-
Global Spine Journal Jun 2022Systematic review.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review.
OBJECTIVE
The authors aimed to systematically compare the effectiveness and safety of endoscopic discectomy (ED) with non-endoscopic discectomy (NED) for treatment of symptomatic lumbar disc herniation (LDH).
METHODS
A systematic search was performed on PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and China National Knowledge Infrastructure for randomized controlled trial from inception until August 13, 2020. Trials which investigated multiple operative approaches on lumbar disc herniation were identified without language restrictions.
RESULTS
In total, 25 trials involving 2258 patients with symptomatic LDH were included. Twenty trials performed the comparison between ED and NED. Five trials performed the comparison between percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy (PETD) and percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID). The operative time of micro-endoscopic discectomy (MED) was longer than open discectomy (OD). The length of hospital stay of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) was shorter than fenestration discectomy (FD). Significant differences in intraoperative blood loss volumes were found between PELD with FD and MED with OD. The complication rate of PELD was lower than FD (PELD: 4.3%; FD: 14.6%) and the complication rate of full-endoscopic discectomy (FE) was lower than microscopic discectomy (MD) (FE: 13.4%; MD: 32.1%).
CONCLUSIONS
PELD and FE have the advantage of limiting intraoperative damages. ED and NED can be both considered sufficient to achieve good clinical outcomes. PETD and PEID are able to achieve similar results but the learning curve of PETD was steeper. More independent high-quality RCTs with sufficiently large sample sizes performing cost-effectiveness analyzes are needed.
PubMed: 34402320
DOI: 10.1177/21925682211020696 -
World Neurosurgery Nov 2020Transforaminal percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (TPELD) has become an alternative and minimally invasive surgical technique for soft lumbar disc herniation....
BACKGROUND
Transforaminal percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (TPELD) has become an alternative and minimally invasive surgical technique for soft lumbar disc herniation. However, the learning curve has been relatively long and difficult. In the present study, we have summarized the characteristics of the learning curve of TPELD, including the number of cases required to achieve technical proficiency, and discussed the strategies to improve the learning curve.
METHODS
The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed databases were searched for reports describing the learning curve for TPELD. Clinical studies involving human patients and evaluating the learning curve of TPELD with quantitative data were included. A strict quality assessment was completed, and descriptive statistics were calculated.
RESULTS
Of the 6884 screened titles and abstracts, 10 full-text reports, including 958 cases, were included in the analysis. All were cohort studies, which were grouped into early and late groups according to surgeon experience with TPELD. The most commonly used cutoff to differentiate between these groups was 20 (mean, 24.70 ± 18.99 cases; range, 10-72 cases). The most widely used measure was the operative time. Although most studies had reported better results in the operative time or pain scores in the late group, only 1 study had proposed a bona fide learning curve.
CONCLUSIONS
We found insufficient evidence to support a cutoff point of 20 or other numbers of cases for determining when the learning curve has reached a plateau. Therefore, these numbers should be interpreted with great care, and high-quality prospective studies evaluating the actual learning curve are required.
Topics: Clinical Competence; Diskectomy, Percutaneous; Humans; Learning Curve
PubMed: 32795687
DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2020.08.044 -
Applied Bionics and Biomechanics 2022Spinal surgery is gradually moving toward minimally invasive surgery, but there is still some lack of knowledge about the Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic (UBE) technique...
Short-Term Postoperative Pain and Function of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Discectomy versus Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy for Single-Segment Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
Spinal surgery is gradually moving toward minimally invasive surgery, but there is still some lack of knowledge about the Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic (UBE) technique that has been hotly debated in recent years. We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to clarify whether UBE is superior to percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) for relieving short-term postoperative pain and promoting functional recovery.
METHODS
Computer searches of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, and Wanfang databases were performed to search for studies on UBE versus PELD for single-segment lumbar disc herniation (ssLDH) from the time of database construction to Mar. 2022, and two investigators independently performed literature screening and data extraction, and evaluation of the quality of the included studies was observed as operation time, complications, and visual analogue scale (VAS) at each preoperative and postoperative stage as well as Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and meta-analysis was performed by applying the Review Manager 5.4 software.
RESULTS
Meta-analysis showed that PELD had shorter operation time (MD = 35.36, 95% CI (4.67, 66.04), = 0.02) and had lower VAS of back pain at 3 days postoperatively (MD = 0.62, 95% CI (0.04, 1.19), = 0.04) compared to the UBE. However, there was no statistical significance between the two groups in terms of complications (MD = 2.53, 95% CI (0.40, 16.11), = 0.33), VAS of back pain at 30 days postoperatively (MD = 0.05, 95% CI (-0.19, 0.28), = 0.70), VAS of leg pain at 3 days postoperatively (MD = 0.21, 95% CI (-0.20, 0.61), = 0.33), VAS of leg pain at 30 days postoperatively (MD = 0.09, 95% CI (-0.29, 0.46), = 0.65), and ODI at 30 days postoperatively (MD = -0.81, 95% CI (-3.03, 1.41), = 0.47).
CONCLUSIONS
Current evidence suggests that both UBE and PELD are effective in relieving short-term postoperative pain and promoting functional recovery, and there is no difference in complications between them; UBE requires longer operation time, and PELD may be superior in relieving immediate postoperative pain. This trial is registered with PROSPERO ID: CRD42021287810.
PubMed: 35465181
DOI: 10.1155/2022/5360277 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Nov 2022Due to recent developments and the wide application of percutaneous transforaminal discectomy (PTED), we herein compare it with microendoscopic discectomy (MED) and... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Due to recent developments and the wide application of percutaneous transforaminal discectomy (PTED), we herein compare it with microendoscopic discectomy (MED) and traditional open surgery (OD) through surgical indicators and postoperative outcomes to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of minimally invasive surgery PTED.
METHODS
This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in line with PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO2018: CRD42018094890). We searched four English and two Chinese databases from the date of their establishment to May 2022. Randomized controlled trials and case-control studies of PTED versus MED or PTED versus OD in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation were retrieved.
RESULTS
A total of 33 studies with 6467 cases were included. When comparing MED with PTED, the latter had less intraoperative blood loss, smaller incision, shorter postoperative bed times, shorter hospitalization times, better postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) for low back pain, and postoperative dysfunction index (Oswestry Disability Index, ODI) and higher recurrence rates and revision rates. However, operation times, postoperative VAS leg scores and complications, and successful operation rates were similar in both groups. Comparison of PTED with OD revealed in the former less intraoperative blood loss and smaller incision, shorter postoperative bed times, shorter hospitalization times, shorter operation times, and higher recurrence rates and revision rates. Nonetheless, comprehensive postoperative VAS scores, VAS leg pain scores, VAS low back pain, ODI and incidence of complications, and successful operation rates were similar between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS
The therapeutic effect and safety of PTED, MED and OD in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation were comparable. PTED had obvious advantages in that it is minimally invasive, with rapid recovery after surgery, but its recurrence rates and revision rates were higher than MED and OD. Therefore, it is not possible to blindly consider replacing MED and OD with PTED.
PubMed: 36431083
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11226604 -
Journal of Healthcare Engineering 2022Systematic analysis of the incidence of percutaneous spinal endoscopic technique and traditional open surgery for lumbar disc herniation. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Systematic analysis of the incidence of percutaneous spinal endoscopic technique and traditional open surgery for lumbar disc herniation.
METHODS
A randomized controlled trial (RCT) and cohort study on complications related to traditional open surgery was searched on the MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, Chinese journal full-text database (CNKI), Wanfang, and Embase database. Language is not limited. The quality of each study was evaluated, various complications were compiled into electronic baseline tables, and the data from these studies were available. Meta-analysis and synthesis were performed with the RevMan 5.3 software to evaluate the statistical significance of both surgical techniques in terms of various complications.
RESULTS
12 studies were eventually included, and a total of 2,797 patients were included in the analysis. Meta-analysis results showed that there was no statistical difference in postoperative paresthesia between percutaneous spinal endoscopy and traditional open surgery (OR = 1.17, 95% CI (0.82, 1.66), = 0.38, = 0%, = 0.88), direct nerve root damage (OR = 0.79, 95% CI (0.58, 1.07), = 0.13, = 73%, = 1.52), and intraoperative hemorrhage and hematoma formation (OR = 1.00, 95% CI (0.67, 1.48), = 0.99, = 0%, = 0.02), but there was a statistical difference in disc recurrence (OR = 2.24, 95% CI (1.56, 3.21), < 0.0001, = 81%, = 4.39).
CONCLUSION
Compared with the traditional open surgical treatment of lumbar disc herniation, percutaneous spinal endoscopic technology has obvious advantages in reducing nerve root injury, dural injury, and surgical area wound complications, but it is limited to preventing the technical characteristics of the surgical site, which is worse than that of open surgery.
Topics: Diskectomy, Percutaneous; Endoscopy; Humans; Intervertebral Disc Displacement; Lumbar Vertebrae; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35340255
DOI: 10.1155/2022/6033989 -
Pain Physician Jan 2024Calcified lumbar disc herniation (CLDH) is a subtype characterized by calcification, leading to increased surgical complexity. Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Calcified lumbar disc herniation (CLDH) is a subtype characterized by calcification, leading to increased surgical complexity. Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) is a minimally invasive technique, but its effectiveness and complications in CLDH patients remain to be fully evaluated.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the effectiveness and complications of PELD in treating CLDH patients.
STUDY DESIGN
A retrospective cohort study combined with a systematic review and meta-analysis.
SETTING
Department of Pain Medicine, an affiliated hospital of a university.
METHODS
Data from patients who underwent PELD in our department between March 2020 and May 2021 were collected. Forty CLDH patients were included in the study group, and equally matched cases with uncalcified lumbar disc herniation (UCLDH) served as controls. A systematic search was conducted on October 5, 2022, using EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, the China Biology Medicine disk, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and the Wanfang databases, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A random-effects model was used to calculate pooled results.
RESULTS
Eighty patients were included in the retrospective cohort, and 41 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Both the retrospective cohort and meta-analysis consistently showed a significant decrease in visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores in the CLDH group after the operation. In the retrospective cohort, the excellent or good rate according to the MacNab classification was 85%, with no reported complications. The meta-analysis revealed a pooled excellent or good rate of 91.8% and a low complication rate of 2.9%. Combining the findings from our retrospective cohort and meta-analysis, we observed that the CLDH group had longer operation times and slightly higher postoperative ODI scores compared to the UCLDH group.
LIMITATIONS
Small sample size and lack of long-term follow-up in the retrospective cohort, as well as limited inclusion of comparative studies in the meta-analysis.
CONCLUSION
PELD is an effective and safe treatment option for CLDH patients. In comparison to UCLDH patients, CLDH patients may experience longer operation times and slightly slower functional recovery than those with UCLDH.
Topics: Humans; Diskectomy, Percutaneous; Intervertebral Disc Displacement; Lumbar Vertebrae; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 38285024
DOI: No ID Found -
World Neurosurgery Dec 2022Unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) spine surgery for spinal diseases has been increasing in popularity because of its favorable outcomes. The goal of this systemic...
Comparison of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Discectomy with Other Surgical Technics: A Systemic Review of Indications and Outcomes of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Discectomy from the Current Literature.
OBJECTIVE
Unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) spine surgery for spinal diseases has been increasing in popularity because of its favorable outcomes. The goal of this systemic review is to analyze the status of outcomes and complications in lumbar disc herniation during UBE discectomy.
METHODS
A comprehensive search of the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and OVID databases published until June 30, 2021, was performed. The outcomes of interest were indications, operative time, blood loss, hospital stay, complications, visual analog scale score, and Oswestry Disability Index.
RESULTS
Seven studies were included in our research. UBE surgery for lumbar stenosis was excluded. A total of 230 patients with lumbar disc herniation were enrolled in the 7 selected studies. The mean operative time was 74.4 minutes, and the mean length of hospital stay was 4.5 days. Mean incidence of complications reported in the 7 articles was 6.2%. UBE showed shorter hospital stays than did microdiscectomy, no significant differences of Oswestry Disability Index or visual analog scale scores, and good recovery rate among other discectomy techniques (microdiscectomy, full endoscopic transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy, and interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy) at 1 month follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS
Even with the small number of studies and reports analyzed, biases were the main limitation of this analysis; overall, the clinical outcomes and complication rates associated with UBE discectomy were relatively good. It is clear that UBE discectomy is a good treatment choice for lumbar disc herniation, but to prevent unique UBE surgery complications, a clear understanding of the surgical procedures and careful efforts to overcome the learning curve are necessary.
Topics: Humans; Diskectomy; Diskectomy, Percutaneous; Endoscopy; Intervertebral Disc Displacement; Lumbar Vertebrae; Lumbosacral Region; Retrospective Studies; Spinal Diseases; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36527214
DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2022.06.153 -
World Neurosurgery Jun 2020The transcorporeal tunnel approach is a relatively new alternative of anterior cervical decompression and fusion for the treatment of cervical radiculopathy and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
The transcorporeal tunnel approach is a relatively new alternative of anterior cervical decompression and fusion for the treatment of cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy, with its main presumed advantage being the preservation of the intervertebral space. The aim of the present article is to present the outcomes of the systematic review and meta-analysis regarding the short-term outcomes of this surgical technique.
METHODS
A systematic review and a meta-analysis using the random-effects method of the available studies were performed to assess the safety and efficiency of the transcorporeal tunnel approach for cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy.
RESULTS
In total, 15 eligible studies were identified, with a cumulative number of 254 patients. Pooled data yielded a complication rate of 0.053 and a failure rate of the technique of 0.081; a patient-reported favorable outcome of 0.94 was documented. The available data did not allow for a definite conclusion on the effects of the technique on the intervertebral space height.
CONCLUSIONS
Although technically challenging, like all minimally invasive methods, the transcorporeal tunnel approach seems to be a safe and efficient option for the treatment of cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy, presenting comparable outcome profiles to alternative open or less invasive techniques.
Topics: Cervical Vertebrae; Decompression, Surgical; Diskectomy, Percutaneous; Humans; Intervertebral Disc Degeneration; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Radiculopathy; Spinal Cord Diseases; Spinal Fusion
PubMed: 32217171
DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2020.03.082 -
European Spine Journal : Official... Jul 2020This meta-analysis aims to compare the complication rates of discectomy/microdiscectomy (OD/MD), microendoscopic discectomy (MED), percutaneous endoscopic lumbar... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
This meta-analysis aims to compare the complication rates of discectomy/microdiscectomy (OD/MD), microendoscopic discectomy (MED), percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD), percutaneous laser disc decompression (PLDD), and tubular discectomy for symptomatic lumbar disc herniation (LDH) using general classification and modified Clavien-Dindo classification (MCDC) schemes.
METHODS
We searched three online databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies. Overall complication rates and complication rates per the above-mentioned classification schemes were considered as primary outcomes. Risk ratio (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were evaluated.
RESULTS
Seventeen RCTs and 20 cohort studies met the eligibility criteria. RCTs reporting OD/MD, MED, PELD, PLDD, and tubular discectomies had overall complication rates of 16.8% and 16.1%, 21.2%, 5.8%, 8.4%, and 25.8%, respectively. Compared with the OD/MD, there was moderate-quality evidence suggesting that PELD had a lower risk of overall complications (RR = 0.52, 95% CI 0.29-0.91) and high-quality evidence suggesting a lower risk of Type I complications per MCDC (RR = 0.37, 95% CI 0.16-0.81). Compared with the OD/MD data from cohort studies, there was low-quality evidence suggesting a higher risk of Type III complications per MCDC (RR = 10.83, 95% CI 1.29-91.18) for MED, higher risk of reherniations (RR = 1.67,95% CI 1.05-2.64) and reoperations (RR = 1.75, 95% CI 1.20-2.55) for PELD, lower risk of overall complication rates (RR = 0.42, 95% CI 0.25-0.70), post-operative complication rates (RR = 0.42, 95% CI 0.25-0.70), Type III complications per MCDC (RR = 0.39, 95% CI 0.22-0.69), reherniations (RR = 0.56, 95% CI 0.33-0.97) and reoperations (RR = 0.39, 95% CI 0.22-0.69) for PLDD.
CONCLUSIONS
Compared with the OD/MD, results of this meta-analysis suggest that PELD has a lower risk of overall complications and a lower risk of complications necessitating conservative treatment. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
Topics: Diskectomy; Diskectomy, Percutaneous; Endoscopy; Humans; Intervertebral Disc Displacement; Lumbar Vertebrae; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32274586
DOI: 10.1007/s00586-020-06389-5 -
Medicine Jan 2020To compare the effectiveness and safety of epidural anesthesia (EA) with those of local anesthesia (LA) for percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) and... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Comparison of effectiveness and safety between epidural anesthesia vs local anesthesia for percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effectiveness and safety of epidural anesthesia (EA) with those of local anesthesia (LA) for percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) and provide reference data for clinical decision-making.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane library, Web of Science, Medline, ScienceDirect, and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure from inception to June 2019 in order to identify randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials comparing EA and LA for PTED. Studies assessing at least 2 of the following indicators were eligible: surgical duration, X-ray exposure time, satisfaction rate, visual analog scale (VAS) scores for pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and complications. Two assessors evaluated the quality of the literature using the Cochrane Handbook or Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.3.3 software.
RESULTS
Four randomized controlled trials and 4 retrospective cohort studies involving a total of 1000 patients were included. The LA and EA groups included 473 and 527 patients, respectively. Meta-analysis revealed significant intergroup differences in the intraoperative (P < .00001) and postoperative (P < .00001) lumbar VAS scores, intraoperative (P < .00001) and postoperative (P = .001) leg VAS scores, and anesthesia satisfaction rate (P < .00001), with EA being superior to LA in all aspects. There were no significant intergroup differences in the surgical duration, X-ray exposure time, postoperative ODI, and complication rate.
CONCLUSION
EA is as safe as LA and produces better anesthetic effects than does LA in patients undergoing PTED. Therefore, it should be promoted as a reliable anesthetic technique for PTED.
Topics: Anesthesia, Epidural; Anesthesia, Local; Diskectomy, Percutaneous; Humans
PubMed: 31895822
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000018629