Bi-needle technique versus transforaminal endoscopic spine system technique for percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy in treating intervertebral disc calcification: a propensity score matched cohort analysis

Abstract

Objective

The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical results of a Bi-needle technique and conventional transforaminal endoscopic spine system (TESSYS) technique for percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) in treating patients with intervertebral disc calcification (IDC).

Background

PELD has gained acceptance for treating patients with IDC. The Bi-needle technique was designed to improve the efficiency and safety of PELD.

Method

Bi-needle and TESSYS group within each cohort were balanced using 1:1 propensity score matching. Finally, 32 patients with IDC treated by Bi-needle technique from December 2015 to September 2017 were enrolled and 25 patients treated by TESSYS technique from the same spine surgery center between January 2013 and October 2017 were enrolled as controls.

Results

Propensity score matching generated 22 Bi-needle and 22 TESSYS patients. There were no significant differences in visual analog scale and lumbar Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores between Bi-needle and TESSYS group. Operative time and rate of complications in the Bi-needle was significantly better than the TESSYS group (p < 0.01).

Conclusions

Both surgical methods achieved good clinical outcomes. However, compared with the TESSSY technique, operative time of the Bi-needle technique is shorter, and rate of complications is lower.

Keywords:

• Bi-needle technique
• intervertebral disc calcification
• percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy
• TESSYS technique

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This paper was supported by Municipal Natural Science Foundation. “The inflammatory environment of annular fibrosus promotes RSPO2/WNT/BMP loop in degenerative intervertebral disc calcification” [19ZR1456700] and also supported by the NSFC [31200718].