Abstract:
Objective: To compare the e cacy of transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy (TELD) and open decompression discectomy (ODD) in the treatment of single-segment L4/5disc herniation. Study Design: Descriptive study. Place and Duration of Study: Department of Orthopedics, General Hospital of the Yangtze River Shipping, Jiang an District, Wuhan, Hubei, China, from January to December 2021. Methodology: Using random number table allocation, 94 patients with lumbar disc herniation (LDH, at level L4/5) received were divided into two groups of 47 patients each in the control group treated with ODD and 47 patients in the observation group treated with TELD. The perioperative-related indexes, VAS score, ODI index, modi ed Macnab evaluation criteria, and the incidence of complications were compared between the two groups. Results: The incision length in the observation group was shorter than that in the control group, the amount of intraoperative blood loss was less than that in the control group, and bedtime and hospital stay were shorter than that in the control group, but the operation time was longer than that in the control group, with statistically signi cant di erences (p <0.01). The VAS score, ODI index, and incidence of postoperative complications in the observation group were lower than those in the control group at 7d, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months after surgery, while modi ed Macnab evaluation criteria of lumbar function recovery were higher than that in the control group, the di erence was statistically signi cant (p <0.01). Conclusion: TELD is safe and e ective for patients with LDH, which can relieve postoperative pain and help restore lumbar function.
Page(s):
1553-1556
DOI:
DOI not available
Published:
Journal: Journal of College of Physicians and Surgeons--Pakistan : JCPSP, Volume: 32, Issue: 12, Year: 2022
Keywords:
Lumbar disc herniation LDH
,
Transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy TELD
,
Oswestry disability index ODI
,
Open decompression discectomy ODD
,
Visual analogue score VAS
,
Modi ed Macnab evaluation criteria