• Int J Surg · Jan 2014

    Randomized Controlled Trial

    Comparison of tissue damages caused by endoscopic lumbar discectomy and traditional lumbar discectomy: a randomised controlled trial.

    • Lei Pan, Peifang Zhang, and Qingshui Yin.
    • Department of Orthopaedics Surgery, The People's Hospital of Foshan, Sanshui District, Foshan 528100, Guangdong Province, China.
    • Int J Surg. 2014 Jan 1;12(5):534-7.

    ObjectivesThis study aimed to compare the clinical efficacies of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) and traditional open lumbar discectomy (OD).MethodsThe pre-operative and post-operative blood loss, hospital stays and wound sizes of the patients in the two groups were recorded. Enzyme-Linked immunosorbent assay was used to measure the changes of interleukin-6 (IL-6), C-reactive protein (CRP) and creatine phosphokinase (CPK) pre-operation and 1 h, 6 h, 12 h, 24 h and 48 h after corresponding surgery. Visual Analog Scale and Modified MacNab Criteria were used to assess post-operative results.ResultsPatients in the PELD group had less blood loss (p < 0.01), shorter hospitalization hours (p < 0.01) and smaller surgical wounds (p < 0.01) than the patients underwent traditional OD surgery. MacNab evaluated that the levels of satisfaction were above 90% in both groups post-operative six months. There was no significant difference in pain index between the two groups (p > 0.05). Furthermore, the levels of CRP, CPK and IL-6 in the PELD group were all lower than those in the OD group with a significant difference (p < 0.01).ConclusionThe PELD had less damage to human tissues than the traditional OD. PELD has a clear promotional value in clinical.Copyright © 2014 Surgical Associates Ltd. Published by 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…