Modified microendoscopy discectomy and conventional microendoscopy discectomy for treatment of lumbar disc herniation: a comparative study
10.3760/cma.j.issn.1001-8050.2010.12.018
- VernacularTitle:改良后路内窥镜椎间盘摘除术与传统后路内窥镜椎间盘摘除术治疗腰椎间盘突出症的对照研究
- Author:
Jun ZHANG
;
Sen CHEN
;
Juan SU
;
Qingyi HE
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Endoscopes;
Intervertebral disc displacement;
Diskectomy;
Case-control studies
- From:
Chinese Journal of Trauma
2010;26(12):1113-1117
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To explore the outcome, recurrence rate and postoperative MRI of the modified microendoscopy discectomy (MED) and the conventional MED. Method A total of 107 patients with disc herniation treated from January 2005 to December 2009 were randomly divided into Group A (54 patients) and Group B (53 patients). The patients in Group A were treated with the modified MED that removed the prominent nucleus pulposus but did not access into the annulus. The patients in Group B were treated with traditional MED that removed the prominent nucleus pulposus and cut annulus fibrosus and removed the nucleus pulposus within the annulus fibrosus. The operation outcome, recurrence rate and lumbar spine MRI were compared for observing the morphological changes of intervertebral disc and its surrounding structures. Results All patients were followed up for 1-4 years ( average 2 years),which showed no recurrence in Group A but four patients with recurrence Group B. According to Japanese orthopedic association (JOA) scoring of low back pain, the efficacy was excellent in 51 patients (94%)and good in three (6%), with excellence rate of 100% in Group A; while the efficacy was excellent in 42 patients (79%), good in seven (13%) and poor in four (8%), with excellence rate of 92% in Group B. Videman semi-quantitative assessment of disc signal showed no significant difference of MRI in aspects of signal intensity, thickness, diameter of the spinal canal in Group A before and after operation but highlighted significant differences in protruding degree,spinal canal diameter and lateral recess diameter. Substantial differences of MRI in aspects of signal intensity, thickness, protruding degree, spinal canal diameter and width were observed before and after operation in Group B. There was no significant difference in spinal canal diameter. Conclusions Both methods have sound clinical efficacy. However, the modified MED procedures take advantages of minimizing the damage of disc structure, maintaining the relative stability of the spine and delaying the disc degeneration, which contributes to lower recurrence rate.
