| Literature DB >> 30943717 |
Junseok Bae1, Sourabh Chachan1, Sang-Ha Shin1, Sang-Ho Lee1.
Abstract
Despite the successful application of percutaneous endoscopic thoracic discectomy (PETD), its technical feasibility and outcomes for symptomatic upper and midthoracic disc herniation have not been reported yet. The purpose of this article was to evaluate the feasibility of the percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic approach to remove disc herniations in the upper and midthoracic spine. Fourteen consecutive patients (mean age, 42.4 years; 12 males, 2 females) who underwent PETD were included in the analysis. The procedure was performed under local anesthesia and intravenous sedation using the standard endoscopy instrument set. The transforaminal approach combined with foraminoplasty was used to access the herniated areas. Treatment outcomes were evaluated using visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, and the modified MacNab criteria. Four discectomies were performed at T2-3, 5 at T3-4, and 5 at T5-6. The mean follow-up period was 43.4 months, and all patients showed statistically significant postoperative improvement (VAS: 7.3 to 2.3, ODI: 53.5 to 16.9, p<0.05 for all). No serious complications were reported during follow-up. PETD for upper and midthoracic disc herniation is a feasible and effective minimally invasive treatment option with favorable clinical results.Entities:
Keywords: Endoscopic discectomy; Transforaminal thoracic discectomy; Upper and mid thoracic disc herniation
Year: 2019 PMID: 30943717 PMCID: PMC6449831 DOI: 10.14245/ns.1836260.130
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Neurospine ISSN: 2586-6591
Patient demographics, presentation, and clinical outcomes
| Patient No. | Age (yr) | Sex | Level | FU | Location | Symptom duration | Symptoms | VAS | ODI | Modified MacNab criteria | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Axial pain | Radiating pain | Somatic pain | Sensory change | Motor weakness | Pre | FU | Pre | FU | ||||||||
| 1 | 35 | F | T2–3 | 6 | Paramedian | 1 yr | + | - | - | - | + | 6 | 2 | 31 | 16 | Fair |
| 2 | 41 | M | T2–3 | 72 | Central | 4 yr | + | - | - | + | - | 8 | 3 | 22 | 18 | Good |
| 3 | 56 | M | T2–3 | 12 | Paramedian | 1 yr | + | - | + | - | - | 7 | 1 | 56 | 12 | Excellent |
| 4 | 52 | M | T2–3 | 6 | Central | 1 yr | + | - | - | + | - | 7 | 3 | 22.2 | 8.9 | Fair |
| 5 | 44 | M | T3–4 | 120 | Central | 3 mo | - | - | - | + | + | 9 | 4 | 84 | 22 | Excellent |
| 6 | 26 | M | T3–4 | 17 | Central | 4 mo | + | - | - | + | - | 7 | 0 | 73 | 9 | Excellent |
| 7 | 69 | M | T3–4 | 6 | Paramedian | 10 mo | + | + | - | - | - | 6 | 2 | 24 | 12 | Good |
| 8 | 29 | M | T3–4 | 12 | Paramedian | 3 yr | + | - | + | + | - | 7 | 3 | 44 | 16 | Good |
| 9 | 43 | M | T3–4 | 6 | Paramedian | 1 yr | + | + | - | - | - | 6 | 2 | 40 | 13.3 | Excellent |
| 10 | 56 | F | T5–6 | 12 | Central | 2 yr | + | + | - | - | - | 6 | 2 | 54 | 22 | Good |
| 11 | 30 | M | T5–6 | 6 | Central | 1 yr | + | - | - | - | - | 8 | 3 | 42 | 22 | Excellent |
| 12 | 27 | M | T5–6 | 6 | Paramedian | 6 mo | + | - | + | + | - | 10 | 2 | 75.6 | 11 | Excellent |
| 13 | 42 | M | T5–6 | 12 | Central | 1 yr | + | - | - | - | + | 7 | 3 | 21 | 14 | Good |
| 14 | 44 | M | T5–6 | 24 | Central | 2 yr | + | - | - | + | 7 | 1 | 36 | 11 | Excellent | |
FU, follow-up (months); VAS, visual analogue scale; ODI, Oswestry Disability Index.
Fig. 1.Surgical technique. (A) Skin entry point planning on axial computed tomography scan by drawing an imaginary line from posterior annulus at the midpedicular level to lateral margin of facet joint. (B) Placement of needle tip is placed at the midpedicular level. (C, D) Enlargement of foramen by serial dilation and sequential reaming of ventral and lateral aspect of superior facet over guidewire. (E) Placement of beveled 7.5-mm working cannula on the posterior disc space through annular window at the midpedicular level - anteroposterior view. (F) Placement of beveled 7.5-mm working cannula on the posterior disc space through annular window at the midpedicular level - lateral view. (G, H) Removal of herniated disc fragment using microforceps.
Fig. 2.A 35-year-old female patient: (A) Preoperative sagittal view showing foraminal thoracic disc herniation (TDH) at the T2–3 level. (B) Preoperative axial view showing left foraminal TDH at the T3–4 level. (C) Intraoperative fluoroscopic view showing working channel is place at the foraminal area after foraminoplasty. (D) Postoperative sagittal view showing successful removal of disc herniation. (E) Postoperative axial view showing successful removal of disc herniation. Note that T2 nerve root is visible after decompression (arrow) and amount of foraminoplasty (arrowheads).
Fig. 3.A 52-year-old male patient: (A) Preoperative sagittal view showing central thoracic disc herniation (TDH) at the T3–4 level. (B) Preoperative axial view showing central TDH at the T3–4 level. (C) Postoperative sagittal view showing successful removal of disc herniation. Note that the amount of foraminoplasty to access central part of disc. (D) Postoperative axial view showing successful removal of herniated disc.