Endoscopic Revision Strategies and Outcomes for Recurrent L4/5 Disc Herniation After Percutaneous Endoscopic Transforaminal Discectomy
Antao Lin,Yan Wang,Hao Zhang,Kai Zhu,Dan Zhou,Jianwei Guo,Wenhao Zhao,Chuanli Zhou,Xuexiao Ma
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/jpr.s449949
IF: 2.8319
2024-02-23
Journal of Pain Research
Abstract:Antao Lin, &ast Yan Wang, &ast Hao Zhang, Kai Zhu, Dan Zhou, Jianwei Guo, Wenhao Zhao, Chuanli Zhou, Xuexiao Ma Department of Spinal Surgery, The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao, Shandong, People's Republic of China &astThese authors contributed equally to this work Correspondence: Xuexiao Ma; Chuanli Zhou, Department of Spinal Surgery, The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, No. 59 Haier Road, Qingdao, Shandong, 266000, People's Republic of China, Tel +8618661807895 ; +8618661809796, Email ; Objective: We explore the endoscopic revision and surgical techniques for L4/5 recurrent disc herniation (rLDH) after percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy (PETD). Methods: A retrospective study was conducted. From January 2016 to September 2022, 96 patients who underwent percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for L4/5 rLDH after PETD were enrolled in the study. Based on the revision approach, the patients were divided into PETD group (57 cases) and percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) group (39 cases). Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and modified MacNab standard were recorded to evaluate the clinical outcomes. Results: No significant differences were found in the demographic data and intraoperative blood loss between the two groups (P> 0.05), but the time of operation and intraoperative X-ray fluoroscopy exposures in the PEID group were significantly less than that in the PETD group (P< 0.05). The patients' postoperative clinical indexes gradually improved, and the VAS score, ODI index, and JOA score of the patients in both groups showed significant improvement compared with the preoperative period at the 1-week, 1-month, and 6-month postoperative follow-ups (P < 0.05). There was no serious complication observed during the follow-up. Conclusion: For recurrent LDH after PETD of L4/5 segments, percutaneous endoscopic revision can achieve satisfactory results. Among them, PEID has a shorter operative and fluoroscopy time and allows avoidance of the scar that forms after the initial surgery, so it can be considered preferred when both procedures can remove the disk well. However, for some specific types of herniation, a detailed surgical strategy is required. Keywords: endoscopic revision, recurrent lumbar disc herniation, percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy In recent years, spinal endoscopic technique has developed rapidly and has become one of the most important procedures in spinal surgery. It makes the patient less traumatized and recovers faster and has been widely used in the treatment of all kinds of spinal degenerative diseases, especially lumbar disc herniation (LDH). 1,2 However, because the normal position of the disc is preserved, the possibility of recurrence exists after LDH. Studies have shown that patients with LDH treated with spinal endoscopic discectomy have a recurrence rate of up to 12.5%. 3,4 As recurrent patients continue to emerge, scholars in various countries have begun to explore the use of spinal endoscopic techniques in revision surgery. Junlong Wu et al 5 have demonstrated the efficacy and safety of percutaneous endoscopic techniques in revision surgery through a 36-month follow-up study of 94 patients who underwent percutaneous endoscopic revision. For the definition of recurrence of lumbar disc herniation (rLDH), there are no clear criteria, but the basic criteria recognized are as follows: 1. A series of preoperative symptoms exist, such as low back and leg pain. 2. A pain-free period has elapsed after PELD. 3. The same segment of the disc herniates again and compresses the nerve root or dura mater and produces symptoms. 4,6–8 The percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) mainly consists of two surgical modalities: percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy (PETD) and percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID). This study mainly focuses on the choice of these two procedures in the treatment of rLDH. There is no consensus on this issue because the original surgical approach may be interfered with by scarring and adhesions and destroyed bony structures, and avoidance of the original approach may result in poor removal of the disk. In the case of some specific herniations, the choice of revision procedure is similar to the strategy for the initial surgery, but the revision procedure is potentially more difficult and the risk of nerve injury is greater, making it even more important to choose the appropriate surgical approach for revision. As L4/5 has no iliac crest occlusion on either side, this gives PEID enough space to deal with it. Meanwhile, its intervertebral plate gap is -Abstract Truncated-
clinical neurology