header advert
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

A PROSPECTIVE, RANDOMIZED, CONTROLLED STUDY COMPARING THE RESULTS OF OPEN DISCECTOMY WITH THOSE OF MICROENDOSCOPIC DISCECTOMY (MED)



Abstract

Background: The usefulness of open (fenestration/ laminotomy) discectomy for the treatment of a herniated lumbar disc has been studied extensively. In the current prospective, randomized study, the results of this procedure were compared with those of Microendoscopic discectomy.

Methods: One hundred and twelve patients who had objective evidence of a single level, central or para-central herniation of a lumbar disc caudal to the first lumbar vertebra were randomized into two groups; Group 1 (55 patients) was managed with Microendoscopic discectomy, and Group 2 (57 patients) was managed with open (fenestration/ laminotomy) discectomy. None of the patients had had a previous operation on the low back, and all had failed to respond to nonoperative measures. Analysis of the outcomes of both procedures was based on the patient’s self-evaluation before and after the operation through Oswestry scoring, the preoperative and postoperative clinical findings, and the patient’s ability to return to a functional status. The patients were followed at one week, 6 weeks, 6 months and for a minimum of one year postoperatively.

Results: On the basis of the patient’s preoperative and postoperative self-evaluation, the findings on physical examination, and the patient’s ability to return to work or to normal activity, 53 patients (96 percent) in Group 1 and 54 patients (95 percent) in Group 2 were considered to have had a satisfactory outcome. The mean surgical time, mean anaesthesia time, postoperative stay, was significantly less in Group 1. The overall satisfaction score was higher after the endoscopic microdiscectomies than after the laminotomies and discectomies especially in immediate postoperative period (one and six weeks) as assessed through Oswestry scoring.

Conclusions: The data from this randomized, prospective study suggest that Microendoscopic discectomy may be useful for the operative treatment of specific symptoms, including radiculopathy, that are caused by lumbar disc herniation, provided that patients are properly selected—that is, they must have a herniated disc at a single level as confirmed on imaging studies, have failed to respond to nonoperative management and have no evidence of spinal stenosis. All the major advantages of an endoscopic procedure like less hospital stay, lesser morbidity, and early return to work can be passed on to the patients without in anyway compromising the surgical goals viz. decompression of the canal and the compressed nerve root. However, endoscopic microdiscectomy is a demanding technique and should not be attempted without specific instruction and training.

Correspondence should be addressed to: EFORT Central Office, Technoparkstrasse 1, CH – 8005 Zürich, Switzerland. Email: office@efort.org