DOI 10.1080/00207454.2018.1503176
Posterior percutaneous endoscopic cervical discectomy through lamina-hole approach for cervical intervertebral disc herniation.
Аннотация
BACKGROUND
The optimal PECD surgical approach for cervical intervertebral disc herniation (CIVDH) remains controversial. The conventional posterior K-hole approach for PECD leads to damage of facet joint.
OBJECTIVES
This article is to first describe a novel posterior lamina-hole approach of percutaneous endoscopic cervical discectomy (PECD) for CIVDH. The objective of this study is to evaluate the feasibility and short-term clinical effect of this approach.
METHODS
Single-center retrospective observational study of all patients managed with posterior percutaneous endoscopic cervical discectomy (PPECD) using the lamina-hole approach for symptomatic single-level CIVDH between January 2015 and January 2016. The clinical outcomes were evaluated with the visual analog scale, modified MacNab criteria and radiographical results.
RESULTS
Twelve patients (seven women, five men) were enrolled in the study. Positive clinical response for pain relief was achieved in these patients receiving PPECD through lamina-hole approach for CIVDH. Postoperative MRI showed complete removal of the disc material in all the patients, no failure due to residual fragment was observed.
CONCLUSION
As an alternative surgical approach of PPECD, PPECD through lamina-hole approach is a novel access for CIVDH and may be considered a valid and safe therapeutic option for CIVDH. The advantages of this approach are not only providing a valid and secure access to herniated cervical intervertebral fragment but also avoiding the iatrogenic damage to the facet joint and relevant functional spinal unit (FSU). Theoretically, the potential of secondary degeneration of FSU is low.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.