Comparative Study of Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy and Open Lumbar Microdiscectomy for Treating Cauda Equina Syndrome

0Citations
Citations of this article
5Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the clinical outcome of cauda equina syndrome (CES) using percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) and open lumbar microdiscectomy (OLM). Methods: Fifteen patients with CES either underwent PELD or OLM from January 2017 to December 2019. The patients were divided into 2 groups according to the surgical methods: the PELD group (with 7 patients, 5 males and 2 females) and the OLM group (with 8 patients, 6 males and 2 females). The clinical outcomes were evaluated by the Visual Analogue Scale score (VAS), motor grade of lower extremities, perineal sensation, anal tone, and bladder dysfunction. Results: Both groups reported a significant postoperative reduction of VAS score for back and leg pain. When comparing the two groups, there was no significant difference in the improvement of leg pain. However, the improvement in back pain was significantly higher in the PELD group than in the OLM group (p=0.05). In the PELD and OLM groups, all 15 patients showed an improvement in preoperative CES symptoms including impaired lower limb motor power, perineal sensations, anal sphincter tone and bladder function at the one-year follow-up. The operation time (p=0.01) and length of hospital stay (p=0.01) were shorter in the PELD group compared with the OLM group. In the PELD group, the intraoperative bleeding was negligible whereas in the OLM group. Conclusion: The advantages of PELD, indicate it is a good alterative or option for the treatment of CES patients considering the appropriate indication.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Lee, J. K., Chung, S. W., Lee, S. H., Shin, Y. H., & Park, C. H. (2022). Comparative Study of Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy and Open Lumbar Microdiscectomy for Treating Cauda Equina Syndrome. Journal of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery and Technique, 7(2), 235–242. https://doi.org/10.21182/jmisst.2022.00542

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free