Open surgery for haemorrhoids in persons with spinal cord injury

Retraction of lumbar disc herniation achieved by noninvasive techniques: A case report

BACKGROUND

Lumbar disc herniation (LDH) has emerged as one of the most common causes of low back pain. The routine treatment approach involves chemonucleolysis therapy, discectomy by percutaneous endoscopy, and percutaneous laser disc decompression. Unfortunately, all of these methods carry inherent risk of causing harm to the patient and, as such, there is an unmet but urgent need for an effective and safe noninvasive treatment for LDH. The purpose of this report is to describe a non-invasive method for re-absorption of LDH.

CASE SUMMARY

A 34-year-old woman was admitted with a complaint of waist pain that she reported as having become acutely aggravated over the past 3 d and accompanied by discomfort in the right lower limb. Her self-reported medical history included persistent postpartum low back pain from 7 years prior. Physical exam showed positivity for neck flexion test (Lindner sign) and supine abdomen test; the straight leg-raising test showed right 60(+) and left 80(-). Findings from standard imaging (magnetic resonance) and collective physical examinations indicated a L5/S1 herniated lumbar disc. Treatment consisted of three-dimensional (balanced regulating) spinal manipulation and acupuncture, upon which the LDH resolved by retraction.

CONCLUSION

Following L5/S1 herniated lumbar disc diagnosis, three-dimensional (balanced regulating) spinal manipulation combined with acupuncture therapy is an effective treatment.

Clinical effects of transforaminal and interlaminar percutaneous endoscopic discectomy for lumbar disc herniation: A retrospective study

The aim of this study is to observe the therapeutic effect of percutaneous endoscopic discectomy and its influencing factors for lumbar disc herniation and compare the advantages and disadvantages of transforaminal and interlaminar of percutaneous endoscopy.Data from 143 patients with lumbar disc herniation were respectively collected, including demographic and clinical data. Study population were divided into curative effect group and poor curative effect group, and logistic regression was used to explore the influencing factors of curative effect. The operation data and pre-and post-operation scores were compared to explore the effect of transforaminal and interlaminar approach on surgery efficacy.The rate of curative effect was 93.7%. 120 patients were classified as curative group and 23 patients were categorized as poor effective group. Univariate analysis found that the patients in the curative effect group tended to receive the interlaminar approach (58.3% vs 34.8%, P = .038). Multivariate logistic regression did not find operation approach was not related to curative effect of operation (transforaminal and interlaminar). But age ≥45 (odd risk (OR) = 6.43, P = .016), course of disease >12 month (OR = 3.77, P = .003), back and leg pain (OR = 3.46, P = .026), history of trauma (OR = 3.88, P = .014), Pfirrmann level IV (OR = 4.84, P = .004), and pre-Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) <5.3 (OR = 3.63, P = .015) were associated with operation efficacy. Compared with transforaminal group, the interlaminar group has less operative time (P = .000), less fluoroscopy time (P = .000), less puncture time (P = .000), less blood loss (P = .011).The transforaminal or interlaminar did not affect the treatment efficacy of percutaneous endoscopic discectomy for lumbar disc herniation. The selection of surgery approach depended on anatomical structure and physiological characteristics. It should be noted that 45 years of age or older, in the course of more than 12 months, both lumbocrural pain and lumbar disc herniation with grade IV, with history of trauma, may have impact on the efficacy of surgery.