PURPOSE: To compare the outcomes of microendoscopic discectomy (MED) versus open discectomy for lumbar disc herniation. METHODS:80 men and 32 women aged 26 to 57 (mean, 37) years with a single-level disc herniation were randomised to undergo MED (n=55) or open (fenestration/laminotomy) discectomy (n=57). Patients were assessed pre- and post-operatively (at week 6, month 6, and year one). The 2 groups were compared with respect to surgical time, anaesthesia time, duration of hospital stay, intra-operative blood loss, weight of disc material removed, and self-evaluated low back pain and functional outcome (using the Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire). RESULTS:Surgical and anaesthesia times were significantly longer, but blood loss and hospital stay were significantly reduced in patients having MED than open discectomy. The improvement in the Oswestry score in both groups was significant at week one, but not at other follow-ups. The complication rate was similar in both groups. One patient with MED had a recurrence of disc herniation after 7 months and was treated with open discectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Both methods are equally effective in relieving radicular pain. MED entailed shorter hospital stay, less morbidity, and earlier return to work. Nonetheless, it is a demanding technique and should not be attempted without specific instruction and training.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To compare the outcomes of microendoscopic discectomy (MED) versus open discectomy for lumbar disc herniation. METHODS: 80 men and 32 women aged 26 to 57 (mean, 37) years with a single-level disc herniation were randomised to undergo MED (n=55) or open (fenestration/laminotomy) discectomy (n=57). Patients were assessed pre- and post-operatively (at week 6, month 6, and year one). The 2 groups were compared with respect to surgical time, anaesthesia time, duration of hospital stay, intra-operative blood loss, weight of disc material removed, and self-evaluated low back pain and functional outcome (using the Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire). RESULTS: Surgical and anaesthesia times were significantly longer, but blood loss and hospital stay were significantly reduced in patients having MED than open discectomy. The improvement in the Oswestry score in both groups was significant at week one, but not at other follow-ups. The complication rate was similar in both groups. One patient with MED had a recurrence of disc herniation after 7 months and was treated with open discectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Both methods are equally effective in relieving radicular pain. MED entailed shorter hospital stay, less morbidity, and earlier return to work. Nonetheless, it is a demanding technique and should not be attempted without specific instruction and training.
Authors: Steven J Kamper; Raymond W J G Ostelo; Sidney M Rubinstein; Jorm M Nellensteijn; Wilco C Peul; Mark P Arts; Maurits W van Tulder Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2014-01-18 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Scott L Parker; Stephen K Mendenhall; Saniya S Godil; Priya Sivasubramanian; Kevin Cahill; John Ziewacz; Matthew J McGirt Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 4.176