Full endoscopic laminotomy decompression versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for the treatment of single-segment cervical spinal stenosis: a retrospective, propensity score-matched study

OBJECTIVE

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is the standard procedure for the treatment of cervical spinal stenosis (CSS), but complications such as adjacent segment degeneration can seriously affect the long-term efficacy. Currently, posterior endoscopic surgery has been increasingly used in the clinical treatment of CSS. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of single-segment CSS patients who underwent full endoscopic laminotomy decompression or ACDF.

METHODS

138 CSS patients who met the inclusion criteria from June 2018 to August 2020 were retrospectively analyzed and divided into endoscopic and ACDF groups. The propensity score matching (PSM) method was used to adjust the imbalanced confounding variables between the groups. Then, perioperative data were recorded and clinical outcomes were compared, including functional scores and imaging data. Functional scores included Visual Analog Scale of Arms (A-VAS) and Neck pain (N-VAS), Japanese Orthopedic Association score (JOA), Neck Disability Index (NDI), and imaging data included Disc Height Index (DHI), Cervical range of motion (ROM), and Ratio of grey scale (RVG).

RESULTS

After PSM, 84 patients were included in the study and followed for 24-30 months. The endoscopic group was significantly superior to the ACDF group in terms of operative time, intraoperative blood loss, incision length, and hospital stay (P < 0.001). Postoperative N-VAS, A-VAS, JOA, and NDI were significantly improved in both groups compared with the preoperative period (P < 0.001), and the endoscopic group showed better improvement at 7 days postoperatively (P < 0.05). The ROM changes of adjacent segments were significantly larger in the ACDF group at 12 months postoperatively and at the last follow-up (P < 0.05). The RVG of adjacent segments showed a decreasing trend, and the decrease was more marked in the ACDF group at last follow-up (P < 0.05). According to the modified MacNab criteria, the excellent and good rates in the endoscopic group and ACDF group were 90.48% and 88.10%, respectively, with no statistically significant difference (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Full endoscopic laminotomy decompression is demonstrated to be an efficacious alternative technique to traditional ACDF for the treatment of single-segment CSS, with the advantages of less trauma, faster recovery, and less impact on cervical spine kinematics and adjacent segmental degeneration.

Percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal vs. interlaminar discectomy for L5-S1 lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective propensity score matching study

OBJECTIVE

Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) is a safe and effective minimally invasive surgery for treating lumbar disc herniation (LDH); however, the comparative clinical efficacy of percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy (PETD) and percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) in treating L5-S1 LDH remains unclear. This study compared the clinical advantages of PEID and PETD for treating L5-S1 LDH.

METHODS

This was a single-centre retrospective study analysing clinical data from 120 patients with L5-S1 LDH between February 2016 and May 2020. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to adjust for imbalanced confounding variables between the two groups. Perioperative data were recorded, and clinical outcomes, including functional scores and imaging data, were compared between groups. Functional scores included visual analogue scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), and modified MacNab criteria. Imaging data included disc height index (DHI), ratio of greyscale (RVG), and range of motion (ROM) of the responsible segment.

RESULTS

After PSM, 78 patients were included in the study, and all covariates were well balanced between the two groups. In the matched patients, the PEID group showed significantly shorter surgical time (65.41 ± 5.05 vs. 84.08 ± 5.12 min) and lower frequency of fluoroscopy (2.93 ± 0.63 vs. 11.56 ± 1.54) compared with the PETD group (P < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, total incision length, and incidence of complications between the two groups (P > 0.05). After surgery, both groups showed significant improvement in back and leg pain based on VAS and ODI scores (P < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in clinical functional scores and imaging data between the two groups at various time points after surgery (P > 0.05). According to the modified MacNab criteria, the excellent and good rates in the PEID group and PETD group were 91.89% and 89.19%, respectively, with no statistically significant difference (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

PEID and PETD have similar clinical efficacy in treating L5-S1 disc herniation. However, PEID is superior to PETD in reducing operation time and frequency of fluoroscopy.