Background Surgery remains the main curative option for the treatment of intraspinal tumour. The purpose of the present study was to analyze the clinical outcomes of laminoplasty with process-lamina complex replantation compared with laminectomy with pedicle screw fixation for intraspinal tumours. Methods In our retrospective analysis, 27 patients received tumour resection surgery by laminoplasty with reconstruction plate fixation and 32 patients received laminectomy with pedicle screw fixation. All patients were followed up for at least 1 year. Data, including surgical time, blood loss, volume of drainage, drainage time, hospital stay, complications, and neurological status were compared. In addition, imaging evaluation was also included. Results Patients in the laminoplasty group had lower blood loss (laminoplasty group: 281.5 ± 130.2 mL; laminectomy group: 450.0 ± 224.3 mL; p = 0.001), shorter surgical time (laminoplasty group: 141.7 ± 26.2 min, laminectomy group: 175.3 ± 50.4 min; p = 0.003), lower volume of drainage (laminoplasty group: 1578.9 ± 821.7 mL, laminectomy group: 2621.2 ± 1351.0 mL; p = 0.001), shorter drainage time (laminoplasty group: 6.6 ± 2.5 days, laminectomy group: 9.7 ± 1.8 days; p = 0.000), and a shorter hospital stay (laminoplasty group: 16.9 ± 4.9 days, laminectomy group: 21.0 ± 4.4 days; p = 0.002) compared with patients in the laminectomy group. There were significant differences of oswestry dysfunction index (ODI) between the two groups at 12 months postoperatively (p = 0.034). The incidence of secondary spinal stenosis in the laminoplasty group was significantly reduced (p = 0.029). Conclusions Laminoplasty in intraspinal tumour resection has a lower blood loss and volume of drainage, shorter surgical time and hospital stay as advantages over the standard laminectomy technique. Moreover, laminoplasty can effectively avoid iatrogenic spinal canal stenosis and thus enhancing functional recovery of spinal cord.
Background Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) is satisfactory for hospitalized patients with lumbar disc herniation (LDH). Currently, only a few studies have reported about the day surgery patients undergoing PELD. Methods A total of 267 patients with LDH underwent PELD during day surgery and were followed up for at least 3 years. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the visual analog scale (VAS) for leg and lower back pain (VAS-B and VAS-L, respectively) and the Oswestry disability index (ODI). The radiological outcomes, such as lumbar lordosis (LL), sacral slope (SS), the disc-height ratio, and disc instability, were recorded and compared. The clinical effects between patients treated by PELD during day surgery and microendoscopic discectomy (MED) for contemporaneous hospitalized 116 patients with LDH were compared. Results Patients treated by PELD had lower blood loss and shorter hospital stay (P < 0.001) compared to those treated by MED. VAS-L, VAS-B, and ODI decreased significantly after PELD than before the operation and 3 years postoperatively. The postoperative VAS-B in the PELD group was significantly decreased than in the MED group (P = 0.001). The complications rate was 9.4% in the PELD group and 12.1% in the MED group (P = 0.471). The 1-year postoperative recurrence rate in the PELD group was much higher than that in MED group (P = 0.042). The postoperative LL and SS in the PELD group improved significantly compared to the values in the MED group (P < 0.001). According to the disc-height ratio at 3-year follow-up, a significant height loss was observed in the MED group than in the PELD group (P = 0.014). Conclusions Although the 1-year postoperative recurrence rate was relatively high, the day surgery for LDH undergoing PELD had advantages in terms of less blood loss intraoperatively, short hospital stay, efficacy for back pain, and efficiency to maintain lumbar physiological curvature.
Background: Although numerous studies have shown good clinical results of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) for hospitalized patients with lumbar disc herniation (LDH), there are few articles that report on the day surgery patients undergoing PELD.Methods: Atotal of 267 patients with LDH received PELD during day surgery were followed up for at least 3 years. Relevant data and clinical outcomeswere recorded and assessed. Meanwhile, we compared the clinical effects between patients treated by PELD during day surgery and microendoscopic discectomy (MED) for contemporaneous hospitalized patients with LDH (116 patients).Results: Patients treated by PELD had lower blood loss (10.8 ± 4.1 mL, 71.3 ± 23.3 mL,respectively; P < 0.001) and shorter hospital stay ( 22.7 ± 4.2 hours, 48.1 ± 22.6 hours, respectively; P < 0.001 ) compared with patients treated by MED. The visual analogue scale (VAS) for leg and back pain (VAS-L and VAS-B, respectively) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) decreased significantly after PELD than those before the operation at 3 years postoperative, and the postoperative VAS-B in PELD group was significantly decreased from the MED group ( P = 0.001). The complications rate was 9.4% (25/267) in the PELD group and 12.1% (14/116) in the MED group, without significant difference ( P = 0.471). The 1-year postoperative recurrence rate in PELD group ( 5.2%, 14/267) was much higher than that in MED group ( 0.9%, 1/116) ( P = 0.042). The postoperative lumbar lordosis(LL)(34.0 ±10.3 ), and sacral slope(SS) (27.5 ± 5.6) in PELD group improved significantly compared with the values in MED group (26.9 ± 9.8, 23.6 ± 6.8, respectively; all P < 0.001). The disc-height ratio at 3-year follow-up was ( 85.7 ± 6.4) % of the preoperative disc height in PELD group while ( 81.9 ± 7.0) % in MED group,with significant height loss in MED group ( P = 0.014).Conclusions: Day surgery for LDH undergoing PELD has favorable long-term outcomes.
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.