| Objective: To investigate the early and medium term efficacy of PEID versus MED in the treatment of unilateral L5/S1 disc herniation. Methods: Retrospective analysis was performed to compare the clinical data of patients with L5/S1 unilateral lumbar disc herniation treated by PEID (24 cases) and MED (23 cases) from January 2018 to January 2019 in the Department of Spine, Wuxi Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, and 11.9±1.3 months follow-up was obtained.The operative time, intraoperative blood loss, frequency of intraoperative X-ray exposure, surgical incision and average length of hospital stay were observed.VAS was used to evaluate the degree of lumbar and leg pain before, after, 3 months and 12 months after surgery.Lumbar motor function was assessed by the ODI before and 1 year after surgery.At 1 year after surgery, the efficacy was evaluated using the modified MacNAB standard, which was divided into four grades: excellent, good, fair and poor. Results: The operative time, intraoperative blood loss, surgical incision and average length of hospital stay in PEID group were better than those in MED group (P < 0.05).There was no statistical significance in the number of intraoperative X-ray irradiation between the two groups (P > 0.05).The VAS scores of patients in the PEID group and the MED group at the time of postoperative follow-up were significantly improved compared with those before surgery, with statistical significance (P < 0.05). Compared with the MED group and the PEID group, the postoperative VAS scores of the PEID group were lower than those of the MED group (P < 0.05).There was no significant difference in ODI scores between the PEID group and the MED group 12 months after surgery (P > 0.05).Conclusion: PEID has the same early efficacy as MED in the treatment of unilateral lumbar disc herniation in L5/S1, but PEID has more minimally invasive advantages in terms of intraoperative blood loss, incision length and average length of hospital stay. |
