Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy : Revision Surgery for Recurrent Herniation After Microendoscopic Discectomy
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved..
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.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2017 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2017 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:99 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
World neurosurgery - 99(2017) vom: 15. März, Seite 89-95 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Yao, Yuan [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 19.09.2017 Date Revised 02.12.2018 published: Print-Electronic Citation Status MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1016/j.wneu.2016.11.120 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM266839754 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM266839754 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20231224215410.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231224s2017 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1016/j.wneu.2016.11.120 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n0889.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM266839754 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)27919762 | ||
| 035 | |a (PII)S1878-8750(16)31268-2 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Yao, Yuan |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy |b Revision Surgery for Recurrent Herniation After Microendoscopic Discectomy |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2017 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Completed 19.09.2017 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 02.12.2018 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Print-Electronic | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. | ||
| 520 | |a 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 | ||
| 520 | |a 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 | ||
| 520 | |a 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 | ||
| 520 | |a 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 | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Comparative Study | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Microendoscopic discectomy | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Recurrent herniation | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Revision surgery | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Zhang, Huiyu |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Wu, Junlong |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Liu, Huan |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Zhang, Zhengfeng |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Tang, Yu |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Zhou, Yue |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t World neurosurgery |d 2010 |g 99(2017) vom: 15. März, Seite 89-95 |w (DE-627)NLM197924441 |x 1878-8769 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:99 |g year:2017 |g day:15 |g month:03 |g pages:89-95 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2016.11.120 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 99 |j 2017 |b 15 |c 03 |h 89-95 | ||