Surgical Strategy for Lumbar Disc Herniation based on the MSU Classification: Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy versus Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A 5‐year Retrospective Study

Hongtao Li,Changming Xiao,Hongyu Pan,Haomiao Yang,Yang Lei,Haozhong Wang,Sen Li
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/os.14145
2024-07-05
Orthopaedic Surgery
Abstract:Based on our study's visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) data, most people are more suitable to undergo percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) surgery than traditional transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) surgery. Traditional open TLIF surgery may not be suitable for people who require high spinal mobility and who want to return to everyday life in a short period. Therefore, based on comprehensive consideration of clinical efficacy and surgical recurrence rate, our study shows that PELD surgery is recommended for patients with type 2B, 2C, and 3B. For patients with types 2A, 2AB, 3A, and 3AB, TLIF surgery is recommended. However, it is necessary to reduce strenuous activities and heavy physical labor postoperatively to prevent complications such as screw loosening and adjacent segment disease. Objective Currently, there is no established guideline on whether to opt for percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) or traditional transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) surgery based on specific types of lumbar disc herniation (LDH). Based on the Michigan State University (MSU) classification system, this study conducted a medium‐ to long‐term follow‐up analysis of two surgical methods over 5 years for the first time, aiming to provide empirical evidence to assist in making more informed decisions before surgery for LDH treatment. Methods This was a retrospective study that included 273 patients with single‐level LDH who underwent PELD or TLIF treatment at our hospital between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2018. Detailed metrics included preoperative and postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) scores and Oswestry disability index (ODI) at 1‐day, 1‐week, 1‐year, and 5‐year follow‐ups. Complications, recurrences, and 5‐year postoperative modified MacNab criteria scores were also recorded. Statistical methods included independent sample t‐tests, repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), and χ2 tests. Results Classified into seven groups according to the MSU classification, it was found that there was an improvement in the VAS and ODI scores at four postoperative follow‐ups (p
orthopedics
What problem does this paper attempt to address?