Abstract
Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) is increasingly used in patients with lumbar disc herniation due to its less invasive nature and faster recovery. In this study, we aimed to investigate the prognostic factors associated with patient satisfaction index (PSI) in PELD. A retrospective study of 337 patients who underwent PELD between November 2015 and October 2020 in our department was conducted. Preoperative data of the enrolled patients were recorded. A logistic regression model was developed to explore the preoperative factors associated with postoperative PSI. After a mean follow-up of 28.7 ± 3.6 months, 310 patients were satisfied (NASS score of 1 or 2) and 27 patients were dissatisfied (NASS score of 3 or 4), resulting in a patient satisfaction rate of 91.99%. Demographic data, clinical symptom characteristics, and neurological physical examinations (including lower limb hypesthesia, muscle strength, and tendon flex) did not show any significant differences between the four groups (NASS1,2,3,4). The satisfactory group showed a higher rate of positive Lasegue sign (P = 0.010) and higher preoperative VAS (P = 0.002). The dissatisfaction group showed a higher rate of contiguous double-level disc herniation (P = 0.003). Our findings indicated that positive Lasegue sign and high preoperative VAS were prognostic factors for patient-reported satisfaction and PELD might not be the first choice for contiguous double-level disc herniation.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Introduction
Lumbar disc herniation (LDH) is the leading cause of sciatica. The prevalence of symptomatic LDH has been reported to be 1–3%1. While the majority of patients can be relieved by conservative treatment, approximately 20% of patients require surgical intervention when conservative treatment fails or neurological symptoms worsen2,3. Lumbar discectomy is the most common spinal surgical procedure for the treatment of LDH. Compared with interbody fusion techniques, lumbar discectomy offers a variety of advantages, including simpler surgical procedure, shorter operation time, quicker postoperative recovery, lower surgery cost, and preservation of mobility of the operated segments4. Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) is a novel surgical technique that can be performed with endoscopic assistance and is increasingly used in patients with LDH due to its less invasive nature, faster recovery and less blood loss5.
Many clinical studies related to PELD have been reported, including clinical outcomes, radiographic changes, incidence and risk factors of recurrent disc herniation and residual symptoms6. However, the studies focused on the subjective patient satisfaction is relatively few compared with which focused on the objective clinical outcomes. Additionally, some previous studies have examined risk factors for patient dissatisfaction after microdiscectomy and intervertebral fusion techniques such as old age, smoking, prolonged duration of clinical symptoms, obesity, preoperative leg numbness, et al., but few studies have focused on the prognostic factor for patient satisfaction after PELD7,9.
Since patient satisfaction is an important indicator of the success and outcome of lumbar spine surgery and is associated with improved quality of life10,11, to the best of our knowledge, few studies have focused on patient satisfaction and its prognostic factor for PELD, this study aims to demonstrate the patient satisfaction index (PSI) followed by PELD and to explore the prognostic factors that associated with PSI. This will help identify patients who are most likely to improve postoperatively and help doctors develop surgical strategies for PELD for LDH.
Methods
Study design
This is a retrospective study of patients who underwent PELD at a single medical center. This study was carried out in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Institutional Review Board at our institution (2023KYLL055, 960th Hospital of PLA, Jinan, China).
Patient selection
The analysis included consecutive surgical patients undergoing PELD between November 2015 and October 2020. The inclusion criteria were: (1) patients diagnosed with LDH below L3/L4; (2) sciatica with or without low back pain and failure to conservative treatments for over 6 weeks; and (3) treated with PELD. The exclusion criteria included: (1) presence of 3 or more levels of disc herniation; (2) lumbar deformity or severe canal stenosis; (3) cauda equina syndrome; (4) patients with tumors, trauma, history of spinal surgery and (5) patients with missing data or follow-up < 24 months. All the enrolled patients were operated on by the same senior surgeon at our medical center. Informed consent was obtained from all subjects and their legal guardians.
Data collection
Baseline characteristics, clinical symptom features, neurological physical examinations, and radiographic manifestation were collected from the enrolled patients. Baseline characteristics included gender, age, height, weight, body mass index (BMI), cigarette smoking, alcohol consumption, and history of diabetes. In terms of clinical manifestation, the main clinical complaints were categorized into three types, including low back pain, radiculopathy, and low back pain combined with radiculopathy. The symptom duration was categorized into an acute subgroup (less than 3 months), a subacute subgroup (greater than 3 months and less than 1 year) and a chronic subgroup (greater than 1 year). Physical examinations included Lasegue sign, lower limb hypesthesia, and tendon flex. Preoperative radiological images included standard anterior-posterior and lateral fluoroscopy, CT, and MRI of the lumbar spine. Modic sign, annulus fibrous calcification, and lesion site in the sagittal line and horizontal line were documented.
Clinical outcomes were assessed preoperatively and at final follow-up by Visual Analog Scales (VAS) and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Patient satisfaction was evaluated using the PSI proposed by the North American Spine Society (NASS), with a score of 1 (“the treatment met my expectations”) or 2 (“I did not improve as much as I had hoped, but I would undergo the same treatment for the same outcome”) defined as satisfactory and a score of 3 (“I did not improve as much as I had hoped, and I would not undergo the same treatment for the same outcome”) or 4 (“I am the same or worse than before treatment”) were defined as dissatisfactory12. Residual symptoms are defined as low back pain (LBP) or leg pain and/or numbness at the minimum of two years of follow-up. An LBP-VAS ≥ 2 was considered as having postoperative residual LBP13. Residual leg numbness symptoms are defined as a JOA score of 1 according to the Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) scoring system14. Patients were interviewed by telephone during the 2–3 years postoperative period.
Statistical analysis
Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS for Windows (SPSS 17; SPSS Inc.). Shapiro–Wilk’s W test was used for all continuous variables. Statistical comparisons between groups of continuous variables were made using the independent samples t-test. The chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test was used for binary variables. Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for ranked variables. Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess the relationship between the data and the NASS index and to determine the effect of covariates. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results
A total of 337 patients with PELD attending our department were included in the current study. Out of these 337 patients, 195 were female and 142 were male. The mean age was 46.1 ± 14.3 years old, ranging from 14 to 83 years. After a mean follow-up of 28.7 ± 3.6 months, 310 patients were satisfied (NASS score 1:268, 2:42) and 27 patients were dissatisfied (NASS score 3:13, 4:14), giving a satisfaction rate of 91.99%.
The mean age of the satisfaction group was 45.55 ± 14.33 years, which was lower than that of the dissatisfaction group (52.30 ± 12.37) years (P = 0.018). However, this difference did not exist in the subgroup (NASS score 1, 2, 3, 4). Other demographics (including gender, BMI, smoking status, alcohol drinking, and diabetes) were similar between the four groups. Clinical symptom profiles (including main clinical complaints, and duration of disease) were similar among the four groups. The rate of positive Lasegue sign and preoperative VAS was higher in the satisfaction group (P = 0.010), whereas other neurological physical examinations, including lower limb hypesthesia, Saddle area hypesthesia, muscle strength, tendon flex were not significantly different among the four groups. More contiguous double-level disc herniation (P = 0.003) and left paracentral disc herniation (P = 0.020) were detected in the dissatisfaction group, whereas no significant differences were found in other radiological data. The contiguous double-level (L3/4 and L4/5, L4/5 and L5/S1) accounts for 52.8% in dissatisfaction group and only 7.7% in satisfaction group. (Table 1). Using univariate ordinal logistic regression and considering the NASS scores 1 through 4 individually to analyze the preoperative data, the results showed that the odds of having a positive Lasegue sign, an increase in preoperative VAS, and choosing the next NASS score were 0.51 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.28–0.94, P = 0.031) and 0.71(95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56–0.89, P = 0.004).
The dissatisfaction group had a higher incidence of recurrent lumbar disc herniation, postoperative VAS, and incidence of residual back and leg numbness (Table 2).
Using univariate ordinal logistic regression and considering the NASS scores 1 through 4 individually to analyze the preoperative and postoperative data, the odds ratios for preoperative VAS, postoperative VAS, residual leg numbness, residual back pain was 0.62(95% confidence interval [CI] 0.43–0.89, P = 0.009), 5.37(95% confidence interval [CI] 3.44–8.38, P < 0.001), 4.89(95% confidence interval [CI] 1.82–13.23, P = 0.002), 3.21(95% confidence interval [CI] 1.33–7.75, P = 0.009) (Table 3).
Discussion
Patient-reported outcome measures include the VAS, ODI, SF-12, NASS-defined PSI. The VAS was used to assess back pain and leg pain; the ODI and SF-12 were used to determine functional outcomes and quality of life, and PSI was used to assess the patients` satisfaction. Improvements in ODI correlate with increases in the Patient Satisfaction Index, and for every 10-point improvement in the ODI, the odds of an improvement in patient satisfaction almost double15. Although many studies have reported ODI after PELD, few reports have focused on PSI after PELD16,17. The current study shows that patients’ PSI and its prognostic factors improve after at least 2 years of follow-up after PELD.
91.99% of patients in our study expressed satisfaction, which is similar to the previous PELD study18 and higher than the open lumbar microdiscectomy studies8,9. Although open lumbar microdiscectomy is considered the gold standard procedure for the treatment of symptomatic lumbar disc diseases19,20, its disadvantages include muscle damage, removal of the ligamentum flavum, and nerve retraction, which can lead to instability and scarring of the epidural space, resulting in residual back pain and/or leg pain in 10% or more of patients21. The rate of patient dissatisfaction with open lumbar microdiscectomy has been reported to be 30–40%7,9,22.
Advantages of PELD over open microdiscectomy include preservation of normal para-spinal muscles and minimization of the risk of postoperative epidural scar formation and instability23,24,25. Patient satisfaction with PELD has been reported to be 74–91%18. Intraoperative pain and discomfort during the foraminotomy portion of the procedure are some of the reasons for patient dissatisfaction, as epidural anesthesia or general anesthesia reduces the pain and thus improves satisfaction with PELD26. Although local anesthesia (a mixture of ropivacaine (0.15%) and lidocaine (0.67%), 20-30 ml) was used for all the patients enrolled in our study, they expressed a relatively high satisfaction rate of 91.99%. In our group, preemptive analgesia with Ketoprofen tromethamine or parecoxib sodium, and gradient local anesthesia were used to reduce intraoperative pain. Epidural injection and nerve root block are sometimes required for pain relief prior to nerve root stretching and disc treatment27, but may cause transient limb weakness and dysesthesia that gradually resolve within 24 h28. Overuse of the bipolar radiofrequency scalpel and stimulation of the rotating working channel may cause unbearable nerve stimulation, postoperative nerve root edema, and neuritis, resulting in a lower PSI, which should be addressed during the surgery.
Patients are advised to get out of bed 6 h after surgery, and early activities reduce the risk of nerve root adhesion and deep venous thrombosis. In the absence of complications, patients can be discharged from the hospital 1 day after surgery, and compared with open discectomy, PELD has a shorter hospital stay and return-to-work time, which shortens the duration of disability and thus improves patient outcome and productivity25.
In addition, timely pain feedback during local anesthesia surgery can protect the integrity of the neural structure, prevent serious neurological damage, and lower the incidence of leg numbness. Previous studies have reported that preoperative leg resting numbness7, BMI, symptom duration8, Modic type 1 change, preoperative VAS for LBP, and female sex9 are prognostic factors that reduce PSI. The relationship between patients’ satisfaction and the preoperative factor, and the impact on postoperative outcome is complex and results are conflicting. We did not find any previous factors affecting PSI, and we found that a positive Lasegue sign and a higher preoperative VAS was the prognostic factor of satisfaction, and a positive Lasegue sign was the only predictor of satisfaction among all physical examinations. Lim also found that patients with more pre-operative leg pain were more likely to be satisfied at the 2-year follow-up29, which is consistent with our findings. Yamashita found that the only independent predictor of postoperative satisfaction was the degree of subjective walking difficulty30. We found a higher prevalence of disc herniation recurrence, postoperative VAS, residual leg numbness, and residual back pain in the dissatisfaction group, and all of these factors were associated with increasing PSI except for recurrence.
Yan found a higher incidence of central disc herniation in the dissatisfaction group31. However, we found that the dissatisfaction rate was higher in left paracentral disc herniation than in central disc herniation and foraminal disc herniation, although this lesion location did not correlate with PSI. The reason for this confusing result might be the operator is dextromanual, the left lumbar disc might be ignored because of visual field and habits. We also found a significantly higher incidence of double-level disc herniation in the dissatisfaction group. PELD may not be a good option for contiguous double-level disc herniation due to a long operation time, increased fluoroscopies, and impaired patient tolerance. We advocate selective nerve root blocks to determine the symptomatic level, and then performed PELD at both levels in 13 patients with L4/5 and L5/S1 and in 9 patients with L3/4 and L4/5, with 31.8% (7/22) reporting dissatisfaction at the last follow-up. Injuries to the ligamentum flavum, the posterior longitudinal ligament, and the posterior lumbar disc structure at contiguous double-level may increase the risk of instability, resulting in an increased likelihood of recurrence or back pain.
This study has some limitations. First, this was a retrospective cohort study, and prospective studies with more patients are needed in the future. Second, the follow-up period in this study was medium duration. However, a minimum follow-up of 2 years would reflect the situation of patients` physical function and PSI. Third, although the mental health status affects PSI and depressed patients have a worse postoperative outcome, including worse physical function, pain, and disability32, we did not record patients’ mental health status because they may deny depression and provide inaccurate data due to traditional Chinese culture. Additionally, the data was obtained from a single surgeon’s registry, and the generalizability and external validity of our findings may be weakened.
Conclusion
Overall patient satisfaction with PELD was 91.99%. Positive Lasegue sign and high preoperative VAS are prognostic factors for patient satisfaction. Postoperative VAS, residual leg numbness, and back pain are risk factors for dissatisfaction. PELD may not be the first choice for contiguous double-level disc herniation.
Data availability
The datasets used during the current study available from the supplementary file.
References
Jordan J., Konstantinou K, O’Dowd J (2011) Herniated lumbar disc. BMJ clinical evidence 2011: 1118.
Benzakour T, Igoumenou V, Mavrogenis AF, Benzakour A (2019) Current concepts for lumbar disc herniation. International orthopaedics 43:841–851. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-4247-6
Kreiner DS, Hwang SW, Easa JE et al. North American Spine Society (2014). An evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of lumbar disc herniation with radiculopathy. The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society 14:180–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2013.08.003
Strömqvist F, Strömqvist B, Jönsson B, Karlsson MK (2017) Surgical treatment of lumbar disc herniation in different ages-evaluation of 11,237 patients. The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society 17:1577–1585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2017.03.013
Pan M, Li Q, Li S, Mao H, Meng B, Zhou F, Yang H (2020) Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy: Indications and Complications. Pain physician 23: 49–56.
Luo M, Wang Z, Zhou B, Yang G, Shi Y, Chen J, Tang S, Huang J, Xiao Z (2023) Risk factors for lumbar disc herniation recurrence after percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy: a meta-analysis of 58 cohort studies. Neurosurgical review 46:159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-023-02041-0
Oba H, Takahashi J, Tsutsumimoto T, Ikegami S, Ohta H, Yui M, Kosaku H, Kamanaka T, Misawa H, Kato H (2017) Predictors of improvement in low back pain after lumbar decompression surgery: Prospective study of 140 patients. Journal of orthopaedic science : official journal of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association 22: 641–646. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jos.2017.03.011
Macki M, Alvi MA, Kerezoudis P, Xiao S, Schultz L, Bazydlo M, Bydon M, Park P, Chang V, MSSIC Investigators (2019) Predictors of patient dissatisfaction at 1 and 2 years after lumbar surgery. Journal of neurosurgery. Spine: 1–10. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.3171/2019.8.SPINE19260
Taiji R, Iwasaki H, Hashizume H et al (2021) Improving effect of microendoscopic decompression surgery on low back pain in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis and predictive factors of postoperative residual low back pain: a single-center retrospective study. BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 22:954. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-021-04844-y
Yamashita K, Hayashi J, Ohzono K, Hiroshima K (2003) Correlation of patient satisfaction with symptom severity and walking ability after surgical treatment for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 28: 2477–2481. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.BRS.0000090888.63860.4F
Hudak PL, Wright JG (2000) The characteristics of patient satisfaction measures. Spine 25: 3167–3177. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00012
Daltroy LH, Cats-Baril WL, Katz JN et al (1996) The North American spine society lumbar spine outcome assessment instrument: reliability and validity tests. Spine 21:741–749
Ostelo RW, Vlaeyen JW, van den Brandt PA et al (2005) Residual complaints following lumbar disc surgery: prognostic indicators of outcome. Pain 114:177–185
Fujiwara A, Kobayashi N, Saiki K et al (2003) Association of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association score with the Oswestry disability index, Roland-Morris disability questionnaire, and short- form 36. Spine 28:1601–1607
Yee TJ, Fearer KJ, Oppenlander ME et al (2020) Correlation between the oswestry disability index and the north american spine surgery patient satisfaction index. World neurosurgery 139: 724–e729. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2020.04.117
Djurasovic M, Glassman SD, Dimar JR 2nd, Crawford CH 3rd, Bratcher KR, Carreon LY (2012) Changes in the Oswestry Disability Index that predict improvement after lumbar fusion. Journal of neurosurgery. Spine 17: 486–490. https://doi.org/10.3171/2012.8.SPINE12614
Xu X, Wang L, Wang J, Zhai K, Huang W (2023) Comparative analysis of patient-reported outcomes after percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy between transforaminal and interlaminar approach: a minimum two year follow-up. International orthopaedics, 10.1007/s00264-023-05935-2. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-023-05935-2
Fang G, Ding Z, Song Z (2016) Comparison of the Effects of Epidural Anesthesia and Local Anesthesia in Lumbar Transforaminal Endoscopic Surgery. Pain physician 19: E1001–E1004.
Wenger M, Mariani L, Kalbarczyk A, Groger U (2001) Long-term outcome of 104 patients after lumbar sequestrectomy according to Williams. Neurosurgery 49: 329–335. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006123-200108000-00013
Casal-Moro R, Castro-Menendez M, Hernandez- Blanco M, Bravo-Ricoy JA, Jorge-Barreiro FJ (2011) Long-term outcome after microendoscopic diskectomy for lumbar disk herniation: a prospective clinical study with a 5-year follow-up. Neurosurgery 68: 1568–1575. https://doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0b013e31820cd16a
Hirabayashi S, Kumano K, Ogawa Y, Aota Y, Maehiro S (1993) Microdiscectomy and second operation for lumbar disc herniation. Spine 18: 2206–2211. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199311000-00010
Aono H, Iwasaki M, Ohwada T et al (2007) Surgical outcome of drop foot caused by degenerative lumbar diseases. Spine 32: E262–E266. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000259922.82413.72
Peng CW, Yeo W, Tan SB (2010) Percutaneous endoscopic discectomy: clinical results and how it affects the quality of life. J Spinal Disord Tech 23: 425–430. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0b013e3181b3f862
Pan L, Zhang P, Yin Q (2014) Comparison of tissue damages caused by endoscopic lumbar discectomy and traditional lumbar discectomy: a randomised controlled trial. Int J Surg 12: 534–537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.02.015
Ahn SS, Kim SH, Kim DW, Lee BH (2016) Comparison of outcomes of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy and open lumbar microdiscectomy for young adults: a retrospective matched cohort study. World Neurosurg 86:250–258. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2015.09.047
Ye XF, Wang S, Wu AM et al (2020) Comparison of the effects of general and local anesthesia in lumbar interlaminar endoscopic surgery. Annals of palliative medicine 9:1103–1108. https://doi.org/10.21037/apm-20-623
Feng WL, Yang JS, Wei D et al (2020) Gradient local anesthesia for percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy at the L5/S1 level: a feasibility study. J Orthop Surg Res 15:413. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-020-01939-5
Cheng L, Cai H, Liu Z et al (2020) Modified full-endoscopic interlaminar discectomy via an inferior endplate approach for lumbar disc herniation: retrospective 3-year results from 321 patients. World Neurosurg 141: e537–e544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2020.05.234
Lim JBT, Yeo W, Chen JLT (2018) Preoperative leg pain score predicts patient satisfaction after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion surgery. Global Spine J 8:354–358. doi:10.1177/2192568217723888
Yamashita K, Hayashi J, Ohzono K, Hiroshima K (2003) Correlation of patient satisfaction with symptom severity and walking ability after surgical treatment for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28:2477–2481. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.BRS.0000090888.63860.4F
Yan D, Zhang Z, Zhang Z (2020) Residual leg numbness after endoscopic discectomy treatment of lumbar disc herniation. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 21:273. doi:10.1186/s12891-020-03302-5
Patel MR, Jacob KC, Hartman TJ et al (2022) Patient satisfaction following lumbar decompression: what is the role of mental health? World Neurosurg 164:e540-e547. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2022.05.0
Acknowledgements
We thank Ningning Wang for her help with the English writing, and Tiantian Zhu for her help with the statistical analysis of our manuscript.
Funding
This study was funded by Shandong Provincial Medical and Health Development Plan (No. 202204071067).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
JM.W. was responsible for the drafting and writing of this manuscript. WM.H. was responsible for the conception and design of the study. L.W. and XD.X. were a surgical assistant. All authors confirm the authenticity of all the raw data. Written consent to publish this article was obtained from study participants.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, 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 you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. 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-nc-nd/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Wang, J., Xu, X., Wang, L. et al. Prognostic factors for patient-reported satisfaction after percutaneous lumbar endoscopic discectomy at a minimum of two years’ follow-Up. Sci Rep 14, 22194 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-73366-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-73366-z
- Springer Nature Limited