A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Comparison of saline consumption between microdiscectomy, uniportal, and biportal endoscopic lumbar disc surgery: A multicenter observational study. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Background Context: The environmental footprint of healthcare has become a growing concern, but the specific resource consumption associated with spine surgery remains largely unexplored. Despite the widespread use of continuous saline irrigation in endoscopic spine surgery, no study has previously compared the volume of saline consumption across different surgical techniques.

Purpose: This study aims to compare saline consumption across three surgical techniques for lumbar disc herniation: classical microdiscectomy (MD), uniportal endoscopy (FE), and biportal endoscopy (UBE).

Study Design/setting: multicenter, international, retrospective observational study.

Patient Sample: This study included 722 patients who underwent lumbar disc herniation surgery between March 2023 and September 2024. Patients were grouped based on the surgical technique used: MD (n = 127), FE (n = 253), and UBE (n = 342).

Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was total saline consumption (Liters). Data collected included also demographic information and surgical duration.

Methods: Statistical analyses included Kruskal-Wallis tests, pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni correction, ROC curve analysis, and a fixed-effects model to assess factors influencing saline consumption.

Results: Saline consumption varied significantly across techniques, with a median (IQR) of 0.08 L (0.02-0.15) for MD, 4.00 L (3.00-6.00) for FE, and 9.00 L (6.00-13.00) for UBE (p < 0.0001) FE technique consumes approximately 50 times more saline than MD, and UBE consume more than 112 times more saline than MD. No significant correlation was found between saline consumption and patient age or BMI.

Conclusion: Endoscopic techniques for lumbar disc herniation require substantially more saline than classical MD. This highlights the need for strategies promoting responsible resource stewardship in spine surgery. Future innovations, such as closed-loop fluid management systems, may help optimize both environmental sustainability and economic efficiency.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00586-025-09256-3DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

saline consumption
20
lumbar disc
12
microdiscectomy uniportal
8
spine surgery
8
disc herniation
8
consumption
6
saline
6
comparison saline
4
consumption microdiscectomy
4
uniportal biportal
4

Similar Publications