[Clinical outcomes and bone resection analysis of unilateral double-channel endoscopic technique in treating lumbar disc herniation]
Qing-Yun Xin,Wen-Zheng Li,Jun-Jian Han,Qi-Tao Liu,Chao Feng,Xiu-Sheng Guo,Jie Wei,Jie-Fu Song,De-An Qin,Deng-Jun Zhang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.12200/j.issn.1003-0034.20221038
2024-03-25
Abstract:Objective: To explore clinical outcomes and bone resection of interlaminar fenestration decompression and unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) technique in treating lumbar disc herniation(LDH). Methods: A retrospective study was performed on 105 patients with single-level LDH treated from December 2019 to December 2021. Fifty-four patients in UBE group,including 32 males and 22 females,aged from 18 to 50 years old with an average of(38.7±9.3) years old,were treated with UBE,29 patients with L4,5 and 25 patients with L5S1. There were 51 patients in small fenestration group,including 27 males and 24 females,aged from 18 to 50 years old with an average of (39.9±10.0) years old,were treated with small fenestration,25 patients with L4,5 and 26 patients with L5S1. Perioperative indexes,such as operation time,postoperative time of getting out of bed and hospital stay were observed and compared between two groups. Visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) were compared between two groups before operation and 1,3,6 and 12 months after operation,respectively;and modified MacNab evaluation criteria was used to evaluate clinical efficacy. Amount of bone resection and retention rate of inferior articular process laminoid complex were compared between two groups. Results: All 105 patients were successfully completed operation. Both of two groups were followed up from 6 to 12 months with an average of (10.69±2.49) months. Operation time,postoperative time of getting out of bed and hospital stay were (58.20±5.54) min,(2.40±0.57) d and (3.80±0.61) d in UBE group,and (62.90±7.14) min,(4.40±0.64) d and (4.40±0.64) d in small fenestrum group,respectively;and had statistically difference between two groups(P<0.05). Postoperative VAS of low back and leg pain and ODI in both groups were significantly lower than those before surgery (P<0.05). VAS of lumbar pain in UBE group (1.37±0.49) score was lower than that of small fenestration group (2.45±0.64) score,and had statistically difference (t=9.745,P<0.05). Postoperative ODI in UBE group at 1 and 3 months were (28.54±3.31) % and (22.87±3.23) %,respectively,which were lower than those in small fenestra group (36.31±9.08) % and (29.90±8.36) %,and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). There were no significant difference in VAS and ODI between two groups at other time points (P>0.05). According to the modified MacNab evaluation criteria at the latest follow-up,49 patients got excellent result,3 good,and 2 fair in UBE group. In small fenestration group,35 patients got excellent,12 good,and 4 fair. In UBE group,amount of bone resection on L4,5 segment was (0.45±0.08) cm3 and (0.31±0.08) cm3 on the segment of L5S1. In small fenestration group,amount of bone resection on L4,5 segment was (0.57±0.07) cm3 and (0.49±0.04) cm3 on the segment of L5S1,and amount of bone resection of lower articular process laminar complex on the same segment in UBE group was less than that in small fenestration group (P<0.05). In UBE group,retention rate of laminoid complex on L4,5 segment was (0.73±0.04) and L5S1 segment was (0.83±0.03),while L4,5 segment was(0.68±0.06) and L5S1 segment was (0.74±0.04) in small fenestration group,the lower articular process laminar complex retention rate in UBE group was higher than that in small fenestration group(P<0.05). Conclusion: Both unilateral double-channel endoscopy and small fenestration of laminae could achieve good clinical results in treating LDH,but UBE has advantages of less trauma,higher efficiency,faster postoperative recovery and less damage to bone structure.