To evaluate the effectiveness of interrupt percutaneous endoscopy lumbar discectomy (PELD) through interlaminar approach for L5, S1 disc protrusion. Methods Between November 2006 and August 2010, 115 patients with L5, S1 disc protrusion were treated, including 79 males and 36 females with an average age of 38 years (range, 14-79 years). All patients showed the dominated symptom of the S1 nerve root. The working channel was establ ished by puncturing through interlaminar approach under the local anesthesia. After the needle was used to make sure no nerve root or dural sac on working face, the disc tissue was excised directly by bl ind sight. Then the nerve root decompression was observed through the endoscope. In patients with free type, fragment compression was observed through the endoscope, and the disc tissue around the nerve roots was removed, then the free disc tissue around intervertebral space was excised. Results One patient who failed to puncture changed to miniopen discectomy; 3 patients who failed changed to post lateral approach; and the others underwent interrupt PELD through interlaminar approach. Eighty patients were followed up 18 months on average (range, 12-36 months). The average Oswestry Disabil ity Index (ODI) was reduced to 13% ± 5% at 12 months after operation and to 12% ± 8% at last follow- up from 73% ± 12% at preoperation, showing significant differences (P lt; 0.01). According to modified Macnab ,s criterion, the results were excellent in 59 cases, good in 15 cases, fair in 3 cases, and poor in 3 cases at last follow-up, and the excellent and good rate was 92.5%. Conclusion For the treatment of disc protrusion at the L5, S1 level, interrupt PELD through interlaminar approach should be ideal with short operation time, small trauma, and quick recovery.
Objective To evaluate the short-term results of discectomy combined with Isobar non-fusion internal fixation. Methods Between May 2006 and May 2008, 65 cases of single segment lumbar disc protrusion were random surgically treated by discectomy combined with Isobar non-fusion internal fixation (34 cases, group A) and single discectomy (31 cases, group B), respectively. In group A, there were 18 males and 16 females with an average age of 38.8 years (range, 23-51 years); the involved segments were L2,3 (1 case), L3,4 (4 cases), L4,5 (20 cases), and L5, S1 (9 cases), including 11 cases of protrusion type, 16 cases of prolapsed-type, and 7 cases of sequestered type; and the mean disease duration was 7.2 months (range, 1-66 months). In group B, there were 19 males and 12 females with an average age of 39.2 years (range, 21-49 years); the involved segments were L3,4 (2 cases), L4,5 (24 cases), and L5, S1 (5 cases), including 13 cases of protrusion type, 15 cases of prolapsed-type, and 3 cases of sequestered type; and the mean disease duration was 6.5 months (range, 3 weeks to 72 months). There was no significant difference in the general data between 2 groups (P gt; 0.05). The surgical results were assessed by visual analogue scale (VAS) for back/leg pain and the Oswestry disabil ity index (ODI). The height of involved intervertebral space was measured dynamically after operation. Results The patients of two groups were followed up 32 months on average (range, 24-49 months). All cl inical symptoms of the patients were notably improved in 2 groups. One patient in group B experienced postoperative cerebral fluid leakage, and was cured after extubation, changing posture, and other measures. There was no implant failure, such as pedicle fracture, screw loosening, or screw malposition during the follow-up. The ODI and VAS were significantlyimproved after operation. The back and leg pain VAS scores at each time point were decreased significantly when compared with
To compare the effectiveness of microdiscectomy and macrodiscectomy on the single-level lumbar disc protrusion (LDP). Methods Between November 2002 and October 2005, 241 patients with LDP underwent 2 surgical procedures: microdiscectomy (group A, 93 cases) and macrodiscectomy (group B, 148 cases). All patients had singlelevel LDP. In group A, there were 51 males and 42 females with an average age of 32.3 yeares (range, 18-47 years); there were 23cases of protrusion, 52 cases of prolapse, and 18 cases of sequestration with an average disease duration of 8.5 months (range, 1-18 months), including 8 cases at L2,3 level, 11 cases at L3,4 level, 35 cases at L4,5 level, and 39 cases at L5, S1 level. In group B, there were 81 males and 67 females with an average age of 31.8 years (range, 16-50 years); there were 37 cases of protrusion, 85 cases of prolapse, and 26 cases of sequestration with an average disease duration of 9.3 months (range, 1-20 months), including 9 cases at L2,3 level, 15 cases at L3,4 level, 63 cases at L4,5 level, and 61 cases at L5, S1 level. There was no significant difference in age, sex, segment level, type, or disease duration between 2 groups (P gt; 0.05). Results Immediate back and sciatic pain rel ief was achieved in 225 (93.4%) patients after operation. The satisfactory rates were 91.4% in group A and 87.8% in group B at 1 week after operation, showing no significant difference (P gt; 0.05). The length of incision, amount of bleeding, amount of drainage, and hospital ization time in group A were significantly fewer than those in group B (P lt; 0.05); while the operative time in group A was longer than that in group B, but showing no significant difference (P gt; 0.05). Dural laceration occurred in 4 cases of groupA and 5 cases of group B, superficial infections of incision occurred in 5 cases of group B and intervertebral space nfections occurred in 4 cases of group B, and epidural hematoma occurred in 1 case of group A. The perioperative compl ication rate (5.4%, 5/93) in group A was significantly lower (P lt; 0.05) than that in group B (9.5%, 14/148). LDP recurred in 4 cases (4.3%) of group A and in 9 cases (6.1%) of group B postoperatively, showing no significant difference (P gt; 0.05); of them, 11 cases received second operation and 2 cases were treated conservatively. All cases were followed up 36-77 months (mean, 51.4 months). There were significant differences in visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry disabil ity index (ODI) between 2 groups at the last follow-up and preoperation (P gt; 0.05), but there was significant difference in VAS at 1 week postoperatively between 2 groups (P lt; 0.05). VAS and ODI were obviously improved at 1 week and last follow-up when compared with preoperation (P lt; 0.05). There was no significant difference in the improvement rates of VAS and ODI between 2 groups at last follow-up (P gt; 0.05). According to cl inical evaluation of Modified Macnab criteria, the excellent and good rate was 90.3% in group A and 86.5% in group B at final follow-up (P gt; 0.05). Conclusion Both macrodiscectomy and microdiscectomy are effective for LDP, furthermore microdiscectomy is less invasive than macrodiscectomy. Microdiscectomy is recommended to treat single-level LDP.