• J Mlaka, R Rapcan, M Burianek, S Rapcanova, M Gajdos, M Kocanova, M Griger, L Kovalicova, J Vaskova, and L Kocan.
• Bratisl Med J. 2020 Jan 1; 121 (3): 199-205.

ObjectiveProspective observational multicentre two-arm parallel study describing clinical outcome after endoscopic discectomy provided via transforaminal and interlaminar approach.BackgroundEndoscopic lumbar discectomy (ELD) is a percutaneous minimally invasive procedure for the treatment of herniated lumbar discs. Herniations at lumbar intervertebral disc levels of L1/2, L2/3, L3/4 and L4/5 are mostly accessed by the transforaminal (TF) approach. However, due to the anatomic position of the iliac crest, the L5/S1 level might not be reachable by the transforaminal approach, while the interlaminar (IL) percutaneous approach should be a suitable alternative.MethodsIn a prospective observational multicentre clinical trial NCT0274311, we compared the clinical outcomes of two groups of patients who underwent ELD via IL (83) and TF (103) approach. The subjects were followed for 12 months via planned examinations by pain physicians. The levels of leg pain and back pain intensity were assessed by an 11-point numerical ratings scale (NRS). Patient's functional disability was assessed by the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI).ResultsStudy subjects showed a significant decrease in ODI scores in both groups (p<0.001) The values of mean preoperative ODI in TF and IL groups were 39.1±15.7 and 43.4±16, respectively. Postoperative values in the latter groups were 14.8±14.9 and 17.5±14.3, respectively. Significantly lower pain scores for leg pain (p<0.001) and back pain (p<0.001) were also recorded at 12-month follow-ups.ConclusionBecause both procedures are strictly percutaneous; they are now more commonly performed by interventional pain physicians as a safe and effective alternative to open surgical spine procedures (Tab. 3, Fig. 7, Ref. 19).

17 keywords...

hide…