Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.57055/2314-8969.1005","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

Background data: Since the initial idea by Kambin and Gellman in 1973 of percutaneous posterolateral lumbar disc decompression, the evolution of minimally invasive interventions in disc herniation has been widely growing. The advancements in optics and surgical instruments allowed surgeons to perform true minimally invasive procedures in a wide range of spine pathologies. In addition, transforaminal percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (TPELD) has been widely used in various degenerative spine pathologies, owing to the presence of high-speed drills, fl exible forceps, scissors, curettes, and probes to manage pathologies such as disc herniation or canal stenosis. Study design: A prospective clinical case study was performed. Purpose: The primary objective of this study was to assess the feasibility of migrated lumbar disc excision by TPELD, and the secondary objective was to report any technical dif fi culty or complications related to the technique. Patients and methods: Between January 2018 and January 2020, 20 patients who underwent TPELD for radiologically veri fi ed caudally migrated lumbar disc prolapse after the failure of conservative therapy were reported. Preoperative and postoperative clinical evaluations were performed for back pain and leg pain by the visual analog scale (VAS) score and for patients ’ disability by Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). The radiological evaluations preoperatively and post-operatively were done by lumbosacral MRI complemented by lumbosacral radiography anteroposterior and lateral views. The follow-up visits for the evaluation were immediately after surgery and 6 months and 1 year postoperatively. Results: A total of 20 cases were involved in this series from January 2018 to January 2020. Nine females and 11 males were included in the study. Postoperatively, the clinical assessment showed improvement in the VAS score of the back pain and leg pain as the mean VAS scores for back pain and leg pain immediately were 4.55 ± 1.70 and 2.4 ± 0.68, respectively. At the 6-month follow-up, the mean VAS scores for back pain, leg pain, and ODI were 2.15 ± 1.03, 1.35 ± 0.74, and 22.2 ± 6.59, respectively. Finally, after 12 months, the mean VAS scores for back pain, leg pain, and ODI were 1.25 ± 0.71, 0.8 ± 0.52, and 15.85 ± 9.22, respectively. Conclusion: Minimally invasive TPELD proves to be a valuable utility in managing migrated disc fragments in lumbar disc Prolapse (LDP). However, it is a technically demanding procedure, but with appropriate tools and introducing angles, it ef fi ciently removes migrated fragments with the preservation of anatomy. Consequently, the stability of the spine is not harmed (2021ESJ248).
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
经皮经皮内镜下腰椎间盘切除术(TPELD)治疗尾部混合性腰椎间盘突出症:病例系列和文献综述
背景资料:自从Kambin和Gellman在1973年提出经皮后外侧腰椎间盘减压的最初想法以来,微创干预椎间盘突出症的发展已经广泛。光学和外科器械的进步使外科医生能够在各种脊椎疾病中进行真正的微创手术。此外,由于存在高速钻头、灵活的钳子、剪刀、刮匙和探针来治疗椎间盘突出或椎管狭窄等疾病,经孔经皮内窥镜腰椎间盘切除术(TPELD)已被广泛用于各种退行性脊柱病变。研究设计:进行前瞻性临床病例研究。目的:本研究的主要目的是评估TPELD移位腰椎间盘切除术的可行性,次要目的是报告与该技术相关的任何技术难题或并发症。患者和方法:在2018年1月至2020年1月期间,报告了20名因保守治疗失败而接受TPELD治疗的患者。通过视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分对背痛和腿痛进行术前和术后临床评估,并通过奥斯韦斯特里残疾指数(ODI)对患者的残疾进行评估。术前和术后的放射学评估通过腰骶MRI进行,辅以腰骶放射学前后和侧视图。评估的随访时间为术后即刻以及术后6个月和1年。结果:2018年1月至2020年1月,该系列共涉及20例病例。研究中包括9名女性和11名男性。术后,临床评估显示背痛和腿部疼痛的VAS评分有所改善,因为背痛和腿部立即疼痛的平均VAS评分分别为4.55±1.70和2.4±0.68。在6个月的随访中,背痛、腿痛和ODI的平均VAS评分分别为2.15±1.03、1.35±0.74和22.2±6.59。最后,12个月后,背痛、腿痛和ODI的平均VAS评分分别为1.25±0.71、0.8±0.52和15.85±9.22。结论:微创TPELD是治疗腰椎间盘突出症(LDP)中椎间盘碎片移位的一种有价值的方法。然而,这是一个技术要求很高的程序,但通过适当的工具和引入角度,它可以有效地去除迁移的碎片,同时保留解剖结构。因此,脊柱的稳定性不会受到损害(2021ESJ248)。
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 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
3 weeks
期刊最新文献
Extremity Peripheral Nerve Injuries: Is There Any Role of Specialized Field Hospital in the Management of Low-Velocity Penetrating Peripheral Nerve Injuries? Short-Segment Posterior Fixation with Index Level Screws versus Long-Segment Posterior Fixation in Thoracolumbar Burst Fracture Awake Spine Surgery: Fad or Future? Pedicle Screw/Sublaminar Hook Fixation versus Pedicle Screw/Infraspinous Wire Fixation for Spondylolysis Repair: A Retrospective Comparative Study with MSCT Assessment Absence of the Musculocutaneous Nerve While Performing Nerve Transfer Surgery in a Patient with Brachial Plexus Injury, Rare Variant, and Review of Literature
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1