Complication rates of different discectomy techniques for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: New approaches and technologies can be beneficial for patients but also bring corresponding complications. Traditional pairwise meta-analyses cannot be used to comprehensively rank all surgical approaches. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) was to compare the outcomes of different surgical approaches for lumbar disc herniation (LDH). STUDY DESIGN: NMA of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for multiple treatment comparisons of LDH. METHODS: The PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Ovid, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for RCTs comparing different surgical approaches for patients with LDH from inception to February 10, 2020. The Markov chain Monte Carlo methods were used to perform a hierarchical Bayesian NMA in WinBUGS version 1.4.3 using a random effects consistency model. The primary outcomes were disability and pain intensity. The secondary outcomes were complications and reoperation. The PROSPERO number was CRD42020179406. RESULTS: A total of 22 trials including 2529 patients and all 5 different approaches (open discectomy or microdiscectomy [OD/MD], microendoscopic discectomy [MED], percutaneous endoscopic discectomy [PED], percutaneous discectomy [PD], and tubular discectomy [TD]) were retrospectively retrieved. PED had the best efficacy in improving patients’ dysfunction with no statistical significance (probability = 50%). PD was significantly worse than OD/MD, MED, and PED in relieving patients’ pain (standardized mean differences: 0.87 [0.03, 1.76], 0.94 [0.06, 1.88], and 1.02 [0.13, 1.94], respectively). There was no statistically significant difference between any 2 surgical approaches in dural tear; intraoperative, postoperative, and overall complications; or reoperation rate. PED had the lowest dural tear rate and the lowest intraoperative and overall complication rates (probability = 51%, 67%, and 33%, respectively). TD had the lowest postoperative complication and reoperation rates (probability = 35% and 39%, respectively). LIMITATIONS: The limitations of this NMA include the inconsistent follow-up times, the criteria for complications, and the reasons for reoperation. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with other approaches used to treat LDH, PED had the best safety and efficacy in general, and TD had the lowest reoperation rate. Finally, we recommended PED for LDH. KEY WORDS: Lumbar disc herniation, network meta-analysis, minimally invasive surgery, surgical approaches, efficacy, safety

Download Full-text

A Comparison of Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy and Open Lumbar Microdiscectomy for Lumbar Disc Herniation in the Korean: A Meta-Analysis

BioMed Research International ◽

10.1155/2018/9073460 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 2018 ◽

pp. 1-8 ◽

Cited By ~ 21

Author(s):

Manyoung Kim ◽

Sol Lee ◽

Hyeun-Sung Kim ◽

Sangyoon Park ◽

Sang-Yeup Shim ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Lumbar Disc Herniation ◽

Disc Herniation ◽

Lumbar Disc ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Lumbar Discectomy ◽

Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy ◽

Lumbar Microdiscectomy ◽

Surgical Methods ◽

Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy

Background. Among the surgical methods for lumbar disc herniation, open lumbar microdiscectomy is considered the gold standard. Recently, percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy is also commonly performed for lumbar disc herniation for its various strong points. Objectives. The present study aims to examine whether percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy and open lumbar microdiscectomy show better results as surgical treatments for lumbar disc herniation in the Korean population. Methods. In the present meta-analysis, papers on Korean patients who underwent open lumbar microdiscectomy and percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy were searched, both of which are surgical methods to treat lumbar disc herniation. The papers from 1973, when percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy was first introduced, to March 2018 were searched at the databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane Library. Results. Seven papers with 1254 patients were selected. A comparison study revealed that percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy had significantly better results than open lumbar microdiscectomy in the visual analogue pain scale at the final follow-up (leg: mean difference [MD]=-0.35; 95% confidence interval [CI]=-0.61, -0.09; p=0.009; back: MD=-0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI]=-1.42, -0.17; p=0.01), Oswestry Disability Index (MD=-2.12; 95% CI=-4.25, 0.01; p=0.05), operation time (MD=-23.06; 95% CI=-32.42, -13.70; p<0.00001), and hospital stay (MD=-4.64; 95% CI=-6.37, -2.90; p<0.00001). There were no statistical differences in the MacNab classification (odds ratio [OR]=1.02; 95% CI=0.71, 1.49; p=0.90), complication rate (OR=0.72; 95% CI=0.20, 2.62; p=0.62), recurrence rate (OR=0.83; 95% CI=0.50, 1.38; p=0.47), and reoperation rate (OR=1.45; 95% CI=0.89, 2.35; p=0.13). Limitations. All 7 papers used for the meta-analysis were non-RCTs. Some differences (type of surgery (primary or revisional), treatment options before the operation, follow-up period, etc.) existed depending on the selected paper, and the sample size was small as well. Conclusion. While percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy showed better results than open lumbar microdiscectomy in some items, open lumbar microdiscectomy still showed good clinical results, and it is therefore reckoned that a randomized controlled trial with a large sample size would be required in the future to compare these two surgical methods.

Download Full-text