Home About Journal AHEAD OF PRINT Current Issue Back Issues Instructions Submission Search Subscribe Blog    

Users Online: 156 
Print this page  Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 
Year : 2016  |  Volume : 50  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 228-233

Results of arthrospine assisted percutaneous technique for lumbar discectomy

Arthroscopy and Spinal Endoscopy Centre; Department of Orthopedics, Trinity Hospital and Medical Research Institute, Chandigarh, India

Correspondence Address:
Mohinder Kaushal
House No. 1269, Sector 33C, Chandigarh
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/0019-5413.181777

Rights and Permissions

Background: Avaialable minimal invasive arthro/endoscopic techniques are not compatible with 30 degree arthroscope which orthopedic surgeons uses in knee and shoulder arthroscopy. Minimally invasive “Arthrospine assisted percutaneous technique for lumbar discectomy” is an attempt to allow standard familiar microsurgical discectomy and decompression to be performed using 30° arthroscope used in knee and shoulder arthroscopy with conventional micro discectomy instruments. Materials and Methods: 150 patients suffering from lumbar disc herniations were operated between January 2004 and December 2012 by indiginously designed Arthrospine system and were evaluated retrospectively. In lumbar discectomy group, there were 85 males and 65 females aged between 18 and 72 years (mean, 38.4 years). The delay between onset of symptoms to surgery was between 3 months to 7 years. Levels operated upon included L1-L2 (n = 3), L2-L3 (n = 2), L3-L4 (n = 8), L4-L5 (n = 90), and L5-S1 (n = 47). Ninety patients had radiculopathy on right side and 60 on left side. There were 22 central, 88 paracentral, 12 contained, 3 extraforaminal, and 25 sequestrated herniations. Standard protocol of preoperative blood tests, x-ray LS Spine and pre operative MRI and pre anaesthetic evaluation for anaesthesia was done in all cases. Technique comprised localization of symptomatic level followed by percutaneous dilatation and insertion of a newly devised arthrospine system devise over a dilator through a 15 mm skin and fascial incision. Arthro/endoscopic discectomy was then carried out by 30° arthroscope and conventional disc surgery instruments. Results: Based on modified Macnab's criteria, of 150 patients operated for lumbar discectomy, 136 (90%) patients had excellent to good, 12 (8%) had fair, and 2 patients (1.3%) had poor results. The complications observed were discitis in 3 patients (2%), dural tear in 4 patients (2.6%), and nerve root injury in 2 patients (1.3%). About 90% patients were able to return to light and sedentary work with an average delay of 2 weeks and normal physical activities after 2 months. Conclusion: Arthrospine system is compatible with 30° arthroscope and conventional micro-discectomy instruments. Technique minimizes approach related morbidity and provides minimal access corridor for lumbar discectomy.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded145    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal