Main Theme-1:Minimally invasive spine surgery-Lumbar spinal canal stenosis |
New Applications of MicroEndoscopic Discectomy(MED)for Revision Discectomy and Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Canal Stenosis(LSCS)
Motonobu NATSUYAMA, et al. |
Abstract
<Introductions>Smith and Foley developed a minimally invasive procedure for lumbar disc herniation(LDH), MED, in 1995. We started the same procedure from October 1998, operated 212 cases until March 2003, and had satisfactory results. This time we expanded the applications for revision discectomy and decompression for LSCS. The purpose of this study is to present the operative procedure, early clinical results, and complications.
<Materials>A)Seven cases of LDH patients who had undergone conventional Love procedure were operated by MED from May 2001 to November 2002. The mean age was 36, five patients were male, two, female, and the mean period from the first operation was 8 years. Infour, the operated level was in four, L4/5, in two, L5/S, and in one, L4/5/S. B)We operated on 35 patients of decompression by MED for LSCS from February 2000 to March 2003. Male were 25, female, ten, and mean age was 65year old. In 30, operated level was L4/5, in one, L5/S, in one, L3/4/5, in two, L4/5/S, in one, L2/3/4, L5/S.
<Methods>We investigated operation time, blood loss, period to begin to walk, the JOA recovery rate, and complications.
<Results>A)The mean operating time was 117 minutes. The mean blood loss was 17.0 ml.. All patients began to walk one day postoperation. The mean JOA score recovered from 11.3 preop. to 27.0, 3 M. postop., to 27.2, 6 M. postop. The JOA recovery rate was 89.9%3 M. postop, and 90.2%, 6 M. postop. In one case dura was damaged. B)The mean operating time was 120 minutes. The mean blood loss was 22.8 ml.. All patients began to walk one day postoperation. The mean JOA score recovered from 15.7 preop. to 26.6, 3 M. postop, 27.3, 12 M. postop.. The JOA recovery rate was 85.6% 3 M. postop, 86.5%, 12 M. postop.. In one case dura was damaged by airdrill, and in one case, there was muscle weakness in L5 area.
<Conclusions>Revision discectomy and decompression for LSCS were not considered to be a good candidate for MED because of adhesion. This time the author could overcome the difficulties by gentle and precise manipulation under blight and magnified operative field, and was satisfied with the results. We concluded that revision discectomy and decompression for LSCS could be a good candidate for MED. |
|