A new endoscopic spine system: the first results with “Easy GO”
- 371 Downloads
Endoscopy meets increasing interest by spine surgeons. However, endoscopic results are diverging and many spinal endoscopic systems are difficult to apply and handle.
A system for endoscopic spinal surgery was developed where the main goals were: (1) easy intraoperative handling with standard microsurgical techniques, and (2) avoidance of a prolonged learning curve. The system consists of various dilators, two different work sheaths, two different 30° endoscopes, and an endoscope holder.
Between August 2006 and April 2008, 80 spinal surgeries were performed in degenerative lumbar spine cases (mean age 52 years, range 22-85 years). Intraoperatively, the system was easy to handle. Standard microsurgical techniques were used. Mean surgical time scored 75 min (range 28–168 min). There was no intraoperative complication, no new postoperative deficit and no infection. In four cases, the endoscope was abandoned and the procedure microsurgically continued (5%). At the last follow-up (mean FU 10 months, range 2 weeks up to 21 months), 89% of the patient were pain free (71/80). Four patients suffered from recurrent disc prolapses (5%). Another five patients (6%) were not satisfied without evidence of re-prolaps. Of those who answered the questionnaire of patient satisfaction, 83% (45/54) considered their postoperative status as excellent, 13% as good (7/54), 4% were not satisfied (2/54).
The Easy GO system was easy and safe to handle with the standard bimanual microsurgical technique and good postoperative results. Further studies are needed to show a significant advantage of the technique in comparison to the microsurgical standard procedure.
KeywordsEndoscopic technique Lumbar disc surgery “Easy GO” system Interlaminar approach Lateral approach
The authors gratefully acknowledge the expert assistance in requiring the patient data of Mrs. Bode.
Disclosure / Disclaimer
The authors have no conflict of interest concerning the material or methods used in this study or the findings specified in this paper. MR Gaab is a consultant to the Karl Storz company.
(MPG 15.3 mb)
- 1.Caspar W (1977) A new surgical procedure for lumbar disc herniation causing less tissue damage through a microsurgical approach. Adv Neurosurg 4:74–80Google Scholar
- 2.Destandau J (2004) Neurochirurgie 50:6–10. Technical features of endoscopic surgery for lumbar disc herniation: 191 patients. French. doi: 10.1016/S0028-3770(04)98300-2
- 4.Foley KT, Smith MM, Rampersaud YR (1999) Microendoscopic approach to far-lateral lumbar disc herniation. Neurosurg Focus 7(5). doi: 10.3171/foc.19184.108.40.206 Article 5
- 8.Katayama Y, Matsuyama Y, Yoshihara H, Sakai Y, Nakamura H, Nakashima S et al (2006) Comparison of surgical outcomes between macro discectomy and micro discectomy for lumbar disc herniation: a prospective randomized study with surgery performed by the same spine surgeon. J Spinal Disord Tech 19:344–347. doi: 10.1097/01.bsd.0000211201.93125.1c PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Kotil K, Tunckale T, Tatar Z, Koldas M, Kural A, Bilge T (2007) Serum creatine phosphokinase activity and histological changes in the multifidus muscle: a prospective randomized controlled comparative study of discectomy with or without retraction. J Neurosurg Spine 6:121–125. doi: 10.3171/spi.2007.6.2.121 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Love J (1939) Removal of protruded intervertebral disc without laminectomy. Proc Staff Meet Mayo Clin 14:800Google Scholar
- 18.McGirt MJ, Ambrossi GL, Datoo G, Sciubba DM, Witham TF, Wolinsky JP et al (2009) Recurrent disc herniation and long-term back pain after primary lumbar discectomy: review of outcomes reported for limited versus aggressive disc removal. Neurosurgery 64:338–344. doi: 10.1227/01.NEU.0000337574.58662.E2 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Mixter WJ, Barr JS (1934) Rupture of the intervertebral disc with involvement of the spinal cord. N Engl J Med 211:210–214Google Scholar