Objective The method of approach during transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy (TELD) has been the subject of repeated study. However, the ideal entry point during TELD has not been studied in detail. Therefore, this study investigated the ideal entry point for avoiding complications using computed tomography (CT) scans obtained from patients in the prone position. Methods Using CT scans obtained from patients in the prone position, we checked for retroperitoneal or visceral violations and measured the angles of approach with five conventional approach lines drawn on axial CT scans at each disc space level (L2–3, L3–4, and L4–5). We also determined the ideal entry point distance and approach angles for avoiding retroperitoneal or visceral violations. Correlation analysis was performed to identify the patient characteristics related to the ideal entry point properties. Results We found that the far lateral approach at the L2–3 level resulted in high rates of visceral violation. However, rates of visceral violation at the L3–4 and L4–5 levels were remarkably low or absent. The ideal angles of approach decreased moving caudally along the spine, and the ideal entry point distances increased moving caudally along the spine. Weight, body mass index (BMI), and the depth of the posterior vertebral line from the skin were positively associated with the distance of the ideal entry point from the midline. Conclusion We reviewed the risk of the extreme lateral approach by analyzing rates of retroperitoneal and visceral violations during well-known methods of approach. We suggested an ideal entry point at each level of the lumbar spine and found a positive correlation between the distance of the entry point to the midline and patient characteristics such as BMI, weight, and the depth of the posterior vertebral line from the skin.
Objective: Unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) discectomy and tubular microdiscectomy (TMD) are widely practiced methods for treatment of lumbar disc herniation. Good clinical outcomes of these methods are reported in many papers, but there are a few comparative studies. This study reports the clinical outcomes of UBE and TMD as minimally invasive surgery methods for lumbar disc herniations and discusses the effectiveness of UBE. Methods: Sixty-seven patients who had undergone single-level discectomy using one of two methods, UBE or TMD, underwent a prospective follow-up examination. Thirty-four of these patients underwent discectomy using UBE, and the remaining 33 patients underwent TMD. In addition to the traditional measures of outcome, the improvement of generic health-related quality of life and disease-specific measurements like Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score, Short-form 36 (SF-36), and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were evaluated and compared. Results: Sixty-seven patients with more than 6 months of post-operative follow-up evaluations were included. The mean improvements in the VAS scores for back pain and leg pain and ODI were 2.0, 3.7, and 26.5 for the UBE group and 1.6, 3.0, and 19.4 for the TMD group. The SF-36 physical health component subscale score improved from 35.4 pre-operatively to 54.8 at the last follow-up in the UBE group, and the mental health score improved from 43.5 to 55.1 (TMD group: from 34.9 to 54.3 and 44.2 to 57.1, respectively). Conclusion:The clinical outcomes of the UBE group are comparable to those of the TMD group. The results indicate that UBE for lumbar disc herniation can be performed safely and effectively as a treatment modality.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.