Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy and microsurgical laminotomy A prospective, randomized controlled trial of patients with lumbar disc herniation and lateral recess stenosis

• Published in: Der Orthopäde Vol. 48; no. 2; pp. 157 - 164
• Main Authors: Kong, Lei, Shang, Xi-Fu, Zhang, Wen-Zhi, Duan, Li-Qun, Yu, Yang, Ni, Wei-Jian, Huang, Yan
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Heidelberg Springer Medizin 01.02.2019
• Subjects: Chiropractic Medicine; Conservative Orthopedics; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Originalien; Orthopedics; Sports Medicine; Surgical Orthopedics; Traumatic Surgery; Visual analog scale; Postoperativer Blutverlust; Wurzelkanal; Lendenwirbel; Postoperative blood loss; Visuelle Analogskala; Erkrankungen der Bandscheiben; Lumbar vertebrae; Root canal; Intervertebral disc diseases
• ISSN: 0085-4530; 1433-0431
• DOI: 10.1007/s00132-018-3610-z

Background Sufficient decompression of the nerve root canal is still regarded as the method of choice when operating on patients with lumbar disc herniation (LDH) with lumbar lateral recess stenosis; however, tissue-sparing procedures are becoming more popular. Endoscopic techniques offer advantages and the benefits of rehabilitation, which have become the standard in many surgical operations when operating on the spine. A significant issue has been the upgrading of instruments to provide enough bone resection under continuous visual control. Material and methods We examined patients who had LDH with lateral recess stenosis and compared the results of nerve root canal decompression using percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) with a microsurgical laminotomy (ML) technique. In this study 40 patients with full endoscopic decompression or microsurgery were followed up for 2 years. In addition to general and specific parameters, the following two parameters were also used for the investigation: the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Results Except for 1 patient in whom repair was done by fusion and 1 who was lost to follow-up, 38 patients remained in the study over the 2 years. The mean operating time in the PELD group was longer ( p  < 0.05), but intraoperative and postoperative blood loss was less than in the ML group ( p  < 0.05). The postoperative results were better than before surgery, and the VAS and ODI parameters indicated a clear improvement in leg pain and daily activities in both groups ( p  > 0.05). Of the patients three suffered increasing back pain (2 ML, 1 PELD). Conclusion The results indicated that the PELD can provide an effective supplement and serve as an alternative for LDH with lateral recess stenosis compared with the ML technique when the indication criteria are fulfilled. The PELD also has the advantage of being a minimally invasive intervention.