One-hole split endoscopy technique versus unilateral biportal endoscopy technique for L5-S1 lumbar disk herniation: analysis of clinical and radiologic outcomes.
Efficacy
Lumbar disk herniation
One-hole split endoscopy technique
Unilateral biportal endoscopy technique
Journal
Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research
ISSN: 1749-799X
Titre abrégé: J Orthop Surg Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101265112
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 Sep 2023
09 Sep 2023
Historique:
received:
05
05
2023
accepted:
02
09
2023
medline:
11
9
2023
pubmed:
10
9
2023
entrez:
9
9
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Lumbar disk herniation (LDH) is one of the most common diseases of the spine, especially occurring in L4-5 and L5-S1 intervertebral disks, and surgery is a choice when conservative treatment is ineffective. The purpose of this study is to investigate the clinical efficacy and radiologic outcomes of one-hole split endoscopy (OSE) technique versus unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) technique in the treatment of L5-S1 lumbar disk herniation (LDH). A total of 133 patients of a single center surgically treated for L5-S1 LDH between 2019 and 2021 were retrospectively included in this study, of which 70 were treated by UBE technique and the rest were treated by OSE technique. Hospitalization time, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, fluoroscopy times, incision length and related complications were recorded. Bone resection area (BRA), articular process resection rate, range of motion (ROM), sagittal translation (ST), disk height (DH), Visual Analog Score (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Macnab criteria were used to evaluated the clinical efficacy. There was no statistically significant difference in hospitalization time or fluoroscopy times between the two groups. The operation time was shorter in the UBE group than that in the OSE group; however, the incision length was longer. Intraoperative blood loss and BRA were larger in the UBE group than in the OSE group. There was no significant difference in ROM, ST, DH, or postoperative facet resection rate between the two groups. There was no significant difference in ROM, ST, or postoperative facet resection rate compared with preoperative indicators in each group, but there was a significant difference in DH among distinct groups. At any time point, the lower back and leg VAS and ODI in each group were significantly improved compared to those before the operation, with no significant difference between the two groups. There was one case of dural tear in the UBE group. One case of transient hypoesthesia occurred in each of the two groups. The excellent-good rates of the UBE group and the OSE group were 88.6% and 90.5%, respectively. The OSE technique is an effective minimally invasive surgical option as well as the UBE technique in the treatment of L5-S1 LDH.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Lumbar disk herniation (LDH) is one of the most common diseases of the spine, especially occurring in L4-5 and L5-S1 intervertebral disks, and surgery is a choice when conservative treatment is ineffective. The purpose of this study is to investigate the clinical efficacy and radiologic outcomes of one-hole split endoscopy (OSE) technique versus unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) technique in the treatment of L5-S1 lumbar disk herniation (LDH).
METHODS
METHODS
A total of 133 patients of a single center surgically treated for L5-S1 LDH between 2019 and 2021 were retrospectively included in this study, of which 70 were treated by UBE technique and the rest were treated by OSE technique. Hospitalization time, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, fluoroscopy times, incision length and related complications were recorded. Bone resection area (BRA), articular process resection rate, range of motion (ROM), sagittal translation (ST), disk height (DH), Visual Analog Score (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Macnab criteria were used to evaluated the clinical efficacy.
RESULTS
RESULTS
There was no statistically significant difference in hospitalization time or fluoroscopy times between the two groups. The operation time was shorter in the UBE group than that in the OSE group; however, the incision length was longer. Intraoperative blood loss and BRA were larger in the UBE group than in the OSE group. There was no significant difference in ROM, ST, DH, or postoperative facet resection rate between the two groups. There was no significant difference in ROM, ST, or postoperative facet resection rate compared with preoperative indicators in each group, but there was a significant difference in DH among distinct groups. At any time point, the lower back and leg VAS and ODI in each group were significantly improved compared to those before the operation, with no significant difference between the two groups. There was one case of dural tear in the UBE group. One case of transient hypoesthesia occurred in each of the two groups. The excellent-good rates of the UBE group and the OSE group were 88.6% and 90.5%, respectively.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The OSE technique is an effective minimally invasive surgical option as well as the UBE technique in the treatment of L5-S1 LDH.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37689668
doi: 10.1186/s13018-023-04159-9
pii: 10.1186/s13018-023-04159-9
pmc: PMC10492266
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
668Informations de copyright
© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.
Références
Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo). 2010;50(12):1074-8
pubmed: 21206181
Neurochirurgie. 2014 Oct;60(5):244-8
pubmed: 24951383
Oxid Med Cell Longev. 2022 Oct 13;2022:9264852
pubmed: 36275895
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2021 Jan 9;22(1):58
pubmed: 33422040
Spine J. 2018 Aug;18(8):1347-1355
pubmed: 29253630
J Int Med Res. 2021 Oct;49(10):3000605211055045
pubmed: 34706589
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2018 Dec 15;43(24):1756-1764
pubmed: 29794584
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2022 Mar 12;23(1):244
pubmed: 35279101
J Neurosurg Spine. 2020 May 15;:1-6
pubmed: 32413861
J Orthop Surg Res. 2022 Jan 15;17(1):30
pubmed: 35033143
J Spine Surg. 2018 Mar;4(1):79-85
pubmed: 29732426
Eur Spine J. 2007 Mar;16(3):431-7
pubmed: 16972067
Spine J. 2019 Jul;19(7):1162-1169
pubmed: 30742976
J Orthop Surg Res. 2022 Jul 21;17(1):359
pubmed: 35864515
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006 May 1;31(10):E285-90
pubmed: 16648734
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013 Apr 1;38(7):617-25
pubmed: 23026867
Br J Neurosurg. 2020 Feb;34(1):80-85
pubmed: 31718310
Neurosurgery. 2006 Feb;58(1 Suppl):ONS59-68; discussion ONS59-68
pubmed: 16479630
Surg Neurol Int. 2011;2:93
pubmed: 21748045
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2020 May;75:105011
pubmed: 32335473
Eur Spine J. 2017 Mar;26(3):635-645
pubmed: 26922736
Pak J Med Sci. 2019 Jul-Aug;35(4):974-980
pubmed: 31372127
Neurosurgery. 2015 Apr;76(4):372-80; discussion 380-1; quiz 381
pubmed: 25599214
Orthop Surg. 2021 Feb;13(1):63-70
pubmed: 33274579
J Orthop Surg Res. 2023 Jul 5;18(1):483
pubmed: 37408054
Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2012 Jul;20(7):712-8
pubmed: 22484574
J Pain Res. 2022 Jun 16;15:1719-1728
pubmed: 35734509
World Neurosurg. 2017 Mar;99:259-266
pubmed: 28017752