| Literature DB >> 35039040 |
Boyu Wu1,2, Tanjun Wei1, Zhipeng Yao3, Sai Yang4, Yawei Yao3, Chengwei Fu5, Feng Xu6, Chengjie Xiong7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In this study, we present a novel electromagnetic navigation (EMN) system for percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) procedure. The objective of this study was to investigate the safety and effectiveness of the PTED with the assistance of the EMN system and compare it with the conventional PTED with the assistance of fluoroscopic guidance (C-arm).Entities:
Keywords: Electromagnetic navigation; Learning curve; Lumbar disc herniation; Percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy; Radiation exposure
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35039040 PMCID: PMC8764808 DOI: 10.1186/s12891-022-05012-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord ISSN: 1471-2474 Impact factor: 2.362
Fig. 1The procedure of PTED assisted by the EMN system. a The electromagnetic field generator was placed in the caudal site of the surgical area. b The patient tracker was fixed on the adjacent spinous process of the operative level. c The mapper bridge was placed in the surgical area. d The fluoroscopy images were transmitted to the EMN system for automatic registration. e The intraoperative two-dimensional fluoroscopy images were used to match the preoperative three-dimensional CT images. f Surgical instruments were registered. g The percutaneous puncture was performed under EMN guidance. h The foraminoplasty was done under the surveillance of navigation and endoscope. i Discectomy was performed under EMN guidance. PTED, percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy; EMN, electromagnetic navigation
Fig. 2Measurement of radiological parameters. a Angular motion: the change in intervertebral angle in flexion/extension. b Translation: the change in slip distance in flexion/extension
Comparison of baseline characteristics between the two groups
| Characteristics | EMN ( | C-arm ( | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 46.88 ± 11.10 | 43.13 ± 10.30 | 0.13 |
| Gender (male/female) | 18/14 | 25/22 | 0.79 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 22.82 ± 3.74 | 23.69 ± 3.70 | 0.31 |
| Operative level (L4-L5/L5-S1) | 19/13 | 30/17 | 0.69 |
| Follow-up (months) | 13.66 ± 1.07 | 14.04 ± 1.20 | 0.15 |
BMI body mass index
Comparison of surgery-related records between the two groups
| Characteristics | EMN ( | C-arm ( | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Radiation time (s) | 4.50 ± 0.99 | 28.61 ± 12.19 | < 0.001 |
| Puncture time (min) | 26.13 ± 14.29 | 44.15 ± 13.47 | < 0.001 |
| Operative time (min) | 72.97 ± 25.24 | 94.21 ± 20.93 | < 0.001 |
Fig. 3The learning curves for PTED via the EMN and C-arm approaches. PTED, percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy; EMN, electromagnetic navigation
Comparison of VAS and ODI scores between the two groups
| Characteristics | EMN ( | C-arm ( | |
|---|---|---|---|
| VAS of Back | |||
| Preoperative | 5.41 ± 0.98 | 5.74 ± 1.07 | 0.16 |
| 1 month | 2.31 ± 0.78 | 2.17 ± 0.84 | 0.45 |
| 3 months | 1.84 ± 0.77 | 1.98 ± 0.77 | 0.44 |
| 6 months | 1.47 ± 0.67 | 1.66 ± 0.70 | 0.23 |
| 12 months | 1.50 ± 0.62 | 1.43 ± 0.71 | 0.63 |
| VAS of Leg | |||
| Preoperative | 6.47 ± 1.11 | 6.64 ± 1.28 | 0.54 |
| 1 month | 2.16 ± 0.63 | 2.26 ± 0.67 | 0.51 |
| 3 months | 1.75 ± 0.72 | 1.83 ± 0.73 | 0.63 |
| 6 months | 1.53 ± 0.67 | 1.47 ± 0.78 | 0.71 |
| 12 months | 1.22 ± 0.71 | 1.26 ± 0.74 | 0.83 |
| ODI | |||
| Preoperative | 56.81 ± 8.11 | 58.89 ± 9.73 | 0.32 |
| 1 month | 22.50 ± 4.49 | 23.74 ± 6.81 | 0.37 |
| 3 months | 16.19 ± 4.55 | 17.15 ± 5.24 | 0.40 |
| 6 months | 12.89 ± 3.63 | 12.21 ± 3.76 | 0.44 |
| 12 months | 11.81 ± 3.68 | 10.81 ± 2.88 | 0.18 |
VAS visual analogue scale, ODI Oswestry Disability Index
Fig. 4Comparison of VAS score of back (a), VAS score of leg (b) and ODI (c) at different time points. VAS, visual analogue scale; ODI, Oswestry Disability Index
Comparison of MacNab evaluation between the two groups (n, %)
| Groups | n | Excellent | Good | Fair | Poor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EMN | 32 | 20 (62.50) | 9 (28.13) | 2 (6.25) | 1 (3.13) |
| C-arm | 47 | 26 (55.32) | 15 (31.91) | 4 (8.51) | 2 (4.26) |
| 0.93 | |||||
Comparison of radiological parameters between the two groups
| Characteristics | EMN ( | C-arm ( | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Translation | |||
| Preoperative (mm) | 1.42 ± 0.60 | 1.35 ± 0.57 | 0.59 |
| Postoperative (mm) | 1.65 ± 0.62 | 1.49 ± 0.63 | 0.27 |
| | 0.16 | 0.24 | |
| Angular motion | |||
| Preoperative (°) | 3.32 ± 1.68 | 3.58 ± 1.36 | 0.45 |
| Postoperative (°) | 3.87 ± 1.88 | 3.96 ± 1.92 | 0.85 |
| | 0.22 | 0.27 | |