Search

BackgroundCalcified lumbar disc herniation (CLDH) is considered to be a special type of lumbar disc herniation (LDH). Percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID), with safety and efficacy, has been proved to be a minimally invasive surgery for LDH. However, there are few studies on PEID in the treatment of CLDH at the L5-S1 level. This study aimed to analyze the clinical efficacy of PEID for L5-S1 CLDH.MethodsFrom August 2016 to April 2020, we retrospectively analyzed 28 consecutive patients (17 males and 11 females) with L5-S1 CLDH treated with PEID at our institution. All the patients were monitored for more than 1 year postoperatively. The demographic characteristics, surgical results, and clinical outcomes estimated by the visual analog scale (VAS) for leg pain, the Oswestry disability index (ODI), and the modified MacNab criteria were collected.ResultsAll patients successfully underwent PEID. The mean operative time and intraoperative blood loss were 65.36 ± 5.26 min and 13.21 ± 4.35 ml, respectively. The VAS for leg pain and ODI scores improved remarkably from 7.54 ± 0.96 to 1.50 ± 0.51 (P P ConclusionsPEID achieved good clinical outcomes in the treatment of L5-S1 CLDH, and it was a safe and effective minimally invasive surgery for L5-S1 CLDH.

Background: Calcified lumbar disc herniation (CLDH) is considered to be a special type of lumbar disc herniation (LDH). Percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID), with safety and efficacy, has been proved to be a minimally invasive surgery for LDH. However, there are few studies on PEID in the treatment of CLDH at L5-S1 level. This research aimed to analyze the clinical efficacy of PEID for L5-S1 CLDH.Methods: From August 2016 to April 2020, we retrospectively analyzed 28 consecutive patients (17 males; 11 females) with L5-S1 CLDH treated with PEID at our institution. All the patients were followed up for greater than 1 year postoperatively. The demographic characteristics, surgical results and clinical outcomes estimated by the visual analog scale (VAS) for leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI) and modified MacNab criteria were collected.Results: All patients were successfully performed by PEID. The mean operative time and intraoperative blood loss were 65.36 ± 5.26 minutes and 13.21 ± 4.35 ml, respectively. The VAS for leg pain and ODI scores improved remarkably from 7.54 ± 0.96 to 1.50 ± 0.51 (P < 0.05) and from 69.29 ± 9.91 to 17.43 ± 3.69 (P < 0.05) a year after operation, respectively. According to the modified MacNab criteria of the last follow-up, the excellent and good rates are 92.86%. Two of the patients had complications, one had nerve root injury and the other had postoperative dysesthesia.Conclusions: PEID achieved good clinical outcomes in the treatment of L5-S1 CLDH. And PEID was a safe and effective minimally invasive surgery for L5-S1 CLDH.

Background: Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) is a relatively safe and effective minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of calcified lumbar disc herniation (CLDH). However, studies on percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) and percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy (PETD) for CLDH have rarely been reported. This research aimed to compare the clinical efficacy of PEID and PETD for L5-S1 CLDH.Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 42 consecutive patients with L5-S1 CLDH treated with PELD at our institution from August 2016 to December 2019. Patients were divided into PEID group (n = 24) and PETD (n = 18) group according to the surgical methods. The demographic characteristics and surgical results of the two groups were compared. Clinical outcomes were estimated by the visual analog scale (VAS) for leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI) and modified MacNab criteria.Results: All patients were successfully operated on by PEID or PETD. No significant differences in the demographic characteristics, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hospital stay and complication rate were noted between the PEID and PETD groups (P > 0.05). The excellent and good rates in the PEID group were similar to those in the PETD group (91.67% vs 88.89%, P > 0.05), whereas the PEID group exhibited superior results for operative time (m) (64.58 ± 5.88 vs 85.56 ± 9.06, P < 0.05) and fluoroscopy times (n) (2.96 ± 0.96 vs 13.33 ± 2.64, P < 0.05) compared with the PETD group.Conclusions: PEID had achieved good clinical efficacy as PETD for L5-S1 CLDH. Compared with PETD, PEID had the advantages of shorter operative time and a reduced number of fluoroscopy times in the treatment of CLDH.