Yuan Yao1, Huiyu Zhang2, Junlong Wu1, Huan Liu1, Zhengfeng Zhang1, Yu Tang3, Yue Zhou4. 1. Department of Orthopedics, Xinqiao Hospital, Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, China. 2. Department of Stomatology, the 457th Hospital of PLA, Wuhan, China. 3. Department of Orthopedics, Xinqiao Hospital, Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, China. Electronic address: tangyu628@sina.com. 4. Department of Orthopedics, Xinqiao Hospital, Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, China. Electronic address: happyzhou@vip.163.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most patients with recurrence of microendoscopic discectomy (MED) need to receive revision surgery. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) are common operative methods for MED recurrence, but no study has been made to compare the clinical outcomes of these 2 surgical methods as revision surgery for MED recurrence. METHODS: A total of 105 patients who underwent either MIS-TLIF (58 patients) or PELD (47 patients) for revision of MED recurrence were included in this study. Perioperative outcomes (operation time, blood loss, and hospital stay), total cost, pain and functional scores (visual analog scale, Oswestry Disability Index, 12-item short form health survey) with a 12-month follow-up visit and review of complications and recurrence within 12 months postoperatively were recorded and assessed. RESULTS: No significant difference of clinical outcome over time was observed between these 2 approaches. Compared with MIS-TLIF, PELD was associated with greater satisfaction in the early stage after surgery; this effect was equalized after 3 months postoperatively. PELD brought advantages in terms of shorter operation time, shorter hospital stay, less blood loss, and lower total cost compared with MIS-TLIF; however, PELD was also associated with a higher recurrence rate than MIS-TLIF. CONCLUSIONS: Neither of these 2 surgical methods gave a clear advantage in long-term pain or function scores. Compared with MIS-TLIF, PELD could lead to a better perioperative result and less cost; however, the higher recurrence rate could not be ignored. Taking these characteristics into consideration was instrumental in pursuing personalized treatment for MED recurrence.
BACKGROUND: Most patients with recurrence of microendoscopic discectomy (MED) need to receive revision surgery. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) are common operative methods for MED recurrence, but no study has been made to compare the clinical outcomes of these 2 surgical methods as revision surgery for MED recurrence. METHODS: A total of 105 patients who underwent either MIS-TLIF (58 patients) or PELD (47 patients) for revision of MED recurrence were included in this study. Perioperative outcomes (operation time, blood loss, and hospital stay), total cost, pain and functional scores (visual analog scale, Oswestry Disability Index, 12-item short form health survey) with a 12-month follow-up visit and review of complications and recurrence within 12 months postoperatively were recorded and assessed. RESULTS: No significant difference of clinical outcome over time was observed between these 2 approaches. Compared with MIS-TLIF, PELD was associated with greater satisfaction in the early stage after surgery; this effect was equalized after 3 months postoperatively. PELD brought advantages in terms of shorter operation time, shorter hospital stay, less blood loss, and lower total cost compared with MIS-TLIF; however, PELD was also associated with a higher recurrence rate than MIS-TLIF. CONCLUSIONS: Neither of these 2 surgical methods gave a clear advantage in long-term pain or function scores. Compared with MIS-TLIF, PELD could lead to a better perioperative result and less cost; however, the higher recurrence rate could not be ignored. Taking these characteristics into consideration was instrumental in pursuing personalized treatment for MED recurrence.
Authors: Sara Lener; Christoph Wipplinger; R Nick Hernandez; Ibrahim Hussain; Sertac Kirnaz; Rodrigo Navarro-Ramirez; Franziska Anna Schmidt; Eliana Kim; Roger Härtl Journal: Global Spine J Date: 2020-05-28