Comparison of two endoscopic spine surgical techniques

Sebben, André Luís; Kulcheski, Álynson Larocca; Graells, Xavier Soler i; Benato, Marcel Luiz; Santoro, Pedro Grein Del

doi:10.1590/1806-9282.67.02.20200643

Cited by 2 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Rates of dural tear were available in 6 studies. 17,18,20,[26][27][28] The average rates dural tear were 1.3% and 2.1% following TELD and IELD, respectively. The heterogeneity was low (P = .88, I 2 = 0) and the fixed-effect model was used.…”

Section: Complicationsmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Subgroup analysis focusing on operation for L5-S1 and other levels also demonstrated similar results. 26 3 2 2 7 Cheng et al 12 3 2 3 8 Choi et al 25 3 2 3 8 Choi et al 13 3 2 3 8 Gao et al 14 3 2 2 7 Huang et al 15 3 2 3 8 Jiang et al 16 3 2 2 7 Liu et al 17 3 2 2 7 Mlaka et al 27 3 2 3 8 Rajamani et al 20 3 2 3 8 Sebben et al 28 3 2 2 7 Wei et al 21 3 2 2 7 Wu et al 22 3 2 3 8 Yan et al 23 3 2 3 8 Yin et al 24 3 2 3 8…”

Section: Radiation Exposure From Fluoroscopymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There were 9 studies which recorded the complications, as illustrated in Figure 4A. 12,[17][18][19][20][21]23,27,28 The overall complication rates were relatively low with approximately 11.8% in TELD and 11.2% in IELD group, except for the study by Mlaka et al 27 which reported higher complication rates in both groups, 15.5% and 18.1% in TELD and IELD group, respectively. The fixed-effect model was performed for the analysis due to the low heterogeneity (P = .87, I 2 = 0%).…”

Section: Complicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Rates of recurrent disc herniation were recorded in 7 studies with average rates of 5.8% and 6.4% following TELD and IELD, respectively. 15,[19][20][21]25,27,28 The heterogeneity was low (P = .92, I 2 = 0) and the fixed-effect model was used. There was no significant difference of rates of recurrence following the surgery between the TELD and IELD groups (RR = .92; 95% CI: .92-1.57; P = .77), as illustrated in Figure 4B.…”

Section: Complicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Transforaminal Versus Interlaminar Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy for Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Jitpakdee

Liu

Kotheeranurak

et al. 2022

Global Spine Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Study Design Meta-analysis and systematic review. Objective This study aims to investigate and compare patient-reported outcomes, perioperative data, and complications between 2 common endoscopic approaches for lumbar disc herniation: transforaminal and interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy, by published high-quality evidence. Methods Electronic databases were searched for reported outcomes following TELD and IELD. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analog scale of back (VASB) and leg pain (VASL), and MacNab criteria were evaluated. Operative time, hospital stays, blood loss, radiation exposure, and complications were investigated. Odds ratio (OR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using random and fixed-effect models. Results Total of 1948 patients from 18 studies were included, consisting of 1006 patients (51.6%) in TELD group and 942 (48.4%) patients in IELD group. TELD had better improvement of postoperative ODI (MD = 1.26; 95% CI: .07-2.16; P = .04), postoperative VASB (MD = −.23; 95% CI: −.40 to −.05; P = .01) and last follow-up VASB (MD = −.25; 95% CI: −.41 to −.09; P = .002), but with longer operative time (MD = 10.1 min; 95% CI: 1.925-18.77; P < .00001) and more fluoroscopic time (SMD = 4.12; 95% CI: 3.22-5.03; P < .00001), especially in L5-S1 operation. Bed rest time was significantly longer following IELD, with no difference in VASL, hospital stays, or complication. Conclusion We found comparable clinical outcomes in terms of ODI, VAS, patient satisfaction, hospital stays, and complication between both techniques. TELD required more radiation exposure and longer operative time at L5-S1 level than IELD. Our study provided results to help consider appropriate approaches for selected patients and informed consent of benefits from each approach.

show abstract

Section: Complicationsmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Radiation Exposure From Fluoroscopymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Complicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Complicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Transforaminal Versus Interlaminar Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy for Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Jitpakdee

Liu

Kotheeranurak

et al. 2022

Global Spine Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Generally, this technique is used for the L4 / L5 and L5 / S1 levels, where the wider interlaminar space allows for a larger working space. 5 (Figure 1)…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interlaminar Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy - Clinical Outcome

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Evaluate the clinical outcome of patients with lumbar disc herniation (HDL) operated by endoscopic interlaminar microdiscectomy. We evaluated epidemiology, time to return to work, and technique-related complications as secondary outcomes. Method: Prospective longitudinal study, where patients with HDL with surgical indications were evaluated. They underwent endoscopic discectomy exclusively using the interlaminar technique. Clinical results were evaluated using the Oswestry 2.0 questionnaire (ODI) and the visual analog scale (VAS). In this study, we inserted the Macnab postoperative satisfaction index. In parallel with these indices, we analyzed the results regarding epidemiology variables, time to return to work, and complications. Such questionnaires were applied preoperatively, postoperatively the day after surgery, and one year after. Results: In 132 patients selected for the study, we obtained significant clinical improvement in the ODI and VAS questionnaires, and 81.3% of the patients had excellent and good Macnab index. The hospital stay was 22.7 hours, and the return to work was 30 days. The rate of complications with the method was 12.8%, with recurrence of disc herniation being the most common complication with 9.8% of cases. Conclusion: The endoscopic technique proved effective in treating lumbar spinal disc herniation with significant clinical improvement in the analyzed period, low incidence of complications, early postoperative rehabilitation, and results close to or superior to the gold standard technique. Level of Evidence III; Prospective cohort study

show abstract

Comparison of two endoscopic spine surgical techniques

Cited by 2 publications

References 21 publications

Transforaminal Versus Interlaminar Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy for Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Transforaminal Versus Interlaminar Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy for Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Interlaminar Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy - Clinical Outcome

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About