Efficacy of percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy for lumbar disc prolapse
10.3760/cma.j.cn341190-20221213-01034
- VernacularTitle:经皮内镜下椎板间入路手术治疗脱垂型腰椎间盘突出症疗效分析
- Author:
Xinjian FENG
1
;
Shenghui YI
;
Dianmei XI
;
Qianru LI
Author Information
1. 泸州市人民医院神经脊柱外科，泸州 646000
- Keywords:
Intervertebral disc displacement;
Lumbar vertebrae;
Diskectomy;
Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy via inter-laminar approach;
Pain measurement;
Pos
- From:
Chinese Journal of Primary Medicine and Pharmacy
2023;30(12):1773-1777
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To investigate the clinical efficacy of percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy for lumbar disc prolapse.Methods:The clinical data of 60 patients with lumbar disc prolapse who underwent surgery at Luzhou People's Hospital between March 2019 and September 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. These patients were divided into an open lumbar discectomy (OLM) group ( n = 29, receiving treatment through a posterior approach) and a percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) group ( n = 37). Perioperative conditions were compared between the two groups. The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index scores of the leg were recorded before surgery and 1 week, 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery. At the final follow-up, clinical efficacy was assessed using the modified MacNab criteria. Results:The surgical time, blood loss, and length of hospital stay were (96.55 ± 15.18) minutes, 120.0 (100.0, 180.0) mL, and 10.0 (9.5, 12.0) days in the OLM group, while these values were (77.30 ± 11.03) minutes, 20.0 (15.0, 22.5) mL, and 6.0 (5.0, 7.0) days in the PEID group, respectively. Significant differences were observed in these indexes between the two groups ( t = 5.97, Z = -7.00, -6.68, all P < 0.001). At 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after surgery, there was no significant difference in VAS score between the two groups (all P > 0.05). At 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months after surgery, the Oswestry Disability Index score in the PEID group was 12.0 (10.0, 24.0) points, 6.0 (9.0, 13.0) points, and 2.0 (4.0, 8.0) points, respectively, which were significantly lower than 24.0 (16.0, 31.0) points, 16.0 (10.0, 21.0) points, and 8.0 (8.0, 12.0) points in the OLM group, respectively ( Z = -3.64, -3.79, -3.26, all P < 0.05). According to the modified MacNab criteria for final follow-up assessment, the excellent and good rate was 86.21% (25/29) in the OLM group and 89.19% (33/37) in the PEID group; there was no significant difference in excellent and good rate between the two groups ( P > 0.05). Conclusion:The clinical efficacy of PEID in the treatment of lumbar disc prolapse is satisfactory.
