Dr Vishnu Vikraman Nair¹*, Dr Sarabjeet Kohli², Nilesh Vishwakarma², Abhishek Kulkarni³ and Nikil dewnany⁴

¹Fellow In Spine Surgery, Bombay Hospital and Medical Research Centre, Maharashtra, India
²Professor - MGM hospital and medical college, Navi Mumbai
³Senior resident - MGM hospital and medical college, Navi Mumbai
⁴MBBS Student - K J Somaiya medical college, Mumbai

*Corresponding Author: Dr Vishnu Vikraman Nair, Consultant Spine Surgeon Director - Nair Spine & Knee Clinic, Mumbai.

Received: July 19, 2024; Published: September 20, 2024

Abstract

Objectives: Undertaking a study which helps to understand the progression and difficulty associated with Percutaneous Transforaminal Endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PETLD).

Methods: The clinical data of 90 patients with single level Lumbar disc prolapse, operated by PETLD by one surgeon with minimum of 1 year follow up data in a Tertiary health care center was retrospectively analyzed. The patients will be divided into 2 groups: Group A – Early operated ( < 45) and Group B – Late operated ( > 45) and their results will be compared by using Surgical time, complications, reoperation rates, Visual analogue score (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores.

Results: The average operational time for Group A was 115.16 ± 11.73 minutes, whereas for Group B it was 112.62 ± 10.72 minutes (p-value > 0.05). The mean duration of hospital stay for Group A was 4 ± 0.81 days, but for Group B it was 3.6 ± 0.78 days (p-value > 0.05). Among the 45 patients in the Early operated group the complication rates were a total of 26.6%. In contrast, the late operated Group B did not exhibit many complications and only had a 2% complication rate. The average postoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score was 32.11 ± 11.79 in Group A and 27.44 ± 7.43 in Group B, respectively (p-value < 0.05). Similar trends were observed in the comparison of ODI scores at the 1-year follow-up between Group A (32.00 ± 11.89) and Group B (20.56 ± 7.85) (p-value < 0.05). The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores also showed a similar trend like the ODI scores immediately after surgery and at one-year follow-up, with statistically significant difference (p-value < 0.05).

Conclusion: Percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic decompression for lumbar disc prolapse is slowly becoming the gold standard although, our study also shows that the second 45 cases had much better results and fewer complications than the first 45 attributing the difficulties and training required for this surgery.

 Keywords: Endoscopic Spine; Transforaminal; Disc Prolapse; Local Anaesthesia

References

1. McCulloch JA. “Focus issue on lumbar disc herniation: macro- and microdiscectomy”. Spine24 (1996): 45S-56S.
2. Perez-Cruet MJ., et al. “Microendoscopic lumbar discectomy: technical note”. Neurosurgery 5 (2002): S129-136.
3. Kafadar A., et al. “Percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar discectomy: a critical appraisal”. Minimally Invasive Neurosurgery 49 (2006): 74-79.
4. Lee SH., et al. “Operative failure of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy: a radiologic analysis of 55 cases”. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)10 (2006): E285-290.
5. Hoogland T., et al. “Endoscopic transforaminal discectomy for recurrent lumbar disc herniation: A prospective, cohort evaluation of 262 consecutive cases”. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33 (2008): 973‑978.
6. Lee DY., et al. “Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for adolescent lumbar disc herniation: Surgical outcomes in 46 consecutive patients”. Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine 73 (2006): 864‑870.
7. Ahn Y., et al. “Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for recurrent disc herniation: surgical technique, outcome, and prognostic factors of 43 consecutive cases”. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)16 (2004): E326-332.
8. Kambin P., et al. “Arthoscopic microdiscectomy and selective fragmentectomy”. Clinical Orthopaedics 347 (1998): 150‑167.
9. Yeung AT and Tsou PM. “Posterolateral endoscopic excision for lumbar disc herniation: Surgical technique, outcome, and complications in 307 consecutive cases”. Spine 07 (2002): 722-773
10. Chae KH., et al. “Strategies for noncontained lumbar disc herniation by an endoscopic approach: transforaminal suprapedicular approach, semi-rigid flexible curved probe, and 3-dimensional reconstruction CT with discogram”. Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society 04 (2009): 312-316.
11. Lee DY and Lee SH. “Learning curve for percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy”. Neurologia Medico-Chirurgica 9 (2008): 383-388.
12. Tzaan WC. “Transforaminal percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy”. Chang Gung Medical Journal 30 (2007): 226‑234.
13. Chen HC., et al. “Comparison of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy and open lumbar surgery for adjacent segment degeneration and recurrent disc herniation”. Neurology Clinical Research 2015 (2015): 791943.
14. Lee SH., et al. “Operative failure of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy: a radiologic analysis of 55 cases”. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)10 (2006): E285-290.
15. Jang JS., et al. “Transforaminal percutaneous endoscopic discectomy in the treatment of foraminal and extraforaminal lumbar disc herniations”. Journal of Spinal Disorders and Techniques 5 (2006): 338-343.

Citation

Citation: Dr Vishnu Vikraman Nair., et al. “Improving Surgical Proficiency: A Comparative Study of Single Level Percutaneous Transforaminal Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy Performed by a Surgeon at Different Stages After Training".Acta Scientific Orthopaedics 7.10 (2024): 13-19.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2024 Dr Vishnu Vikraman Nair., et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.