Comparison of the Interlaminar and Transforaminal Approaches for Full-endoscopic Discectomy for the Treatment of L4/5 Lumbar Disc Herniation.
full-endoscopic discectomy
interlaminar approach
lumbar disc herniation
minimally invasive
transforaminal approach
Journal
Neurologia medico-chirurgica
ISSN: 1349-8029
Titre abrégé: Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo)
Pays: Japan
ID NLM: 0400775
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 Jul 2023
15 Jul 2023
Historique:
medline:
19
7
2023
pubmed:
11
5
2023
entrez:
10
5
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This study aims to compare the outcomes of interlaminar and transforaminal approaches for full-endoscopic discectomy (FED) for treating L4/5 lumbar disc herniation (LDH).A retrospective study of patients with L4/5 LDH treated with interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy (IELD, n = 19) or transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy (TELD, n = 105) was conducted. Patient background, radiological findings, and operative data were collected. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and European Quality of Life-5 Dimension (EQ-5D) scores were recorded preoperatively and 1 and 2 years postoperatively.Although ODI and EQ-5D scores 1 and 2 years postoperatively improved statistically in the IELD and TELD groups, there were no statistical differences between the groups. IELD was predominantly performed in patients who were taller and heavier. The mean operative times and the frequency of laminectomy for IELD and TELD were 67.2 and 44.6 min and 63.2 and 17.1%, respectively (P < 0.001). The radiological findings showed that the concave configuration of the L4 lamina, interlaminar space width, and foraminal width were statistically different between the groups. There were no complications in either of the groups. Reoperation was required for recurrence in two and five patients in the IELD and TELD groups (P = 0.29), respectively.Operative outcomes were identical between the two groups. Although the operative time was longer in the IELD group, both approaches were safely and effectively performed. Depending on the patient's physique and preoperative radiological findings, the more suitable approach for L4/5 LDH should be chosen.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37164700
doi: 10.2176/jns-nmc.2022-0357
pmc: PMC10406458
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
313-320Références
Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo). 2008 Sep;48(9):383-8; discussion 388-9
pubmed: 18812679
Pain Physician. 2016 Feb;19(2):E301-8
pubmed: 26815257
Cureus. 2020 Mar 2;12(3):e7157
pubmed: 32190523
Medicine (Baltimore). 2020 Jun 19;99(25):e20709
pubmed: 32569205
World Neurosurg. 2021 Feb;146:e413-e418
pubmed: 33353758
World Neurosurg. 2018 Jul;115:e22-e26
pubmed: 29548967
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1998 Mar 15;23(6):700-4; discussion 704-5
pubmed: 9549792
Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo). 2012;52(9):625-30
pubmed: 23006872
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2019 Apr 15;44(8):563-570
pubmed: 30312274
Medicine (Baltimore). 2018 Nov;97(48):e13456
pubmed: 30508967
World Neurosurg. 2019 May;125:e508-e514
pubmed: 30710722
Orthopade. 2020 Apr;49(4):338-349
pubmed: 30989258
Eur Spine J. 2007 Mar;16(3):431-7
pubmed: 16972067
Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2022 Jul;32(5):909-914
pubmed: 34169355
World Neurosurg. 2018 Aug;116:412-420.e2
pubmed: 29783008
J Orthop Surg Res. 2022 Aug 13;17(1):391
pubmed: 35964096
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000 Nov 15;25(22):2940-52; discussion 2952
pubmed: 11074683
Br J Neurosurg. 2020 Dec 17;:1-7
pubmed: 33331186
Medicine (Baltimore). 2021 Feb 5;100(5):e23193
pubmed: 33592819
J Spine Surg. 2016 Dec;2(4):281-288
pubmed: 28097245
Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo). 2021 Mar 15;61(3):236-242
pubmed: 33504730
Global Spine J. 2023 Mar;13(2):575-587
pubmed: 35993298
Asian J Endosc Surg. 2012 Nov;5(4):200-3
pubmed: 23095301
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2022 Mar 12;23(1):244
pubmed: 35279101
Health Policy. 1990 Dec;16(3):199-208
pubmed: 10109801
J Spine Surg. 2016 Sep;2(3):158-166
pubmed: 27757427
J Spine Surg. 2018 Mar;4(1):79-85
pubmed: 29732426