» Articles » PMID: 33724665

Percutaneous Endoscopic Interlaminar Discectomy Via Laminoplasty Technique for L -S Lumbar Disc Herniation with a Narrow Interlaminar Window

Overview
Journal Orthop Surg
Specialty Orthopedics
Date 2021 Mar 16
PMID 33724665
Citations 4
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: To improve the treatment effect of patients with L S lumber disc herniation (LDH) with a narrow interlaminar window, we proposed an alternative approach to percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) via the laminoplasty technique.

Methods: Fifteen L S LDH patients (7 men and 8 women; age range, 22 to 56 years; median age, 34 years; 9 left, 6 right) were enrolled in the present study retrospectively. The interlaminar windows of all patients were narrow (the transverse diameter of the L S interlaminar window is equal to or less than that of L ). Percutaneous laminoplasty and endoscopic interlaminar discectomy surgery were undergone by all patients from July 2018 to July 2019. All operations were completed under local anesthesia. The target laminoplasty area was the safety zone, use of which avoids both transverse and exit nerve roots. Under fluoroscopic guidance or clear endoscopic visualization, the trephines were used to enlarge the interlaminar window, which allowed the working cannula to enter the spinal canal but avoid nerve roots and the dural sac. The preoperative/postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) scores and Oswestry disability index (ODI) were statistically analyzed. The modified MacNab criterion was used to assess the clinical effects. The radiological outcomes were evaluated by MRI and CT. SPSS 19.0 software was used for the statistical evaluation.

Results: The operative time ranged from 70 to 120 min, with a median time of 92 min, and the fluoroscopy times ranged from 8 to 12, with a median of 9.7 times. The body mass index (BMI) of patients ranged from 18.10 to 26.06, with a median of 22.04. All patients were followed up in the outpatient department for at least 12 months after surgery. At the last follow up, the average VAS-Back score of the study patients was reduced from 5.33 ± 2.09 to 2.00 ± 1.20 (P < 0.001) and the average VAS-Leg score was reduced from 7.53 ± 1.69 to 1.47 ± 0.92 (P < 0.001). The average ODI scores improved from 47.87 ± 11.41 to 12.93 ± 3.24 (P < 0.01). According to the modified MacNab criteria, 11 cases achieved excellent results and 4 cases achieved good results. All of the operations were successful. There wertr no nerve root injuries, dural tears, or other complications.

Conclusion: The laminoplasty approach for PEID provides a safe and useful alternative for the treatment of L5-S1 LDH patients with a narrow interlaminar window.

Citing Articles

Clinical outcomes of unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBE) compared with conventional open lumbar discectomy with 3D microscope (OLDM) assisted.

Hao J, Chen R, Zheng J, Xu S, Xue H, Yao Y Medicine (Baltimore). 2025; 104(6):e41440.

PMID: 39928788 PMC: 11812994. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000041440.


Predicting and analysing of the unfavourable outcomes of early applicated percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy for lumbar disc herniation: development and validation based nomogram.

Huang H, Yang M, Fu Z, Hu H, Wu C, Tan L Eur Spine J. 2024; 33(3):906-914.

PMID: 38342841 DOI: 10.1007/s00586-024-08141-9.


A bibliometric and visualization study of global research trends in sacral Tarlov cyst from 2000 to 2022.

Lu Y, Bao L, Wang N, Chen S, Qian Y, Gu J Front Surg. 2024; 10:1301739.

PMID: 38234453 PMC: 10791765. DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2023.1301739.


Risk Factors in the Prediction of Leg Numbness after Spinal Endoscopic Surgery: Evaluation and Development of a Nomogram.

Yi M, Wang W, Pan S, Huang S, Sun X, Chen L Biomed Res Int. 2022; 2022:9502749.

PMID: 36398068 PMC: 9666014. DOI: 10.1155/2022/9502749.


The clinical efficacy of biportal endoscopy is comparable to that of uniportal endoscopy the interlaminar approach for the treatment of L5/S1 lumbar disc herniation.

Zuo R, Jiang Y, Ma M, Yuan S, Li J, Liu C Front Surg. 2022; 9:1014033.

PMID: 36238864 PMC: 9553067. DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.1014033.

References
1.
Mo X, Shen J, Jiang W, Zhang X, Zhou N, Wang Y . Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Diskectomy for Axillar Herniation at L5-S1 via the Transforaminal Approach Versus the Interlaminar Approach: A Prospective Clinical Trial. World Neurosurg. 2019; 125:e508-e514. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2019.01.114. View

2.
Nie H, Zeng J, Song Y, Chen G, Wang X, Li Z . Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy for L5-S1 Disc Herniation Via an Interlaminar Approach Versus a Transforaminal Approach: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Study With 2-Year Follow Up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016; 41 Suppl 19:B30-B37. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001810. View

3.
Chen J, Jing X, Li C, Jiang Y, Cheng S, Ma J . Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy for L5S1 Lumbar Disc Herniation Using a Transforaminal Approach Versus an Interlaminar Approach: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. World Neurosurg. 2018; 116:412-420.e2. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2018.05.075. View

4.
Ruetten S, Komp M, Godolias G . A New full-endoscopic technique for the interlaminar operation of lumbar disc herniations using 6-mm endoscopes: prospective 2-year results of 331 patients. Minim Invasive Neurosurg. 2006; 49(2):80-7. DOI: 10.1055/s-2006-932172. View

5.
Li Z, Hou S, Shang W, Song K, Zhao H . The strategy and early clinical outcome of full-endoscopic L5/S1 discectomy through interlaminar approach. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2015; 133:40-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2015.03.003. View