Revision Surgery after Percutaneous Endoscopic Transforaminal Discectomy Compared with Primary Open Surgery for Symptomatic Lumbar Degenerative Disease

摘要

Objective To evaluate the clinical outcome of reoperation after percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) as compared with primary spinal decompression and fusion. Methods A retrospective study from December 2014 to December 2017 was conducted at Peking Union Medical College Hospital and comprised 39 patients with symptomatic lumbar degenerative disease (LDD): 13 post‐PELD who underwent reoperation (revision surgery group) and 26 who received primary spinal decompression and fusion (primary open surgery group). The two groups were compared regarding: operative time, blood loss, transfusion, hospitalization, postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) scores, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) improvement rate, and postoperative complications. The Mann–Whitney U ‐test was applied to analyze continuous parameters, and the χsup2/sup‐test for categorical parameters. Fisher's exact test was used for small data subsets. Results There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in mean age (52.7?years vs 52.9?years), gender ratio (6 men‐to‐7 women vs 12 men‐to‐14 women), body mass index, medical history, preoperative diagnosis, or surgical spine level ( P 0.05). The mean operative time of the revision surgery group was significantly longer than that of the primary open surgery group (160.0 min vs 130.2 min, P Conclusion Patients with LDD who received primary spinal decompression and fusion experienced lower rates of perioperative complications and shorter hospitalization compared with patients who underwent revision surgery after PELD, but the clinical outcomes at the last follow‐up of both groups were satisfactory.