Comparison of Percutaneous Transforaminal Endoscopic Discectomy and Microscope‐Assisted Tubular Discectomy for Lumbar Disc Herniation

ObjectiveThe aim of the present study was to compare the clinical outcomes and quality of life following percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) and microscope‐assisted tubular discectomy (MTD) for lumbar disc herniation (LDH).MethodsThis study had a retrospective design. From June 2017 to June 2018, the clinical data of 120 patients with LDH treated with PTED (60 cases, PTED group) and MTD (60 cases, MTD group) were analyzed and followed up for at least 20 months. There were 59 men and 61 women. Patients were aged between 22 and 80 years. The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, incision length, frequency of intraoperative fluoroscopy, cost, hospital stay, types of herniated discs, complications, and clinical outcomes were evaluated. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the visual analog scale (VAS), the Oswestry disability index (ODI), and the modified Macnab criteria. Short‐Form 36 (SF‐36) and the EQ‐5D‐5L were used to evaluate the quality of life of patients. The data between the two groups were compared by independent sample t‐tests. Multiple comparisons between samples were analyzed by analysis of variance.ResultsCompared with the MTD group, the PTED group had shorter incision length (9.20 ± 1.19 mm vs 26.38 ± 1.82 mm), less intraoperative blood loss (18.00 ± 4.97 mL vs 39.83 ± 6.51 mL), and shorter hospital stay (5.42 ± 5.08 days vs 10.58 ± 3.69 days) (P = 0.00). PTED was much more appropriate for foraminal and extraforaminal disc herniation. The incidence of paresthesia was lower in the PTED group (6.67% vs 16.67%). At each follow up, the VAS and ODI scores of all patients were significantly improved compared with those before surgery (P = 0.00). At 3 days postoperatively, the lumbar VAS score of the PTED group was significantly lower (1.58 ± 1.00 vs 2.37 ± 1.10, P = 0.00). The excellent rate of the PTED group reached 91.67%, and that of the MTD group reached 93.33%. Compared with the preoperative SF‐36 scores for physiological function, mental health, and social function, the postoperative scores were significantly improved in both groups (P = 0.00). The EQ‐5D‐5L in the PTED group increased from 0.30 ± 0.17 before the operation to 0.69 ± 0.13 after 6 months of follow up (P = 0.00) and 0.73 ± 0.14 after 20 months of follow up. The EQ‐5D‐5L in the MTD group increased from 0.28 ± 0.17 before the operation to 0.68 ± 0.13 after a 6‐month follow up (P = 0.00), and 0.73 ± 0.12 after a 20‐month follow up.ConclusionAlthough both PTED and MTD are effective for LDH, PTED is much more appropriate for various types of LDH and has the advantages of the low incidence of low back pain, fewer complications, and early recovery.     

A Comparison Between Retaining and Resecting the Posterior Longitudinal Ligament in Percutaneous Endoscopic Transforaminal Discectomy for Disc Herniation: A Retrospective Cohort Study

ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety of retaining the posterior longitudinal ligament (PLL) with resecting the PLL in inside‐out percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy (PETD) surgery for lumbar disc herniation (LDH).MethodA total of 135 patients with symptomatic LDH who were treated by inside‐out PETD surgery from January 2015 to January 2017were included in this retrospective analysis. There were 38 males and 30 females in the PLL resection group (mean age = 52.40 ± 8.73 years) and 35 males and 32 females in the PLL retention group (mean age = 53.50 ± 9.24 years). The visual analogue scale (VAS) score, Oswestry disability index (ODI), and modified MacNab criteria were used to evaluate clinical outcomes. Operation time, blood loss, recurrence of LDH, and complications were recorded. Three months after surgery, magnetic resonance imaging was performed to confirm that nerve root compression was relieved.ResultsThe VAS and ODI scores improved significantly immediately after surgery, at 1 month after surgery, at 3 months after surgery, and at last follow‐up compared with those before surgery (P < 0.01). The scores also improved significantly between immediately after surgery and 1 month after surgery in the two groups (P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis indicated that age ≥ 50 years (odds ratio (OR) = 6.33, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.64–21.98, P = 0.014), pain duration ≥6 months (OR = 4.68, 95% CI: 1.29–6.51, P = 0.025), pre‐ODI score ≥ 40% (OR = 5.97, 95% CI: 2.41–14.86, P = 0.003) were all associated with poor functional outcomes. There was no significant difference in the excellent/good ratio between the two groups and the mean operation time of the retention group was 71.5% of that of the resection group (82.7 ± 18.5 min vs 115.6 ± 24.6 min, P < 0.01). In the patients, no serious complications, such as dural tear, wound infection, or persistent nerve root injury, were observed during the follow‐up period. There was no significant difference in the complication rate between the two groups (6/68 vs 6/67, P = 0.979). Although the recurrence rate was higher in retention group, there was no significant difference between the two groups (1/68 vs 2/67, P = 0.551).ConclusionThe PLL is recommended to be retained for inside‐out PETD surgery.     

经皮椎间孔镜腰椎间盘摘除术与微创经椎间孔腰椎融合术治疗腰椎间盘突出症的前瞻性随机对照研究

目的比较经皮椎间孔镜腰椎间盘摘除术(percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy,PELD)与Quadrant通道辅助微创经椎间孔腰椎融合术(minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion,Mis-TLIF)治疗腰椎间盘突出症的临床效果。方法 2010年1月~2013年12月,选择经保守治疗无效的腰椎间盘突出症60例,按随机数字表中随机数的奇数和偶数分为2组,每组30例。2组年龄、性别、病变节段、临床诊断、影像学检查差异无统计学意义(P0.05),由同一组脊柱外科医师手术,分别行PELD(TESSYS椎间孔镜系统)和Quadrant通道辅助Mis-TLIF。随访12~24个月,平均16.2月,比较2组手术时间、术中出血量、住院时间、疼痛视觉模拟评分(VAS)、Oswestry功能障碍指数(ODI)、JOA评分、改良Mac Nab标准评定,以及并发症的种类和发生率。结果与Mis-TLIF组相比,PELD组的手术时间短[(72.0±18.7)min vs.(137.0±48.3)min,t=-6.857,P=0.000],术中出血少[(28.0±14.7)ml vs.(314.0±13.6)ml,t=-11.831,P=0.000],住院时间短[(4.0±1.0)d vs.(10.0±3.0)d,t=-9.298,P=0.000]。术后2周和术后3个月PELD组腰腿痛的VAS评分优于Mis-TLIF组(P0.05)。术后3、12个月PELD组ODI、JOA评分明显优于Mis-TLIF组(P0.05)。2组术后12个月Mac Nab评级无统计学差异(P0.05)。2组并发症发生率差异无显著性。结论 PELD和Quadrant通道辅助Mis-TLIF治疗腰椎间盘突出症均可取得满意的临床疗效,前者切口小,手术时间短,出血少。     

椎间孔镜技术治疗腰椎间盘突出症2年以上随访的疗效

目的探讨经皮椎间孔镜椎间盘切除术(percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy,PTED)治疗腰椎间盘突出症2年以上随访的疗效。方法2013年12月~2015年12月对80例腰椎间盘突出症行经皮穿刺椎间孔镜下腰椎间盘切除术并随访2年以上,比较患者术前后腰腿痛视觉模拟评分(Visual Analogue Scale,VAS)、Oswestry功能障碍指数(Oswestry Disability Index,ODI)、病变节段椎体活动域、病变节段椎间隙高度,采用改良MacNab标准评价疗效。结果80例随访24~35个月(平均28.5月),术前腰痛VAS评分中位数6(1~9)分,显著高于术后3个月3(1~5)分和末次随访时1(0~3)分(P<0.05);术前腿痛VAS评分中位数6(1~9)分,显著高于术后3个月2(0~6)分和末次随访时1(0~3)分(P<0.05);ODI术前(70.8±4.6)%,显著高于术后3个月(16.6±1.6)%和末次随访时(9.9±1.2)%(P均=0.000);病变节段椎体活动域(过伸位角度+过屈位角度),术前L 4~5节段椎体间角度活动域为9.62°±0.78°,显著低于术后3个月9.91°±0.72°(P=0.037),但与末次随访9.91°±0.61°无统计学差异(P=0.058);L 5~S 1节段椎体间角度活动域术前、术后3个月和末次随访分别为10.78°±1.27°、10.84°±1.43°和°,10.92°±0.97°,术前后比较差异无显著性(F=0.260,P=0.771);病变节段椎间隙高度术前(6.52±1.12)mm,与术后3个月(6.38±0.93)mm和末次随访(6.42±1.29)mm无统计学差异(F=0.329,P=0.720)。按改良MacNab标准,末次随访患者术后优良率95.0%(76/80)。结论经皮椎间孔镜治疗腰椎间盘突出症创伤小,恢复快,能明显缓解症状,中期临床疗效可靠。     

椎间孔镜微创治疗腰椎间盘突出症近期疗效观察

目的：应用经皮椎间孔镜技术微创治疗腰椎间盘突出症,观察其临床治疗效果。方法;应用经皮椎间孔镜治疗腰椎间盘突出症患者28例,康复策略采用早期功能锻炼与腰椎稳定的原则进行,手术效果按照视疼痛模拟评分（VAS）和改良MacNab标准进行评定。结果：所有患者均成功实施手术,术后随访时间3个月,腰腿痛VAS评分较术前明显改善;根据改良MacNab标准优良率89.3％。结论：经皮椎间孔镜技术是治疗腰椎间盘突出症安全、有效的微创治疗办法：采用有效的康复手段,可以最大限度的减少复发,取得最大的治疗效果。     

经皮内窥镜腰椎间盘切除术与开放腰椎间盘摘除术治疗的临床对比研究

目的比较经皮内窥镜腰椎间盘切除术(PELD)和开放腰椎间盘摘除术(OLD)的临床疗效。方法对100例腰椎间盘突出症根据手术方法不同,分为PELD组和OLD组。手术效果按照Oswestry功能障碍指数(ODI)、疼痛视觉类比评分(VAS)和改良的MacNab标准评定。结果PELD组平均随访24.3个月,单个节段平均手术时间60min,失血11ml,术后卧床24h。OLD组平均随访24.5个月,单个节段平均手术时间50min,失血30ml,术后卧床120h。两组采用改良MacNab标准评定随访结果,PELD组优良率为92%,OLD组96%。PELD组和OLD组术后ODI、VAS与术前比较,明显改善(P<0.05)。结论在严格选择手术适应证的情况下,PELD和OLD具有相似的近期临床疗效,但是PELD具有切口小、创伤小和术后恢复较快等优点。     

Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy Using a Double‐Cannula Guide Tube for Large Lumbar Disc Herniation

ObjectiveTo compare the effect of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) using a double‐cannula guide tube (DGT), traditional PELD, and open lumbar discectomy (OLD) to treat large lumbar disc herniations (LLDHs).MethodsSeventy patients who presented with LLDH without cauda equina syndrome and were treated with surgery in our hospital from October 2015 to October 2017 were included. The detailed index included the visual analog scale (VAS) for back and radicular leg pain and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) in the immediate preoperative period and at the final follow‐up. The operation time, radiation exposure time, surgical satisfaction rate, and modified MacNab criteria score were also recorded.ResultsThe leg and back pain of the patients in these groups improved significantly in the postoperative period. No significant differences were observed in leg pain improvement between the other two groups; however, patients in the PELD group (with or without DGT) presented with significantly higher improvement in back pain than the OLD group (t = 9.965, p < 0.001). The final ODI scores were 12.1 ± 4.9, 11.2 ± 2.9, and 16.4 ± 3.6 in the PELD, PELD‐DGT, and OLD groups, respectively. Patients in the PELD and PELD‐DGT groups presented with significantly lower postoperative ODI scores than those in the OLD group (t = 20.834, p < 0.001). The mean postoperative hospital stays were significantly shorter in the PELD group and PELD with DGT group than in the OLD group (t = 46.688, p < 0.001). The mean operation time was significantly shorter in the PELD‐DGT group than those in the PELD group (t = 25.281, p = 0.001). No perioperative complications were observed in either group. Based on the modified MacNab criteria, excellent and good outcomes were achieved in 20 out of 21 patients (95.2%) in the PELD group, 23 out of 24 patients (95.8%) in the PELD‐DGT group, and 22 out of 25 patients (88.0%) in the OLD group. The rates of excellent and good outcomes were higher in the PELD and PELD‐DGT groups than in the OLD group, but there were no significant differences (χ ² = 1.454, p = 0.835).ConclusionsPELD using DGT is a safe and effective option for LLDH and features advantages such as improvements in back pain, a lower hospitalization cost than OLD, a shorter operation time, and less fluoroscopy than traditional PELD.     

经皮椎间孔镜治疗不同年龄段腰椎间盘突出症的短期疗效对比

目的 分析比较经皮椎间孔镜间盘切除术(percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy,PELD)治疗不同年龄段腰椎间盘突出症(lumbar disc herniation,LDH)的短期疗效.方法 2018年1月至8月,前瞻性纳入需行PELD治疗的107例LDH病人,以年龄为依据分组...     

椎间孔镜下纤维环缝合术治疗青少年腰椎间盘突出症的临床疗效研究

目的 探讨经皮椎间孔镜技术（PTED）联合纤维环缝合术治疗青少年腰椎间盘突出症（ALDH）的临床疗效。方法 对2017年1月至2021年12月在湖北省中西医结合医院骨科行手术治疗的67例ALDH病人的临床资料进行回顾性分析,其中行PTED联合纤维环缝合术治疗的37例纳入观察组,同期行常规PTED的30例纳入对照组。比较两组术前、术后6个月和术后1年的腰腿痛视觉模拟量表（VAS）评分、Oswestry功能障碍指数（ODI）,以及胫神经、腓总神经的潜伏期与神经传导速度;比较两组术后1年的改良MacNab评分优良率与复发率。结果 病人随访（14.2±1.7）个月（12~24个月）。观察组术后6个月、术后1年的VAS评分、ODI指数均优于对照组;胫神经、腓总神经的潜伏期均低于对照组,神经传导速度均高于对照组;两组比较,差异均有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。观察组和对照组术后的复发率分别为5.41%、6.67%,术后1年手术优良率分别为94.59%、93.33%,两组比较,差异均无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。结论 PTED联合纤维环缝合术治疗ALDH病人可取得满意的手术效果,可有效降低医源性组织损伤,改善腰腿痛症状及腰椎功能,促进术后脊髓神经功能快速恢复。     

经椎间孔内镜下椎间盘摘除术初步体会

目的 评价经椎间孔内镜下椎间盘摘除术治疗椎间孔内或极外侧椎间盘突出症疗效.方法 选取2005年1月到2006年12月间32例连续接受经椎间孔内镜下椎间盘摘除术治疗患者,年龄18岁至46岁(平均28.3岁).通过临床量表和问卷的形式以VAS评分和Macnab标准比较手术前后腰腿痛的缓解程度.结果 所有患者均为单节段病损.其中5例为腰3-4、其余27例为腰4-5椎间盘突出.两例术后出现短暂小腿及足外侧感觉减退,另一例由于手术减压不完全,3d后行切开减压.平均随访20.8月(15～27月),平均VAS评分由术前的7.8降到术后的3.4.根据Macnab标准,优良率为93.7%.结论 经椎间孔内镜下椎间盘摘除术是治疗椎间孔内或极外侧椎间盘突出症的理想方法.     

日间手术模式下运用椎间孔镜精准靶向治疗L5/S1巨大型腰椎间盘突出症的治疗体会

目的在日间手术(day surgery,DS)运行模式下,采用经皮椎间孔镜技术进行精准靶向定位并摘除L₅/S₁脱出的巨大椎间盘,探讨其手术技巧以及临床疗效。方法回顾性分析2018年4月至2020年3月上海市第六人民医院和湖北省中医院运用经皮椎间孔镜技术治疗的121例L₅/S₁巨大椎间盘脱出病人的临床资料,其中男82例,女39例,年龄为16~65岁,平均41.2岁。记录术中透视次数、建立通道时间以及手术时间,统计术前、术后3、6、12个月及末次随访的疼痛视觉模拟量表(visual analogue scale,VAS)评分以及Oswestry功能障碍指数(Oswestry disability index,ODI)。采用改良MacNab评分评价优良率。结果病人术中X线透视次数为8~15次,平均为10次;自穿刺开始至通道建立所用的时间为5~10 min,平均7.3 min;放置椎间孔镜后至手术操作结束的时间为15~45 min,平均为26.4 min。VAS评分从术前的(8.42±1.33)分降至末次随访的(0.95±0.54)分,ODI指数从术前的(32.48±8.82)%降至末次随访的(8.43±0.97)%,差异均有统计学意义(P均<0.05)。末次随访时改良MacNab评分,优97例,良19例,可4例,差1例,优良率为95.87%。结论对于L₅/S₁的巨大椎间盘脱出病人,在DS模式管理下,采用局部麻醉下的精准靶向椎间孔镜技术治疗,获得了满意的临床疗效,值得在临床中进一步推广。     

调棒技术与常规穿刺在经皮椎间孔镜腰椎间盘切除术中的比较

目的探讨调棒技术在经皮椎间孔镜腰椎间盘切除术(percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy,PTED)中应用的安全性与有效性。方法回顾性分析2017年2月~2018年5月70例PTED资料,其中39例采用调棒技术穿刺置管(调棒组),31例采用常规穿刺置管(常规组),比较2组术中透视次数、通道建立时间、手术时间及术后住院时间。疗效评估采用疼痛视觉模拟评分(Visual Analogue Scale,VAS)及Oswestry功能障碍指数(Oswestry Disability Index,ODI),优良率评定采用改良MacNab标准。结果2组均顺利完成手术,随访12个月以上。与常规组比较,调棒组术中透视次数少[(15.2±4.0)次vs.(21.1±5.7)次,t=-5.006,P=0.000],通道建立时间短[(19.7±4.8)min vs.(31.2±7.9)min,t=-7.548,P=0.000],手术时间短[(51.2±9.9)min vs.(62.3±10.4)min,t=-4.592,P=0.000]。2组术后VAS、ODI均较术前明显改善(P<0.05)。2组术后住院时间、VAS、ODI及优良率差异无显著性(P>0.05)。结论与常规穿刺置管相比,调棒技术有效降低PTED的穿刺难度,减少射线暴露及手术时间。     

自制辅助穿刺装置联合三维可视化技术在内窥镜下经椎间孔腰椎间盘切除术中的应用

目的 探讨自制辅助穿刺装置联合三维可视化技术在经皮内窥镜下经椎间孔腰椎间盘切除术（PETD）治疗腰椎间盘突出症（LDH）中的应用效果。方法 2021年1月至2022年5月,安徽医科大学附属亳州医院脊柱外科94例LDH病人接受PETD治疗,采用随机数字表法选择通道建立方法。46例采用自制辅助穿刺装置联合三维可视化技术建立通道（研究组）,48例采用传统穿刺法建立通道（对照组）,两组通道建立后采用经皮椎间孔镜（TESSYS）技术完成椎间盘切除和神经根减压。分析两组透视次数、穿刺次数、穿刺时间、一次穿刺成功数、住院天数、手术时间及末次随访时改良MacNab标准评价结果。结果 所有病人都顺利完成手术和随访,无严重并发症发生。研究组和对照组的随访时间分别为（8.9±2.1）个月、（8.7±1.8）个月,两组差异无统计学意义（t=0.622,P=0.109）。研究组的穿刺时间少于对照组［（14.1±4.3） min vs. （19.1±3.7） min］,穿刺次数少于对照组［（3.8±2.1）次 vs. （7.9±2.6）次］,透视次数少于对照组［（8.3±3.3）次 vs. （15.1±4.2）次］,手术时间少于对照组［（79.0±8.5） min vs. （89.7±13.4） min］,一次穿刺成功数多于对照组（12例 vs. 4例）,组间比较,差异均有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。两组住院天数以及末次随访时的优良率比较,差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。结论 采用自制辅助穿刺装置联合三维可视化技术建立通道可以明显减少穿刺次数、透视次数、穿刺时间和手术时间,一次穿刺成功率较高,手术安全且疗效满意,这种新的通道建立方法是可行的。     

复元活血汤加减联合椎间孔镜治疗腰椎间盘突出症的临床疗效研究

目的:观察复元活血汤加减联合椎间孔镜治疗腰椎间盘突出症的临床疗效。方法:选取我院2017年6月—2020年12月收治的腰椎间盘突出症患者80例,按照随机数字表分为治疗组与对照组,每组40例。治疗组采用复元活血汤加减联合椎间孔镜手术治疗,对照组仅采用椎间孔镜手术治疗。记录并比较两组患者治疗前、术后1 d,术后2周、1个月、3个月的疼痛视觉模拟评分(VAS评分)、Oswestry功能指数(ODI评分)、JOA评分、足底红外热成像温差值。结果:术前、术后1 d、术后2周,两组患者腰腿疼痛VAS评分差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);术后1个月、术后3个月,治疗组腰腿疼痛VAS评分低于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);患者术前、术后1 d,两组ODI评分差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);术后2周、术后1个月、3个月,治疗组ODI评分低于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.00);术前、术后1 d,两组患者JOA评分差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);术后2周、术后1个月、3个月JOA评分,治疗组低于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);术前、术后1 d、术后2周,两组患者足底红外温差差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);术后1个月、3个月,两组足底红外温差有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:复元活血汤加减联合椎间孔镜治疗腰椎间盘突出症的临床效果较好,术后肢体疼痛、功能恢复快,且并发症少。     

腰椎间孔镜不良事件原因分析

目的分析腰椎间孔镜技术不良事件的原因。方法回顾性分析2015年3月~2018年3月椎间孔镜179例资料,16例共发生不良事件19例次(10.6%),其中Ⅱ级事件1例(神经根损伤),Ⅲ~Ⅳ级事件18例(硬膜囊撕裂3例,类脊髓高压综合征3例,椎间盘突出复发4例,术中减压不充分2例,导丝断裂1例,术后形成椎间盘囊肿1例,中转开放手术4例)。结果随访12~30个月,(15.2±1.2)月,除1例神经根损伤无恢复外,余均恢复。结论椎间孔镜治疗腰椎疾患初期有一定的不良事件发生率,良好清晰的镜下解剖结构、开放手术的经验、规范的培训以及术中及时的备选方案是防止不良事件发生、发挥椎间孔镜优势的关键。     

经皮切吸结合胶原酶溶核治疗腰椎间盘突出症（附186例报告）

作者采用经皮切吸结合胶原酶溶核方法治疗腰椎间盘突出症１８６例，远期随访优良率达９０３２％。作者认为上述二方法结合未增加手术难度及损伤却发扬了各自优点而克服了各自缺点，提高了远期疗效，扩大了手术适应证     

经皮腰椎间孔镜手术的穿刺定位策略

目的探讨经皮腰椎间孔镜手术穿刺定位的策略。方法 2009年12月～2011年6月对218例下腰椎疾病行经皮腰椎间孔镜手术240次,根据患者的病史、临床表现及X线片等影像学资料,确定腰椎疾病的不同类型,术前制定定位麻醉计划,结合术中C形臂X线机定位,决定穿刺点及穿刺方向。结果 228例次(228/240,95.0%)一次穿刺成功,12例次(12/240,5.0%)重新定位穿刺。麻醉穿刺时间5～18 min,平均9.8 min。5例发生脑脊液漏:2例硬膜囊内镜下明显破裂、神经根损伤,术后并发患肢麻木无力,经保守治疗逐渐好转;3例硬膜囊无明显破裂,未特殊处理。2例发生手术椎间隙感染。2例穿刺过程中出现腹痛,经调整穿刺方向后症状减轻消失。218例术后随访4～18个月,平均13.5月,其中88例随访超过1年,术前功能障碍指数(Oswestry disability index,ODI)56.5±21.1,术后末次随访25.4±9.1,85.2%(75/88)的患者有改善;术前视觉模拟评分(visual analog score,VAS)为(6.9±3.1)分,术后末次随访为(2.8±2.2)分,88.6%(78/88)的患者有改善。结论椎间盘突出偏后外侧尤其是椎间孔附近、包容性椎间盘突出拟行髓核射频消融或纤维环成形者,穿刺角度与中央型突出穿刺路径区别对待;侧位观穿刺要紧贴上关节突边缘,针尖对准椎间盘中央。腰椎间孔狭窄、侧隐窝狭窄病人,若主要为椎体后缘增生钙化,路径稍向前平移,若主要由椎小关节增生引起,穿刺线向后平移。     

Transforaminal Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy for Lumbosacral Junction Adolescent Lumbar Disc Herniation with High Iliac Crests

ObjectiveTo investigate the clinical results of transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy for lumbosacral junction adolescent lumbar disc herniation with high iliac crest.MethodsFrom February 2014 to September 2020, a retrospective analysis of 96 patients less than 21 years old with intervertebral disc herniation was carried out. We enrolled 44 patients diagnosed with lumbosacral junction disc herniation with high iliac crest who required transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy. Pain in the back and the lower extremity was scored on Numeric Rating Scales (NRS) scores. Patient outcomes were graded as excellent, good, fair, and poor using modified MacNab criteria. The NRS scores before and after the operation were compared using the Wilcoxon two‐sample test.ResultsThere were 30 male patients and 14 females. One patient underwent repeat surgery for an intervertebral disc pseudocyst. The NRS scores decreased significantly in both early and late follow‐up evaluations (p < 0.05). At the last follow‐up, 42 patients (95.45%) had an excellent outcome, one patient (2.27%) had a good outcome, and one patient (2.27%) had a fair outcome. The overall success rate was 97.7%.ConclusionThis study''s data suggest that targeted individualized foraminoplasty can effectively overcome the lumbosacral anatomical obstacles, and transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy is an effective and valid option for lumbosacral junction adolescent lumbar disc herniation with high iliac crest.     

Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy via Transforaminal Approach Combined with Interlaminar Approach for L4/5 and L5/S1 Two‐Level Disc Herniation

ObjectiveThe purpose of the present study was to discuss a new surgical strategy that combines percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy (PETD) with percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) for L4/5 and L5/S1 two‐level disc herniation.MethodsThis was a retrospective study. A total of 19 patients with L4/5 and L5/S1 two‐level lumbar disc herniation (LDH) who underwent percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) in our hospital from January 2015 to June 2016 were retrospectively examined. The average age of these 19 patients was 42.21 ± 14.88 years old, including 12 men and 7 women. One experienced surgeon who had carried out more than 3000 lumbar surgeries performed PELD for these patients. During the PELD surgery, the transforaminal approach was adopted for L4/5 level disc herniation and the interlaminar approach was adopted for L5/S1 level disc herniation. The demographic data, operation time (min), fluoroscopy times, hospital stay (days), and complications were recorded and analyzed. The visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores, and the modified MacNab criteria were used to evaluate the surgical outcomes. MRI was conducted to evaluate the radiographic improvement.ResultsAll patients underwent PELD via the transforaminal approach combined with the interlaminar approach successfully and achieved satisfactory efficacy. The follow‐up points were 3, 12, and 18 months. The average hospital stay (days) and the average follow up (months) were 3.32 ± 0.98 and 18.63 ± 3.84, respectively. The operation time and fluoroscopy times were 85.79 ± 12.90 min and 39.05 ± 4.59 times, respectively. The fluoroscopy times (frequency) for L4/5 and L5/S1 were 26.95 ± 6.41 and 12.11 ± 3.49 (t = 7.00, P < 0.05). Furthermore, there was no significant difference for fluoroscopy times between male and female patients (t = 0.89, P = 0.99). The preoperative back pain (VAS‐Back) and the last follow‐up VAS‐Back were 5.58 ± 2.01 and 2.37 ± 1.01, respectively (t = 7.14, P < 0.05). The preoperative leg pain (VAS‐Leg) and the last follow‐up VAS‐Leg were 7.00 ± 1.56 and 1.63 ± 1.01, respectively (t = 20.97, P < 0.05). There were significant differences between preoperative VAS‐Back and the last follow‐up VAS‐Back in men (t = 4.61, P < 0.05) and women (t = 6.57, P < 0.05). In addition, there was significant differences between preoperative VAS‐Leg and the last follow‐up VAS‐Leg in men (t = 13.48, P < 0.05) and women (t = 26.87, P < 0.05). There were significant differences between preoperative ODI scores (44.84 ± 10.82%) and the last follow‐up ODI scores (11.12 ± 5.80%) (t = 10.92, P < 0.05). Preoperative ODI scores and the last follow‐up ODI scores were significantly different for men (t = 8.80, P < 0.05) and women (t = 6.63, P < 0.05). All patients received significant pain relief and functional improvement after the surgery. Except for two cases of postoperative dysesthesia and one dural tear, no severe complications occurred. The dysesthesia symptoms of these two patients disappeared within 1 week with the application of dexamethasone and neurotrophic drugs and the dural tear case also recovered well as the dural laceration was small. No poor results were reported and 89.47% of patients achieved excellent or good recovery.ConclusionPercutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy via the transforaminal approach combined with the interlaminar approach under epidural anesthesia can treat L4/5 and L5/S1 two‐level disc herniation safely and effectively.