Full-Endoscopic Interlaminar Versus Microsurgical Operations in Lumbar Compressive Lesions Surgery: Prospective Randomized Trial of Overall 570 Patients

M. Marković, N. Živković, S. Ruetten, S. Ozdemir, D. Goethel
{"title":"Full-Endoscopic Interlaminar Versus Microsurgical Operations in Lumbar Compressive Lesions Surgery: Prospective Randomized Trial of Overall 570 Patients","authors":"M. Marković, N. Živković, S. Ruetten, S. Ozdemir, D. Goethel","doi":"10.4172/2167-0846.1000304","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Full-endoscopic operations of lumbar spine are truly minimally invasive surgical procedures and they have become the standard because of their intraoperative and postoperative advantages.Aim: To compare clinical outcomes of full-endoscopic interlaminar technique to conventional microdiscectomy performed during 3 year period.Materials and Methods: A series of 350 patients underwent full-endoscopic interlaminar lumbar discectomy, comparing 220 patients with microdiscectomy and spinal canal decompression, during a 3-year period, is analysed. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analogue scores (VAS) of back and leg pain were measured preoperatively and at 1, 6, 12, 24 months.Results: All outcome measures improved significantly in both groups (p<0.001). In the full-endoscopic group 88% of the patients no longer had leg pain, and 7% had only occasional pain, postoperatively. In the microdiscectomy (MI) group 78.1% had significant improvement, 13.6% had improvement with occasional pain, and 8% had no improvement. The recurrence rate was 8%. Resection of the herniated disc and sufficient decompression was technically possible in all cases. The overall complication rate (16.4%), and recurrence-reoperation rate (11.8%) was significantly higher in the MI group.Conclusion: The clinical results of the full-endoscopic technique are at least equal to those of the conventional microsurgical discectomy with advantages such as reduced traumatization, improved patient mobility, and lower complication and recurrence rate. With the possibility of selecting the most adequate approach, lumbar disc herniations inside and outside the spinal canal, can be sufficiently removed using the full-endoscopic technique, when taking the appropriate indication criteria into account.","PeriodicalId":16641,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pain and Relief","volume":"8 1","pages":"1-7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pain and Relief","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4172/2167-0846.1000304","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Introduction: Full-endoscopic operations of lumbar spine are truly minimally invasive surgical procedures and they have become the standard because of their intraoperative and postoperative advantages.Aim: To compare clinical outcomes of full-endoscopic interlaminar technique to conventional microdiscectomy performed during 3 year period.Materials and Methods: A series of 350 patients underwent full-endoscopic interlaminar lumbar discectomy, comparing 220 patients with microdiscectomy and spinal canal decompression, during a 3-year period, is analysed. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analogue scores (VAS) of back and leg pain were measured preoperatively and at 1, 6, 12, 24 months.Results: All outcome measures improved significantly in both groups (p<0.001). In the full-endoscopic group 88% of the patients no longer had leg pain, and 7% had only occasional pain, postoperatively. In the microdiscectomy (MI) group 78.1% had significant improvement, 13.6% had improvement with occasional pain, and 8% had no improvement. The recurrence rate was 8%. Resection of the herniated disc and sufficient decompression was technically possible in all cases. The overall complication rate (16.4%), and recurrence-reoperation rate (11.8%) was significantly higher in the MI group.Conclusion: The clinical results of the full-endoscopic technique are at least equal to those of the conventional microsurgical discectomy with advantages such as reduced traumatization, improved patient mobility, and lower complication and recurrence rate. With the possibility of selecting the most adequate approach, lumbar disc herniations inside and outside the spinal canal, can be sufficiently removed using the full-endoscopic technique, when taking the appropriate indication criteria into account.
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
腰椎压缩性病变的全内窥镜椎间手术与显微外科手术:570例患者的前瞻性随机试验
腰椎全内镜手术是真正意义上的微创手术,因其术中及术后的优势,已成为标准手术。目的:比较全内窥镜椎板间技术与常规显微椎间盘切除术3年的临床效果。材料与方法:对350例全内窥镜下椎板间腰椎间盘切除术患者,以及220例采用显微椎间盘切除术和椎管减压术的患者的3年时间进行分析。术前、术后1、6、12、24个月分别测量Oswestry残疾指数(ODI)和视觉模拟评分(VAS)。结果:两组的所有结局指标均有显著改善(p<0.001)。在全内窥镜组中,88%的患者不再有腿部疼痛,7%的患者术后只有偶尔的疼痛。在微椎间盘切除术(MI)组中,78.1%有明显改善,13.6%有改善,偶有疼痛,8%无改善。复发率为8%。手术切除椎间盘突出并充分减压在技术上是可行的。心肌梗死组总并发症发生率(16.4%)和再手术发生率(11.8%)明显高于心肌梗死组。结论:全内镜技术的临床效果至少与传统显微外科椎间盘切除术相当,具有创伤小、患者活动能力强、并发症和复发率低等优点。考虑到适当的适应症标准,在选择最合适的入路的可能性下,可以使用全内窥镜技术充分切除椎管内外的腰椎间盘突出症。
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
期刊最新文献
Support of Acute Pain Therapy by Analgesia Nociception Index in Post Anesthesia Care Unit: A Randomized Controlled Trial Neurogenic information in autoimmune diseases and chronic pain syndromes Predictive Validity of Lumbar X-ray Images and MRIs for Chronic Low Back Pain Subtypes Adipose-derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells Improve Spontaneous Pain in a Rat Model of Neuropathic Pain Effectiveness and Safety of Oral Dexketoprofen for Mild to Moderate Pain among Filipino Adults: A Post-marketing Surveillance Study
×
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