Anterior Lumbar Microdiscectomy and Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Recurrent Disc Herniation

Neurosurgery ◽  
2001 ◽  
Vol 48 (2) ◽  
pp. 334-338
Author(s):  
A. Giancarlo Vishteh ◽  
Curtis A. Dickman
Keyword(s):  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Microdiscectomy ◽  
Recurrent Disc Herniation

scholarly journals Clinical and radiographically/neuroimaging documented outcome in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

2006 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-5 ◽  
Author(s):  
John K. Houten ◽  
Nicholas H. Post ◽  
Joseph W. Dryer ◽  
Thomas J. Errico
Keyword(s):  
Back Pain ◽  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Leg Pain ◽  
Sensory Loss ◽  
Symptom Duration ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Disc Space ◽  
Recurrent Disc Herniation

Object Although transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is an increasingly popular surgical technique, there are a limited number of studies in which investigators have stratified outcome data with respect to surgical indications or documented radiographically proven and clinical results with respect to disc space height (DSH). The authors conducted a study to evaluate the long-term outcomes after TLIF with respect to surgical indication and radiographic/neuroimaging results. Methods Thirty-three consecutive TLIF-treated patients underwent follow-up investigation for a mean of 37 months. Isthmic spondylolysis was present in eight patients, recurrent disc herniation in 14, and degenerative disc disease (DDD) in 11. The operative technique involved the placement of interbody structural allograft, pedicle screw instrumentation, and morcellized autograft in the anterior interbody space and the contralateral intertransverse gutter. Surgery was performed at L4–5 in 16 patients, L5–S1 in 14, L3–4 in two, and both L4–5 and L5–S1 in one patient. Preoperative symptoms were back pain (in 91% of cases), leg pain (in 94%), sensory loss (in 67%), and motor deficits (in 30%). Postoperatively, back pain was improved in 67% of the patients, unchanged in 27%, and worsened in 7%. Leg pain improved in 80% of patients, was unchanged in 10%, and worsened in 10%. Outcome, as measured using the Prolo Functional and Economic Scales, improved from a score of 4.9 to 7. In patients with spondylolysis and recurrent disc herniation outcomes were better than in those with DDD only. There was no correlation of outcome with symptom duration, patient age, or level of surgery. In an independent review of pre- and late postoperative radiographs no significant differences in lordosis angles, Cobb angles, or DSHs were found. Fusion occurred in all cases. Conclusions The TLIF procedure was associated with good clinical outcomes and a high fusion rate but no change in the DSH. Patients who present with spondylolysis and recurrent herniations experience better outcome than those with degenerative disease alone.

Recurrent disc herniation after lumbar microdiscectomy

Vrach ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 32 (7) ◽  
pp. 25-31
Author(s):  
A. Yarikov ◽  
O. Perlmutter ◽  
I. Smirnov ◽  
A. Boyarshinov ◽  
A. Simonov ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Lumbar Microdiscectomy ◽  
Recurrent Disc Herniation

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

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document