| Literature DB >> 26865892 |
Shu Wei1, Wei Tao1, Hongwei Zhu1, Yongjie Li1.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Successful percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) requires an appropriate working trajectory. Due to the complexity of spinal anatomy, this is difficult to verify with conventional 2-dimensional fluoroscopy. AIM: Here we assessed the feasibility and utility of the O-arm for establishing the working trajectory for PELD.Entities:
Keywords: O-arm; disc herniation; intraoperative imaging; low back pain; percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy
Year: 2015 PMID: 26865892 PMCID: PMC4729729 DOI: 10.5114/wiitm.2015.55845
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne ISSN: 1895-4588 Impact factor: 1.195
Photo 1The typical operative setup of the O-arm in a PELD procedure. The patient is positioned in the center of the coil, which is draped with sterile translucent plastic
Photo 2Intraoperative image taken utilizing the O-arm. A – The multiplanar image shows an appropriate working cannula. B – An axial image showed that the left working cannula was misplaced laterally
Photo 3Images from a 23-year-old man who presented with severe left leg pain. A – T2-weighted sagittal magnetic resonance image showing a down-migrated disc herniation at L5–S1. B – Intraoperative 3D reconstruction of discogram showing location of the herniated disc. The working trajectory was set at the herniated disc. C – Intraoperative computed tomography scans of the spine show the multiplanar discography. The discography in axial view reveals an annular tear with extension to the outer annulus
Clinical characteristics of patients who underwent PELD with O-arm*
| Parameter | Result |
|---|---|
| Subjects, | 85 (100) |
| Age, mean ± SD [years] | 62.5 ±12.7 |
| Gender, | |
| Male | 44 (51.8) |
| Female | 41 (48.2) |
| Herniation location, | |
| Central | 27 (31.8) |
| Paracentral | 30 (35.3) |
| Foraminal | 28 (32.9) |
| Level, | |
| L3–L4 | 8 (9.5) |
| L4–L5 | 63 (74) |
| L5–S1 | 14 (16.5) |
N (%), unless indicated otherwise.
Summary of modified MacNab's criteria
| Outcome | Description |
|---|---|
| Excellent | No pain and no restriction of activity |
| Good | Occasional pain, relief of presenting symptoms, able to return to modified work |
| Fair | Handicapped by intermittent pain of sufficient severity to curtail work or leisure activity but improved functional capacity |
| Poor | Unimproved symptoms, insufficient improvement to allow increased activity, or requires reoperation at the same level |