Background
Calcified lumbar disc herniation (CLDH), with a low incidence rate, is a special type of lumbar disc herniation (LDH). Calcified disc herniation, with hard structure, usually adheres extensively to surrounding tissues such as nerve roots and the dural sac. Most patients with CLDH have severe low back and leg pain symptoms and even severe neurological symptoms in the acute stage [
1]. However, conservative treatments fail to effectively relieve symptoms.
Patients with CLDH are typically treated by traditional open surgery. Traditional open surgery completely resects the calcified intervertebral disc with good clinical outcomes. However, traditional open surgery, with a long incision, extensive stripping of the paravertebral muscles and laminectomy, has some deficiencies, such as significant tissue damage, considerable intraoperative blood loss, muscle denervation and atrophy, and even spinal instability [
2,
3].
Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD), including percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) and percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy (PETD), is a minimally invasive operation for the treatment of LDH. Some studies demonstrated that PELD had similar clinical results as traditional open discectomy [
4,
5]. PELD has less intraoperative blood loss, less trauma, faster postoperative recovery, and shorter hospital stay than traditional open surgery. However, it is difficult and challenging to treat CLDH with PELD because the calcified disc tightly adheres to nerve roots and the dural sac [
6]. In recent years, with the appearance of surgical instruments such as ultrasonic osteotomes and endoscopic grinding drills, PELD has been gradually applied to the treatment of CLDH. However, there are no studies and reports comparing the efficacy of PEID and PETD in the treatment of L5-S1 CLDH. The research aims to compare the clinical effect of the two surgical approaches and to provide clinical guidance for L5-S1 CLDH.
Methods
This research obtained the support of the Ethics Committee of our institution and informed consent of all patients. From August 2016 to August 2020, we collected 54 consecutive patients with L5-S1 CLDH treated with PEID and PETD in our hospital. These patients were divided into PEID (n = 28) and PETD (n = 26) groups according to the surgical methods. The inclusion criteria were as follows: 1) symptoms of pain and numbness of lower limbs; 2) L5-S1 CLDH confirmed by preoperative lumbar X-ray, computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); 3) failure of conservative treatment or no significant improvement in symptoms for greater than 3 months; and 4) the follow-up time was greater than 12 months. The exclusion criteria were as follows: 1) multisegmental lesions; 2) noncalcified lumbar disc herniation; 3) lumbar spinal stenosis, lumbar instability, lumbar tuberculosis, lumbar infection or spinal tumor. A percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic spine system (Joimax, Karlsruhe, Germany), tip-flexible bipolar radiofrequency system (Elliquence LLC, USA), ultrasonic osteotome (SMTP, China) and endoscopic instruments (MaxMorespine GmbH, Germany) were used.
Measures
Demographic characteristics, such as age, sex, body mass index (BMI), duration of symptoms, type of calcification, location of calcification and follow-up time, were compared between the PEID and PETD groups. Surgical outcomes, such as operative time, intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative fluoroscopy times, postoperative hospital stay and complications, were compared between the two groups. Clinical outcomes indicators, including the preoperative and postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) [
7] for leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI) [
8], and modified MacNab criteria [
9] at the last follow-up, were compared between the two groups.
Statistical Assessments
The SPSS 25.0 program (IBM Corporation, USA) was used for statistical analysis of all data. Comparisons between the two groups were analyzed by independent-sample t tests or Wilcoxon test, whereas paired-samples t tests were used for intragroup comparison. Sex, type of calcification, location of calcification and complications were compared by chi-square tests. The modified MacNab criteria were compared by the Mann–Whitney U test. P < 0.05 indicates a statistically significant difference.
Clinical outcomes
VAS for leg pain and ODI scores were used to evaluate the clinical results before and 1 day, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months after the operation. The postoperative VAS and ODI scores of the two groups were obviously lower than those before surgery as shown in Table
3. No significant difference was found in VAS and ODI scores between the two groups at any follow-up time point before and after surgery as shown in Table
3. On the basis of the modified MacNab criteria at the last follow-up, no significant difference was found in the excellent and good rates of the two groups (89.29% vs 88.46%,
P = 1.000) as shown in Table
2.
Table 3
VAS and ODI scores of both the PEID group and PETD group
VAS |
Preoperative | 7.64 ± 0.91 | 7.54 ± 0.91 | 0.675 |
1 Day | 2.96 ± 0.58* | 3.19 ± 0.63* | 0.172 |
1 Month | 2.46 ± 0.51* | 2.73 ± 0.67* | 0.103 |
3 Months | 2.18 ± 0.48* | 2.38 ± 0.64* | 0.187 |
6 Months | 1.75 ± 0.44* | 1.88 ± 0.52* | 0.306 |
12 Months | 1.46 ± 0.51* | 1.65 ± 0.49* | 0.167 |
ODI (%) |
Preoperative | 70.79 ± 9.15 | 71.31 ± 10.20 | 0.844 |
3 Months | 23.64 ± 3.93* | 25.54 ± 4.74* | 0.115 |
6 Months | 19.43 ± 3.77* | 21.31 ± 4.77* | 0.113 |
12 Months | 16.50 ± 3.76* | 18.00 ± 3.96* | 0.159 |
Complications
In the PEID group, 1 patient had a dural sac tear but no cerebrospinal fluid leakage; 1 patient had postoperative dysesthesia. In the PETD group, 1 patient had postoperative dysesthesia; 1 patient had residue of herniation. The symptoms of patient with residue were relieved after the second operation while the rest of patients were cured after conservative treatments. During the follow-up period, there were no reports of epidural hematoma, infection or lower extremity deep vein thrombosis.
Discussion
Although both PEID and PETD could achieve good clinical efficacy in the treatment of L5-S1 CLDH, our study showed that PEID group had shorter operative time and fewer intraoperative fluoroscopy times compared with the PETD group.
Compared with children, CLDH is more common in adults. Children usually are treated by conservative treatments, while adults fail to. Calcified disc herniation adheres extensively to nerve roots and the dural sac, which not only increases the difficulty of removal by PELD, but also enlarges the risk of nerve root injury and dural sac tear. Some previous studies showed that PELD was applied to treat CLDH [
10‐
14]. Dabo et al. [
15] showed that 30 patients of CLDH were treated by PEID with a trephine instrument, but 16 patients had postoperative dysesthesia 3 months after operation. Yu et al. [
16] reported that the symptoms of 25 CLDH patients treated by PETD were relieved, but 7 patients had postoperative dysesthesia and 1 patient had recurrence of herniation.
In our study, postoperative outcomes demonstrated that the symptoms of all patients were significantly relieved by PEID or PETD. For the treatment of CLDH, we used an ultrasonic osteotome to remove the calcified disc. Ultrasonic osteotome had selective osteotomy properties and retains the adjacent soft tissue [
17,
18]. Compared with grinding drills, ultrasonic osteotome was considered to be safe, accurate and effective for the removal of bone tissue [
19]. Calcified intervertebral disc, nerve roots and dural sac should be carefully separated and exposed during the procedure. Care should be taken when pulling the nerve root and dural sac. Part of the soft herniated intervertebral disc should be taken out to create a large enough safe space. Small pieces of calcified intervertebral disc could be removed directly. Large calcified disc could be first divided into small pieces with an ultrasonic osteotome and removed in turn. The above measures can reduce the risk of the injury of nerve root and dural sac. Both PEID and PETD may be safer and more effective surgical methods for olderly, obviously frail or economically difficult CLDH patients.
Compared with PEID, PETD has some deficiencies in the treatment of L5-S1 CLDH. PETD is a relatively complex procedure with a long learning curve. Multiple punctures and adequate foraminoplasty are needed, especially in the L5-S1 level with foraminal stenosis and a high iliac crest, which not only increases the operative time and fluoroscopy times, but also enlarges the risk of the exiting nerve root injury. Moreover, surgeons and patients are also exposed to much radiation [
20]. The working channel is not flexible enough during the procedure of PETD, which makes it difficult to sufficient decompression of the herniated calcified disc. Nie et al. [
21] found that the operative time and fluoroscopy times of PEID were significantly shorter than those of PETD. The results were similar to those of the present study.
In our research, no significant difference was observed in the complication rate between the PEID and PETD groups, which may be due to the small number of cases or short follow-up time. In the PEID group, 1 patient had a dural sac tear but no cerebrospinal fluid leak, and 1 patient had postoperative dysesthesia. In addition, 1 patient had postoperative dysesthesia, and 1 patient had residue of herniation in the PETD group. According to our experience, repeated punctures and foraminoplasty may cause the nerve root injury, which may lead to postoperative dysesthesia. The tight adhesion between calcified intervertebral disc and surrounding nerve tissues may result in nerve root injury, dural sac tear and even cerebrospinal fluid leakage. Residue of herniation may be caused by the poor position of the working channel due to the obstruction of the high iliac crest, resulting in insufficient decompression.
There were some limitations in our research. First, this was a retrospective study. Moreover, the sample size is small and the follow-up period is short. Further studies with multicenter, large sample and long-term follow-up will be conducted in the future.
Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (
http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.