Objective To investigate the feasibility, effectiveness, and security of percutaneous endoscopic spine surgery for treatment of lumbar spine disorders with intraspinal ossification. Methods Between July 2008 and June 2016, 96 patients with lumbar spine disorders (lumbar disc herniation or lumbar spinal stenosis) with intraspinal ossification were treated with percutaneous endoscopic spine surgery. There were 59 males and 37 females, aged from 13 to 57 years (mean, 29.5 years). The disease duration was 3-51 months (mean, 18.2 months). Fifty-one cases had trauma history. Ninety-two cases were single segmental unilateral symptom, 4 cases were bilateral symptom. The ossification property was posterior ring apophysis separation in 89 cases, and ossification of the fibrous ring or posterior longitudinal ligament in 7 cases. There were 32 cases of lateral type, 13 cases of central type, and 51 cases of mixed type. The pressure factors, such as nucleus pulposus, hyperplasia of the yellow ligament, joint capsule, or articular osteophyma, were removed under the microscope. Local anesthesia or continuous epidural anesthesia was performed in the transforaminal approach with 50 cases, and continuous epidural anesthesia or general anesthesia was performed in the interlaminar approach with 46 cases. The visual analogue scale (VAS) score was used to evaluate the degree of leg pain preoperatively and at last follow-up. The effectiveness was evaluated at last follow-up according to the modified Macnab criteria. Results All patients were successfully operated. Via transforaminal approach, the mean operation time was 53 minutes and the mean intraoperative fluoroscopy times was 8 times; and via interlaminar approach was 58 minutes and 3 times, respectively. The mean bed rest time after operation was 6.5 hours and the mean hospitalization time was 4.7 days. All patients were followed up 6-18 months (median, 11 months). Postoperative lumbar CT scan and three-dimensional reconstruction after 3 days of operation showed that ossification tissues of 26 cases were not resected, 12 cases were resected partly, and 49 cases were resected completely. Postoperative lumbar MRI after 3 months of operation showed that spinal cord and nerve root were not compressed. At last follow-up, VAS score of leg pain was 0.7±1.1, which was significantly lower than preoperative score (5.8±1.1) (t=1.987, P=0.025). At last follow-up, according to modified Macnab criteria, the results were excellent in 87 cases, good in 5 cases, and fair in 4 cases, and the excellent and good rate was 95.8%. Conclusion Percutaneous endoscopic spine surgery for treatment of lumbar spine disorders with intraspinal ossification is an effective, safe, and minimal invasive alternative, and the short-term effectiveness is reliable. Accounting for the treatment of intraspinal ossification, comprehensive analysis should be made by combining clinical symptoms, imaging characteristics, and risk assessment.
ObjectiveTo investigate the effectiveness and safety of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) for upper lumbar disc herniation. MethodsRetrospective analysis was made on the clinical data of 26 patients with upper lumbar disc herniation, who were in line with the selection criteria and underwent MIS-TLIF in 14 patients (MIS-TLIF group) and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (OTLIF) in 12 patients (OTLIF group) between December 2007 and May 2012. There was no significant difference in gender, age, disease duration, level of disc herniation, side of disc herniation between 2 groups (P>0.05). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, and complications were compared between 2 groups. The clinical outcome was assessed using the visual analogue scale (VAS) and the Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores. The fusion rate was determined by using CT three-dimensional reconstruction and dynamic lumbar radiography at last follow-up. ResultsPrimary healing of incisions was obtained in both groups. No difference was found in operation time between 2 groups (t=0.858, P=0.399), but MIS-TLIF group had less intraoperative blood loss and postoperative drainage volume than OTLIF group (P<0.05). The average follow-up duration was 34.1 months with a range of 12-50 months. No complication of dural tear, infection, spinal nerve trauma, and implant failure occurred. The VAS scores of lower back pain and radicular pain and ODI scores at preoperation showed no significant difference between 2 groups (P>0.05). The VAS score of lower back pain and ODI score at 1 day after operation in MIS-TLIF group were significantly lower than those in the OTLIF group (P<0.05), but no difference was found in VAS scores of radicular pain between 2 groups (P>0.05). Difference in all scores was not significant at last follow-up between 2 groups (P>0.05). The fusion rate was 92.8% (13/14) in MIS-TLIF group, and was 100% (12/12) in OTLIF group at last follow-up. ConclusionMIS-TLIF is a safe and effective procedure for upper lumbar disc herniation as an alternative to other techniques.
Objective To compare the effectiveness between unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) and endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) in treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis combined with intervertebral disc herniation. Methods A clinical data of 64 patients with lumbar spinal stenosis and intervertebral disc herniation, who were admitted between April 2020 and November 2021 and met the selection criteria, was retrospectively analyzed. Among them, 30 patients were treated with ULIF (ULIF group) and 34 patients with Endo-TLIF (Endo-TLIF group). There was no significant difference in baseline data such as gender, age, disease duration, lesion segment, preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score of low back pain and leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), spinal canal area, and intervertebral space height between the two groups (P>0.05). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, hospital stays, and postoperative complications were compared between the two groups, as well as the VAS scores of low back pain and leg pain, ODI, and imaging measurement indicators (spinal canal area, intervertebral bone graft area, intervertebral space height, and degree of intervertebral fusion according to modified Brantigan score). Results Compared with the Endo-TLIF group, the ULIF group had shorter operation time, but had more intraoperative blood loss and longer hospital stays, with significant differences (P<0.05). The cerebrospinal fluid leakage occurred in 2 cases of Endo-TLIF group and 1 case of ULIF group, and no other complication occurred. There was no significant difference in the incidence of complications between the two groups (P>0.05). All patients in the two groups were followed up 12 months. The VAS scores of lower back pain and leg pain and ODI in the two groups significantly improved when compared with those before operation (P<0.05), and there was no significant difference between different time points after operation (P>0.05). And there was no significant difference between the two groups at each time point after operation (P>0.05). Imaging examination showed that there was no significant difference between the two groups in the change of spinal canal area, the change of intervertebral space height, and intervertebral fusion rate at 6 and 12 months (P>0.05). The intervertebral bone graft area in the ULIF group was significantly larger than that in the Endo-TLIF group (P<0.05). ConclusionFor the patients with lumbar spinal stenosis combined with intervertebral disc herniation, ULIF not only achieves similar effectiveness as Endo-TLIF, but also has advantages such as higher decompression efficiency, flexible surgical instrument operation, more thorough intraoperative intervertebral space management, and shorter operation time.
To assess long-term outcomes of reoperation for recurrent lumbar disc herniation, and to compare results of different methods. Methods There were 95 patients who had reoperation for recurrent lumbar discherniation between February 1998 to February 2003, among whom a total of 89 (93.7%) were followed up and their primary data were reviewed. There were 76 patients, with the mean age of 42 years (range from 23 to 61), who met the inclusion criteria and were included. Among them, there were 55 males and 21 females. All patients had the history of more than one sciatic nervepain. The mean recurrent time was 69 months(range from 8 to 130 months). There were 48 patients in L4,5 and 28 patients in L5, S1, of whom we chose 30 to undergo larger vertebral plate discectomy (or two-side fenestration) and nucleus pulpose discectomy (group A), 24 to undergo the whole vertebral discectomy (group B) and 22 to undergo the whole vertebral discectomy and 360degrees intervertebral fusion(group C). The patients’ cl inical results in the three groups were compared, and the cl inical curative effects were evaluated by using cl inical functional assessment standard. Results Cl inical outcomes were excellent or good in 80.3% of the patients, including 80.0% of group A, 79.2% of group B and 81.8% of group C. There was no significant difference in each group (P gt; 0.05). These three groups were not different in age, pain-free interval and follow-up duration (P gt; 0.05). The mean intraoperative blood losses in the three groups were (110.7 ± 98.8), (278.7 ± 256.3), (350.7 ± 206.1) mL, respectively. The mean surgery time were (65.9 ± 22.8), (111.6 ± 24.3), (127.3 ± 26.7) minutes, respectively, and the mean hospital ization time were (6.7 ± 1.4), (10.2 ± 1.8), (12.2 ± 2.3) days, respectively. Group A was significantly less than group B or C (P lt; 0.05) and there was no significant difference between group B and C. All the patients were followed up for 36 to 96 months with an average of 86 months, and with (87.6 ± 27.0), (84.5 ± 19.8), (83.6 ± 13.5) months of group A, B and C, respectively. At the endof the follow-up, there were more cases of spinal instabil ity at the same level in group B (19 patients) than in group A (1 patient) or group C (no patient) in X-ray, and the difference was significant (P lt; 0.05). Conclusion Reoperation for recurrent lumbar disc herniation is effective. Larger vertebral plate discectomy or tow-side fenestration is recommended for managing recurrent lumbar disc herniation.
Objective To investigate the effectiveness of unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBED), percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD), and traditional fenestration discectomy (FD) in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH). Methods The clinical data of 347 LDH patients who met the selection criteria and underwent discectomy between January 2017 and December 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. They were divided into FD group (160 cases), PELD group (86 cases), and UBED group (101 cases) according to operation methods. There was no significant difference in gender, age, surgical level distribution, disease duration, and preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score and Oswestry disability index (ODI) between groups (P>0.05). The operation time, hospitalization stay, treatment cost, and incidence of surgery-related complications were recorded and compared between groups. The patients’ pain and functional recovery were evaluated by VAS score and ODI before and after operation. Results The operation time of FD group was significantly shorter than that of PELD group and UBED group, and the hospitalization stay was significantly longer than that of PELD group and UBED group (P<0.05); there was no significant difference between PELD group and UBED group (P>0.05). The treatment cost in UBED group was significantly higher than that in PELD group, and in PELD group than in FD group (P<0.05). All the patients were followed up 6-24 months, with an average of 14.6 months. VAS score of lower extremity and ODI in 3 groups significantly improved after operation when compared with that before operation (P<0.05). At 1 day after operation, VAS score of lower extremity of UBED group was significantly better than that in PELD group and FD group (P<0.05), but there was no significant difference between PELD group and FD group (P>0.05). There was no significant difference in VAS scores of lower extremity between the 3 groups at 1 and 3 months after operation (P>0.05). The difference of ODI before and after operation in FD group and UBED group was slightly better than that in PELD group (P<0.05), and there was no significant difference between FD group and UBED group (P>0.05). Incidence of surgery-related complications in FD group (20.0%) was significantly higher than that in PELD group (12.8%) and UBED group (6.9%), and PELD group was significantly higher than UBED group (P<0.05). All the incision infection occurred in FD group (12 cases), symptomatic disc cyst and myeloid hypertension-like occurred in 1 case each in PELD group.Conclusion UBED, PELD, and FD have similar effectiveness on lower extremity pain in early LDH. Compared with FD, UBED and PELD have the advantage of shorter hospitalization stay and fewer complications.
ObjectiveTo evaluate early effectiveness of posterior 180-degree decompression via unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) combined with Michigan State University (MSU)-1 lumbar disc herniation (LDH). MethodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on clinical data from 33 patients with LSS combined with MSU-1 LDH, who met selection criteria and were treated between March 2022 and January 2024. All patients underwent UBE-assisted 180-degree spinal canal decompression. The cohort comprised 17 males and 16 females, aged 37-82 years (mean, 67.1 years). Preoperative presentations included bilateral lower limbs intermittent claudication and radiating pain, with disease duration ranging from 5 to 13 months (mean, 8.5 months). Affected segments included L3, 4 in 4 cases, L4, 5 in 28 cases, and L5, S1 in 1 case. LSS was rated as Schizas grade A in 4 cases, grade B in 5 cases, grade C in 13 cases, and grade D in 11 cases. LDH was categorized as MSU-1A in 24 cases, MSU-1B in 2 cases, and MSU-1AB in 7 cases. Intraoperative parameters (operation time, blood loss) and postoperative hospitalization length were recorded. The visual analogue scale (VAS) score and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were used to assess the lower limb pain and functional outcomes after operation. Clinical efficacy was evaluated at last follow-up via modified MacNab criteria. Quantitative radiological assessments included dural sac cross-sectional area (DSCA) measurements and spinal stenosis grading on lumbar MRI. Morphological classification of lumbar canal stenosis was determined according to the Schizas grading, categorized into four grades. Results The operation time was 60.4-90.8 minutes (mean, 80.3 minutes) and intraoperative blood loss was 13-47 mL (mean, 29.9 mL). The postoperative hospitalization length was 3-5 days (mean, 3.8 days). All patients were followed up 12-16 months (mean, 13.8 months). The VAS score and ODI improved at immediate and 3, 6, and 12 months after operation compared to before operation, and the differences between different time points were significant (P<0.05). At last follow-up, the clinical efficacy assessed by the modified MacNab criteria were graded as excellent in 23 cases, good in 9 cases, and poor in 1 case, with an excellent and good rate of 96.97%. Postoperative lumbar MRI revealed the significant decompression of the dural sac in 32 cases, with 1 case showing inadequate dural expansion. DSCA measurements confirmed progressive enlargement and stenosis reduction over time. The differences were significant (P<0.05) before operation, immediately after operation, and at 6 months after operation. At 6 months after operation, Schizas grading of spinal stenosis improved to grade A in 27 cases and grade B in 6 cases. ConclusionPosterior 180-degree decompression via UBE is a safe and feasible strategy for treating LSS combined with MSU-1 LDH, achieving effective neural decompression while preserving intervertebral disc integrity.
ObjectiveTo investigate the difference between four transforaminal endoscopic approaches in the treatment of serious lumbar disc herniation.MethodsBetween October 2010 and February 2015, a total of 122 patients with serious lumbar disc herniation were enrolled and treated with discectomy under transforaminal endoscope. The patients were divided into 4 groups according to the different approaches. The transforaminal endoscopic spine system (TESSYS) technology was used in group A (31 cases), Yeung endoscopic spine system (YESS) technology was used in group B (30 cases), improved transforaminal endoscopic access (ITEA) technology was used in group C (31 cases), and interlaminar dorsal access (IDA) technology was used in group D (30 cases). There was no significant difference in gender, age, disease duration, lesion segment, and preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score of low back pain, VAS score of bilateral lower extremities pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), intervertebral height, lumbar curvature index (LCI), and disc degeneration grading between groups (P>0.05). The removal volume of nucleus pulposus was compared; after operation, VAS score, ODI score, LCI, intervertebral height, and disc degeneration grading were used to evaluate the effectiveness.ResultsThe removal volumes of nucleus pulposus in groups A, B, C, and D were (3.6±0.9), (3.5±0.7), (4.6±1.0), (3.1±1.1) cm3, respectively. There were significant differences between groups (P<0.05). All incisions healed by first intention, and no early postoperative complications was found. All cases were followed up 12-35 months, with an average of 24 months. During follow-up, there was no recurrence of nucleus pulposus herniation, infection of intervertebral space, cerebrospinal fluid leakage, epidural hematoma, or other complications. At last follow-up, the VAS scores of low back pain and bilateral lower extremities pain, and ODI scores in each group significantly improved when compared with those before operation (P<0.05); there was no significant difference in the scores and improvements between groups after operation (P>0.05). At last follow-up, the disc degeneration grading in group B significantly improved when compared with that before operation (P<0.05); there was no significant difference between groups (P>0.05). At last follow-up, there was no significant difference in LCI of each group when compared with that before operation (P>0.05); and there was no significant difference in LCI and loss value between groups (P>0.05). There was no significant difference in the intervertebral height of the 4 groups at immediate after operation and last follow-up when compared with preoperative value (P>0.05), and there was no significant difference between groups at immediate after operation and last follow-up (P>0.05).ConclusionApplication of transforaminal endoscope in the treatment of serious lumbar disc herniation has great clinical outcomes. The ITEA technology can obtain a wider field of view and be more convenient to find and remove the degenerative nucleus pulposus. However, the appropriate approach should be selected according to the symptoms and characteristics of lumbar disc herniation.
Objective To explore the relationship between kinesiophobia, psychological resilience, and rehabilitation self-efficacy in postoperative patients with lumbar disc herniation (LDH) and constructing a nomogram prediction model for postoperative kinesiophobia. Methods LDH patients admitted to Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University between July 2021 and June 2024 were selected. Patients with LDH were assessed using a general information questionnaire, the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia, the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale, and the Self-Efficacy for Rehabilitation Outcome Scale. Logistic regression was used to analyze the influencing factors of kinesiophobia in postoperative LDH patients, and a nomogram prediction model was constructed based on these factors. Results A total of 256 LDH patients were included. Among them, the average kinesiophobia score was (38.16±4.24) points, the average psychological resilience score was (55.36±4.26) points, and the average rehabilitation self-efficacy score was (96.06±6.06) points. Kinesiophobia was present in 149 patients (58.20%) after surgery. Kinesiophobia showed a negative correlation with both psychological resilience and rehabilitation self-efficacy (P<0.01). The results of multiple logistic regression analysis showed that, Age≥60 years, female gender, lack of pain guidance, low psychological resilience score, and low rehabilitation self-efficacy score were identified as independent risk factors for kinesiophobia in postoperative patients with lumbar disc herniation (P<0.05). The validation results of the nomogram model showed a C-index of 0.809, with the calibration curve approaching the ideal curve, and an area under the curve of 0.811. Conclusions Age ≥60 years, female gender, lack of pain guidance, low rehabilitation self-efficacy scores, and low rehabilitation self-efficacy scores were significantly associated with the risk of kinesiophobia in postoperative patients with LDH. The nomogram model constructed based on these factors demonstrated good predictive value for the occurrence of kinesiophobia in these patients.
ObjectiveTo identify effect of quantitative indicators of ilium height on approach of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) treatment in patients with L5, S1 lumbar disc herniation.MethodsA retrospective study between May 2014 and March 2016 was conducted, including 100 patients with disc herniation at L5, S1, who were initially enrolled for the PELD treatment. Among them, 66 patients were successfully treated with PELD (group A), and the other 34 patients failed to perform puncture, catheterization, or microscopical operation due to the influence of iliac bone and other peripheral bone structures and treated with alternative surgical plans. By analyzing the X-ray films of lumbar vertebrae (including bilateral ilium) of the two groups before operation, the concept of ilium height rate and ilium angle rate was put forward innovatively. The ilium height rate and ilium angle rate of the two groups were measured and compared, and the diagnostic critical points of ilium height rate and ilium angle rate were determined by ROC curve analysis.ResultsThe ilium height rate was 0.61±0.09, 0.74±0.05 and the ilium angle rate was 0.66±0.08, 0.80±0.08 in groups A and B, respectively, showing significant differences between the two groups (F=69.729, P=0.000; F=65.165, P=0.000). ROC curve analysis showed that the critical point of ilium height rate was 0.71 (area under ROC curve was 0.927, P=0.000), and the critical point of ilium angle rate was 0.75 (area under ROC curve was 0.965, P=0.000).ConclusionPELD is not recommended for patients with L5, S1 intervertebral disc herniation, when the ilium height rate is greater than 0.71 and/or the ilium angle rate is greater than 0.75. Other surgical plans such as transpedicular approach, transpedicular approach, or open surgery, should be recommended to reduce the risk of surgery and the pain of patients.
Objective To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopy discectomy (UBED) versus percutaneous uniportal endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) for the treatment of single lumbar disc herniation (sLDH). Methods A retrospective analysis was conducted on 52 patients with sLDH who underwent UBED or PEID at the Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University between January 2022 and June 2023. Surgical parameters, clinical outcomes, and imaging indicators were compared between the two groups. For normally distributed quantitative data, mean ± standard deviation was used for representation, while for non-normally distributed data, median (lower quartile, upper quartile) was used for representation. Results No significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of gender, age, disease duration, affected segments, preoperative Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores for low back and leg pain, preoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, preoperative disc height ratio (DHR), or preoperative sagittal rotation angle (SRA) (P>0.05). All patients successfully underwent surgery. In the UBED group, one case of cerebrospinal fluid leakage and one case of pseudomeningocele syndrome occurred postoperatively. In the PEID group, two cases of pseudomeningocele syndrome occurred postoperatively, and one case of recurrence was observed 1.5 years after surgery. Both groups showed significant improvements in VAS scores for low back and leg pain and ODI scores postoperatively and during follow-up compared to preoperative values (P<0.05). Significant differences were found between the UBED and PEID groups in terms of operation time [(138.3±28.0) vs. (113.5±34.2) min], intraoperative blood loss [(58.6±24.4) vs. (45.7±20.3) mL], postoperative drainage volume [(48.7±16.9) vs. (30.0±13.4) mL], postoperative ambulation time [3.4 (3.0, 4.0) vs. 2.3 (2.0, 3.0) d], and VAS scores for low back pain on postoperative Day 1 (2.87±0.55 vs. 2.24±0.65) (P<0.05). No significant difference was observed in intraoperative fluoroscopy frequency, VAS scores for leg pain on postoperative Day 1, VAS scores for low back and leg pain 6 months and 1 year after operation, postoperative hospital stay, postoperative complication rates, ODI scores 1 year after operation, DHR 1 year after operation, SRA 1 year after operation, or MacNab evaluation 1 year after operation (P>0.05). Conclusions Both UBED and PEID are safe and effective treatments for sLDH, with similar complication rates and clinical outcomes. However, PEID demonstrates advantages in reducing soft tissue damage and accelerating perioperative recovery.