Search

Background. Percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy (PETD) is regarded as a viable alternative option for upper lumbar disc herniation (LDH). However, few studies have evaluated PETD for upper LDH, and no study has compared the advantages of endoscopic procedures versus conventional surgery. The present study was aimed at comparing the surgical outcome and safety of PETD versus conventional open lumbar discectomy in the treatment of upper LDH. Methods. Data from 42 patients treated for upper LDH from July 2015 to July 2018 were retrospectively analyzed, including 21 patients treated with PETD (PETD group) and 21 patients treated with conventional posterior lumbar discectomy (open group). The two groups were compared regarding demographic information, physical examination, radiological evaluations, and perioperative indicators. The clinical outcomes were assessed in accordance with the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analog scale (VAS), and modified MacNab criteria. Results. The postoperative ODI and VAS scores were significantly improved in both groups compared with the preoperative baseline values (P < 0.001), and the satisfactory rate was 90.5% in both groups in accordance with the modified MacNab criteria. There were no significant differences between the two groups in the clinical outcomes and complication rate (P > 0.05); however, compared with the open group, the PETD group had significantly less blood loss, less postoperative drainage, shorter operation time, and shorter postoperative hospitalization (P < 0.001). Conclusions. PETD has a similar outcome to the conventional surgical method for the treatment of upper LDH but provides the typical advantages of minimally invasive procedures such as reduced iatrogenic injury, minimal activity restrictions, and accelerated ambulation recovery postoperatively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The treatment of congenital scoliosis associated with split cord malformation (SCM) raises the issue of how to best manage such patients to avoid neurological deficit while achieving a satisfactory correction.Methods: This prospective clinical study was performed at our center from March 2000 through June 2013. We enrolled a total of 214 patients (61 male and 153 female) with congenital scoliosis associated with SCM who were undergoing spinal correction surgery. The mean age at surgery was 14.1 years. The inclusion criteria were congenital scoliosis with confirmed SCM; status as neurologically intact or stable over the preceding 2 years; and no neurological deterioration as evidenced on traction, side-bending, or fulcrum-bending radiographs. Patients with unstable neurological status or for whom vertebral column resection surgery was planned were excluded. All patients underwent scoliosis surgery without prophylactic detethering.Results: On the basis of the Pang classification, 73 patients were in the type-I SCM group, and 141 were in the type-II SCM group. The groups did not differ significantly with respect to preoperative characteristics, operative time, blood loss, or number of levels fused. The mean follow-up was 37 months (range, 24 to 108 months). The rate of scoliosis correction was lower in the type-I group than in the type-II group (p < 0.05). In the type-I group, the correction rate was 48.9% at 1 week postoperatively and 42.2% at the last follow-up. In the type-II group, the correction rate was 54.7% at 1 week postoperatively and 47.9% at the last follow-up. Eleven (5.1%) of the patients experienced transient neurological complications, with no significant difference between the groups (p = 0.415). No patient experienced permanent neurological deficit during surgery or follow-up.Conclusions: Patients with congenital scoliosis associated with SCM, regardless of type, can safely and effectively undergo spinal deformity correction and achieve spinal balance without neurological intervention. For such patients with intact or stable neurological status, prophylactic detethering prior to scoliosis surgery may not be necessary.Level Of Evidence: Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]