• J Clin Neurosci · Nov 2016

    Review

    Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for lumbar disc herniation.

    • Xinhua Li, Yingchao Han, Zhi Di, Jian Cui, Jie Pan, MingJie Yang, Guixin Sun, Jun Tan, and Lijun Li.
    • Department of Spinal Surgery, East Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, 150 JiMo Road, Shanghai 200120, China. Electronic address: 1013yxs@sina.com.
    • J Clin Neurosci. 2016 Nov 1; 33: 19-27.

    AbstractThis study aims to compare the advantages and disadvantage of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) and standard discectomy (SD) for the treatment of lumbar intervertebral disc herniation (LDH). We searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane databases for relevant trials that compare PELD and SD for the treatment of LDH. The Cochrane Collaboration's Revman 5.3 software was used for data analyses. This meta-analysis compiled 1301 cases from four random controlled trials and three retrospective studies. Compared with SD, PELD showed a shorter operative time (mean difference (MD)=-18.68, 95% confidence interval (CI): -24.92 to -12.43; p<0.00001), less blood loss (MD=-64.88, 95% CI: -114.51 to -15.25, p<0.0001), shorter hospital stay (MD=-3.51, 95% CI: -4.93 to -2.08, p<0.00001), and shorter mean disability period (MD=-34.34, 95% CI: -53.90 to -14.77, p<0.006). However, there were no significant differences in the visual analogue scale (VAS) scores at the final follow up (MD=-0.23, 95% CI: -0.53 to 0.07, p=0.14), Macnab criteria at the final follow up (MD=1.04, 95% CI: 0.72 to 1.50, p=0.82), complications (RR=0.76, 95% CI: 0.40 to 1.43, p=0.39), recurrence rate (risk ratio (RR)=1.00, 95% CI: 0.61 to 1.64, p=1) and reoperation rate (RR=1.40, 95% CI: 0.90 to 2.16, p=0.13). In conclusion, despite PELD showing significant benefit in short term outcomes such as hospital course and mean disability period, similar clinical efficacy and long term outcomes were observed when compared to SD. Therefore, we suggest that PELD can be a feasible alternative to the conventional posterior approach for the LDH depending on surgeon preference and indication. High-quality randomized controlled trials with sufficient large sample sizes necessary further confirm these results.Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…