We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Short-Term Outcome Comparison Between Full-Endoscopic Interlaminar Approach and Open Minimally Invasive Microsurgical Technique for Treatment of Lumbar Disc Herniation.
World Neurosurgery 2017 December
OBJECTIVE: To compare postoperative pain control and functional outcome between full-endoscopic interlaminar approach (FEIA) and open minimally invasive microsurgical technique (MMST) for lumbar discectomy.
METHODS: All consecutive patients treated with FEIA were prospectively followed. Clinical outcome parameters (low back and leg numeric rating scale and Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale) were measured. Analgesics use after surgery was quantified. Results were compared with a cohort of patients treated in the same period with MMST. The decision regarding which surgical technique to use was based on endoscope availability only.
RESULTS: There were 26 patients treated with FEIA and 18 treated with MMST. Baseline patient characteristics were comparable. Sciatic pain was treated in both groups. Postoperative back pain was significantly lower in the FEIA group (numeric rating scale scores 1.5, 0.3, and 0.2 at 1, 2, and 4 weeks after FEIA vs. 3.6, 2.4, and 1.6 after MMST). In the FEIA group, 61.5% of patients did not take any pain medication. The average number of analgesics taken within 30 days was 4.0 in the FEIA group and 27.2 in the MMST group. The average Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale score decreased from 57.7 to 25.0, 18.0, and 14.2 at 1, 2, and 4 weeks after FEIA compared with a decrease from 58.8 to 41.1, 34.7, and 23.0 in the MMST group. No approach-related complications were reported.
CONCLUSIONS: With less analgesic use, back and leg pain relief after 1 week in the FEIA group was comparable to that achieved in the MMST group after 1 month. This was also true for overall ability of patients to perform daily activities.
METHODS: All consecutive patients treated with FEIA were prospectively followed. Clinical outcome parameters (low back and leg numeric rating scale and Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale) were measured. Analgesics use after surgery was quantified. Results were compared with a cohort of patients treated in the same period with MMST. The decision regarding which surgical technique to use was based on endoscope availability only.
RESULTS: There were 26 patients treated with FEIA and 18 treated with MMST. Baseline patient characteristics were comparable. Sciatic pain was treated in both groups. Postoperative back pain was significantly lower in the FEIA group (numeric rating scale scores 1.5, 0.3, and 0.2 at 1, 2, and 4 weeks after FEIA vs. 3.6, 2.4, and 1.6 after MMST). In the FEIA group, 61.5% of patients did not take any pain medication. The average number of analgesics taken within 30 days was 4.0 in the FEIA group and 27.2 in the MMST group. The average Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale score decreased from 57.7 to 25.0, 18.0, and 14.2 at 1, 2, and 4 weeks after FEIA compared with a decrease from 58.8 to 41.1, 34.7, and 23.0 in the MMST group. No approach-related complications were reported.
CONCLUSIONS: With less analgesic use, back and leg pain relief after 1 week in the FEIA group was comparable to that achieved in the MMST group after 1 month. This was also true for overall ability of patients to perform daily activities.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
Perioperative echocardiographic strain analysis: what anesthesiologists should know.Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia 2024 April 11
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app