Copyright
©The Author(s) 2022.
World J Clin Cases. Dec 16, 2022; 10(35): 12928-12935
Published online Dec 16, 2022. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v10.i35.12928
Published online Dec 16, 2022. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v10.i35.12928
Table 1 Comparison of the general demographic characteristics between the control and observation groups
Group | Sex (M/F) | ASA (II/III) | Duration (mo) | Age (yr) | Body mass index |
Observation group (n = 62) | 35/27 | 25/37 | 7.42 ± 2.41 | 54.13 ± 5.12 | 23.99 ± 1.22 |
Control group (n = 58) | 34/24 | 32/26 | 7.64 ± 2.52 | 54.34 ± 4.97 | 24.23 ± 2.33 |
χ2/t value | 0.058 | 2.650 | 0.486 | 0.234 | 0.712 |
P value | 0.810 | 0.104 | 0.628 | 0.815 | 0.478 |
Table 2 Comparison of therapeutic effects between the control and observation groups, n (%)
Group | Excellent | Good | Average | Poor | Total effective rate |
Observation group (n = 62) | 38 (61.29) | 12 (19.35) | 8 (12.90) | 4 (6.45) | 58 (93.55) |
Control group (n = 58) | 19 (32.76) | 15 (25.86) | 11 (18.97) | 13 (22.41) | 45 (77.59) |
χ2/U value | 3.353 | 6.279 | |||
P value | 0.001 | 0.012 |
Table 3 Comparison of perioperative indicators between the control and observation groups
Group | Operative time (h) | Intraoperative blood loss (mL) | Hospital stay (d) |
Observation group (n = 62) | 6.74 ± 1.37 | 33.21 ± 1.95 | 4.34 ± 1.33 |
Control group (n = 58) | 6.71 ± 1.51 | 33.60 ± 1.96 | 5.38 ± 1.57 |
t value | 0.133 | 1.097 | 3.933 |
P value | 0.884 | 0.275 | 0.000 |
Table 4 Analysis of dysfunction in the control and observation groups
Group | JOA (points) | ODI (points) | ||
Before therapy | 4 wk of therapy | Before therapy | 4 wk of therapy | |
Observation group (n = 62) | 7.71 ± 2.05 | 2.98 ± 1.26 | 55.68 ± 2.76 | 11.68 ± 2.53 |
Control group (n = 58) | 7.93 ± 2.12 | 3.90 ± 1.61 | 55.95 ± 1.93 | 14.98 ± 1.86 |
t value | 0.581 | 3.472 | 0.619 | 8.116 |
P value | 0.562 | 0.001 | 0.537 | 0.000 |
Table 5 Comparison of pain between the control and observation groups
Group | Lower back VAS (points) | Leg VAS (points) | ||
Before therapy | 4 wk of therapy | Before therapy | 4 wk of therapy | |
Observation group (n = 62) | 6.02 ± 1.81 | 2.18 ± 0.88 | 7.87 ± 1.82 | 1.42 ± 0.50 |
Control group (n = 58) | 6.03 ± 2.79 | 3.53 ± 0.50 | 7.78 ± 2.93 | 2.21 ± 0.52 |
t value | 0.043 | 10.292 | 0.215 | 8.464 |
P value | 0.966 | 0.000 | 0.830 | 0.000 |
Table 6 Comparison of quality of life between the control and observation groups
Group | AIMS2-SF score (points) | Barthel index (points) | ||
Before therapy | After therapy | Before therapy | After therapy | |
Observation group (n = 62) | 57.55 ± 2.57 | 95.16 ± 1.74 | 57.63 ± 2.18 | 97.29 ± 1.75 |
Control group (n = 58) | 58.14 ± 2.54 | 84.95 ± 2.14 | 57.02 ± 1.58 | 89.16 ± 2.71 |
t value | 1.263 | 28.782 | 1.751 | 19.645 |
P value | 0.209 | 0.000 | 0.082 | 0.000 |
- Citation: Zhang ZH, Du Q, Wu FJ, Liao WB. Optimal approach for total endoscopic discectomy and its effect on lumbar and leg function in patients with disc herniation. World J Clin Cases 2022; 10(35): 12928-12935
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2307-8960/full/v10/i35/12928.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v10.i35.12928