RECURRENT DISC HERNIATION AND LONG-TERM BACK PAIN AFTER PRIMARY LUMBAR DISCECTOMY

Neurosurgery ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 64 (2) ◽  
pp. 338-345 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew J. McGirt ◽  
Giannina L. Garcés Ambrossi ◽  
Ghazala Datoo ◽  
Daniel M. Sciubba ◽  
Timothy F. Witham ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Back Pain ◽  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Lumbar Disc ◽  
Lumbar Discectomy ◽  
Leg Pain ◽  
Medline Search ◽  
Recurrent Disc Herniation ◽  
Herniated Lumbar Disc ◽  
Short And Long Term

Abstract OBJECTIVE It remains unknown whether aggressive disc removal with curettage or limited removal of disc fragment alone with little disc invasion provides a better outcome for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation with radiculopathy. We reviewed the literature to determine whether outcomes reported after limited discectomy (LD) differed from those reported after aggressive discectomy (AD) with regard to long-term back pain or recurrent disc herniation. METHODS A systematic MEDLINE search was performed to identify all studies published between 1980 and 2007 reporting outcomes after AD or LD for a herniated lumbar disc with radiculopathy. The incidence of short- and long-term recurrent back or leg pain and recurrent disc herniation was assessed from each reported LD or AD cohort and the cumulative incidence compared. RESULTS Fifty-four studies (60 discectomy cohorts) met the inclusion criteria, reporting the outcomes of 13 359 patients after lumbar discectomy (LD, 6135 patients; AD, 7224 patients). The reported incidence of short-term recurrent back or leg pain was similar after LD (mean, 14.5%; range, 7–16%) and AD (mean, 14.1%; range, 6–43%) (P < 0.01). However, more than 2 years after surgery, the reported incidence of recurrent back or leg pain was 2.5-fold less after LD (mean, 11.6%; range, 7–16%) compared with AD (mean, 27.8%; range, 19–37%) (P < 0.0001). The reported incidence of recurrent disc herniation after LD (mean, 7%; range, 2–18%) was greater than that reported after AD (mean, 3.5%; range, 0–9.5%) (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION Review of the literature demonstrates a greater reported incidence of long-term recurrent back and leg pain after AD but a greater reported incidence of recurrent disc herniation after LD. Prospective, randomized trials are needed to firmly assess this possible difference.

Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy for Treating Cauda Equina Syndrome Due To Lumbar Disc Herniation

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hai-Chao He ◽  
Xiao-qiang LV ◽  
Yong-Jin Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Back Pain ◽  
Lumbar Disc Herniation ◽  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Cauda Equina Syndrome ◽  
Lumbar Disc ◽  
Cauda Equina ◽  
Lumbar Discectomy ◽  
Leg Pain ◽  
Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy

Abstract Background In recent decades, endoscopic techniques to treat lumbar disc herniation (LDH) have gained popularity in clinical practice. However, there is little literature on the use of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) to treat cauda equina syndrome (CES) due to LDH. This study aims to evaluate the feasibility and clinical efficacy of PELD for treating CES caused by disc herniation, and as well as to report some technical strategies. Methods Between October 2012 and April 2018, 15 patients with CES caused by LDH at the early and intermediate stages of Shi’s classification were selected as the subjects of study, and underwent PELD. All patients were followed up for at least two years. The patients’ back pain and leg pain were evaluated using visual analogue scale (VAS) scores and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Patient satisfaction was evaluated using the MacNab outcome scale. Clinical outcomes were measured preoperatively and at 3 days, 3 months, 6 months and the last follow-up. Results The VAS score for back pain, leg pain and ODI score significantly decreased from preoperatively scores of 6.67 ± 1.05, 7.13 ± 1.19 and 62.0 ± 6.85 respectively, to postoperatively cores of 1.80 ± 0.41, 1.47 ± 0.52 and 12.93 ± 1.03 at the last follow-up postoperatively. These postoperative scores were all significantly different compared with preoperative scores (P < 0.01). According to the modified MacNab outcome scale, 86.67% of these patients had excellent and good outcomes at the final follow-up. Complications included one patient with cerebrospinal fluid leakage and one patient who developed recurrent herniation; the latter patient finally achieved satisfactory results after reoperation. Conclusion PELD could be used as an alternative surgical method for the treatment of CES due to LDH in properly selected cases and appropriate patient selection. However, the operator should pay attention to foraminoplasty to enlarge the working space.

P29. Recurrent Disc Herniation and Long-Term Back Pain after Primary Lumbar Discectomy: Review of Outcomes Reported for Limited or Aggressive Disc Removal

2009 ◽  
Vol 9 (10) ◽  
pp. 130S ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew McGirt ◽  
Giannina Garces-Ambrossi ◽  
Ghazala Datoo ◽  
Daniel Sciubba ◽  
Timothy Witham ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Back Pain ◽  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Lumbar Discectomy ◽  
Recurrent Disc Herniation

Hybrid Interlaminar Endoscopic Lumbar Decompression in Disc Herniation Combined With Spinal Stenosis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kuo-Tai Chen ◽  
Kyung-Chul Choi ◽  
Myung-Soo Song ◽  
Hussam Jabri ◽  
Yadhu K Lokanath ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Lumbar Disc Herniation ◽  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Lumbar Disc ◽  
Lumbar Discectomy ◽  
Leg Pain ◽  
Lumbar Decompression ◽  
Lateral Recess Stenosis ◽  
Endoscopic Discectomy ◽  
The Mean

Abstract BACKGROUND Endoscopic spine surgery is an alternative to the traditional treatment of lumbar disc herniation. However, the traditional technique of interlaminar endoscopic approach is challenging and risky in patients with concomitant spinal stenosis. OBJECTIVE To report a modified technique called hybrid interlaminar endoscopic lumbar decompression as an effective treatment. METHODS Patients with combined lumbar disc herniation and lateral recess stenosis undergoing full-endoscopic interlaminar lumbar discectomy were retrospectively studied. The hybrid interlaminar endoscopic discectomy technique, as well as the use of 2 endoscopes with different diameters, is described in detail. The large endoscope is used for the laminotomy procedure, while the small endoscope is used for the discectomy procedure. The demographics and clinical outcomes of the patients are presented. RESULTS A total of 19 patients were included in this study. The mean age was 46.7 yr. The visual analog scale for back and leg pain improved from 5.6 ± 3.4 and 7.5 ± 2.3 to 1.8 ± 1.3 and 1.8 ± 1.6, respectively (P &lt; .001). The mean Oswestry Disability Index improved from 59.9 ± 21.2 preoperatively to 18.2 ± 8.5 postoperatively (P &lt; .001). The follow-up was 8.2 mo on average. No major complications occurred, but 2 patients reported mild postoperative paresthesia. One patient had an early recurrence and underwent repeat endoscopic discectomy. CONCLUSION Full-endoscopic lumbar discectomy provides excellent access to the intracanalicular herniation site of an intervertebral disc. By using the endoscopic technique presented here, surgeons can safely and efficiently achieve adequate decompression in patients with lumbar disc herniation combined with spinal stenosis.

scholarly journals Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy for L5-S1 Disc Herniation: Consideration of the Relation between the Iliac Crest and L5-S1 Disc

2016 ◽  
Vol 19 (2;2) ◽  
pp. E301-E308
Author(s):  
Kyung-Chul Choi
Keyword(s):  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Iliac Crest ◽  
Facet Joint ◽  
Lumbar Disc ◽  
Lumbar Discectomy ◽  
Leg Pain ◽  
Herniated Disc ◽  
Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy ◽  
Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy ◽  
Foraminal Height

Background: Percutaneous transforaminal techniques for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation have markedly evolved. Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) for L5-S1 disc herniation is regarded as challenging due to the unique anatomy of the iliac crest, large facet joint, and inclinatory disc space. Among these, the iliac crest is considered a major obstacle. There are no studies regarding the height of the iliac crest and their appropriate procedures in PELD. Objectives: This study discusses PELD for L5-S1 disc herniation and the appropriate approach according to the height of iliac crest. Study Design: Retrospective evaluation. Methods: 100 consecutive patients underwent PELD via the transforaminal route for L5-S1 disc herniation by a single surgeon. The study was divided into 2 groups: the foraminoplasty group requiring foraminal widening to access the herniated disc and the non-foraminoplasty group treated by conventional posterolateral access. Radiological parameters such as iliac height, the relative position of the iliac crest to the landmarks of the L5-S1 level, iliosacral angle and foraminal height, and disc location were considered. Clinical outcomes were assessed by the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS, 0 – 10) for back and leg pain, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI, 0 – 100%), and the modified MacNab criteria. Results: The overall VAS scores for back and leg pain decreased from 6.0 to 2.3 and from 7.5 to 1.7. The mean ODI (%) improved from 54.0 to 11.6. Using modified MacNab criteria, a good outcome was 92%. Foraminoplasty was required in 19 patients. Iliac crest height was significantly higher in the foraminoplasty group than the non-foraminoplasty group (37.7 mm vs 30.1 mm, P < 0.001). In the foraminoplasty group, the iliac crest is above the mid L5 pedicle on lateral radiography in all cases. There were no significant differences in foraminal height, foraminal width, iliosacral angle, or disc height between the 2 groups. In addition, there were no differences in clinical outcome between the 2 groups. Limitations: This study is a retrospective analysis and simplifies the complexity of the L5-S1 level and iliac bone using two-dimensional radiography. Conclusion: In high iliac crest cases where the iliac crest is above the mid L5 pedicle in lateral radiography, foraminoplasty may be considered for transforaminal access of L5-S1 disc herniation. Conventional transforaminal access can be utilized with ease in low iliac crest cases where the iliac crest is below the mid-L5 pedicle. Key words: Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy, transforaminal, L5-S1, iliac crest, foraminoplasty

scholarly journals Open discectomy versus microscopic discectomy for lumbar disc herniation

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sherwan Hamawandi ◽  
Injam Ibrahim Sulaiman ◽  
Ameer Kadhim Al-Humairi
Keyword(s):  
Back Pain ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Lumbar Disc Herniation ◽  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Lumbar Disc ◽  
Postoperative Hospital Stay ◽  
Daily Activities ◽  
Leg Pain ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Pain Duration

Abstract Background Discectomy for symptomatic lumbar disc herniation is the most common surgical procedure in spine surgery. Lumbar discectomy can be done by traditional open method or by varieties of minimal invasive techniques mainly microscopic or endoscopic procedures. This study evaluates the effectiveness of microdiscectomy compared with open discectomy in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation as a relation to the relief of leg pain, post-operative back pain, postoperative hospital stay and returns to daily activity. Methods Sixty patients were included in this study, 30 patients underwent an open discectomy and 30 patients underwent microdiscectomy. Those patients were followed up for 12 months after surgery. Each patient was evaluated for the postoperative back pain, leg pain, duration of hospital stay postoperatively and return to sedentary daily activity. The methods used to evaluate each patient are Visual analogue scale for back pain and leg pain and Oswestry disability index. Results Results showed that there is a significant difference in the postoperative back pain, duration of postoperative hospital stay and the time of return to sedentary daily activities between open discectomy and microdiscectomy with superiority for microdiscectomy while there is no significant difference in the relieving leg pain between the open discectomy and microdiscectomy. Conclusion Microdisctomy is effective as open discectomy in the aspect of relieving the leg pain with the advantage of less postoperative back pain, less postoperative hospital stay and early return to sedentary daily activities.

scholarly journals Association of extended duration of sciatic leg pain with worse outcome after lumbar disc herniation surgery: a register study in 6216 patients

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Joel Beck ◽  
Olof Westin ◽  
Helena Brisby ◽  
Adad Baranto
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Disc Herniation ◽  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Surgical Outcome ◽  
Lumbar Disc ◽  
Lumbar Discectomy ◽  
Leg Pain ◽  
Preoperative Pain ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Pain Duration

OBJECTIVESciatica is the hallmark symptom of a lumbar disc herniation (LDH). Up to 90% of LDH patients recover within 12 weeks regardless of treatment. With continued deteriorating symptoms and low patient quality of life, most surgeons recommend surgical discectomy. However, there is not yet a clear consensus regarding the proper timing of surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate how the duration of preoperative leg pain (sciatic neuralgia) is associated with patient-reported levels of postoperative leg pain reduction and other patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in a prospectively collected data set from a large national cohort.METHODSAll patients aged 18–65 years undergoing a lumbar discectomy during 2013–2016 and registered in Swespine (the Swedish national spine registry) with 1 year of postoperative follow-up data were included in the study (n = 6216). The patients were stratified into 4 groups according to preoperative pain duration: < 3, 3–12, 12–24, or > 24 months. Patient results assessed with the numeric rating scale (NRS) for leg pain (rated from 0 to 10), global assessment of leg pain, EQ-5D, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and patient satisfaction with the final surgical outcome were analyzed and compared with preoperative values and between groups.RESULTSA significant improvement was seen 1 year postoperatively regardless of preoperative pain duration (change in NRS score: mean −4.83, 95% CI −4.73 to −4.93 in the entire cohort). The largest decrease in leg pain NRS score (mean −5.59, 95% CI −5.85 to −5.33) was seen in the operated group with the shortest sciatica duration (< 3 months). The patients with a leg pain duration in excess of 12 months had a significantly higher risk of having unchanged radiating leg pain 1 year postoperatively compared with those with < 12-month leg pain duration at the time of surgery (OR 2.41, 95% CI 1.81–3.21, p < 0.0001).CONCLUSIONSPatients with the shortest leg pain duration (< 3 months) reported superior outcomes in all measured parameters. More significantly, using a 12-month pain duration as a cutoff, patients who had a lumbar discectomy with a preoperative symptom duration < 12 months experienced a larger reduction in leg pain and were more satisfied with their surgical outcome and perception of postoperative leg pain than those with > 12 months of sciatic leg pain.

Patient preferences for treatment of lumbar disc herniation: a discrete choice experiment

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Pravesh S. Gadjradj ◽  
Nicholas V. R. Smeele ◽  
Mandy de Jong ◽  
Paul R. A. M. Depauw ◽  
Maurits W. van Tulder ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
General Anesthesia ◽  
Lumbar Disc Herniation ◽  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Patient Preferences ◽  
Lumbar Disc ◽  
Recovery Period ◽  
Surgical Techniques ◽  
Lumbar Discectomy ◽  
Leg Pain ◽  
Out Of Pocket Costs

OBJECTIVE Lumbar discectomy is a frequently performed procedure to treat sciatica caused by lumbar disc herniation. Multiple surgical techniques are available, and the popularity of minimally invasive surgical techniques is increasing worldwide. Clinical outcomes between these techniques may not show any substantial differences. As lumbar discectomy is an elective procedure, patients’ own preferences play an important role in determining the procedure they will undergo. The aims of the current study were to determine the relative preference weights patients apply to various attributes of lumbar discectomy, determine if patient preferences change after surgery, identify preference heterogeneity for choosing surgery for sciatica, and calculate patient willingness to pay for other attributes. METHODS A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted among patients with sciatica caused by lumbar disc herniation. A questionnaire was administered to patients before they underwent surgery and to an independent sample of patients who had already undergone surgery. The DCE required patients to choose between two surgical techniques or to opt out from 12 choice sets with alternating characteristic levels: waiting time for surgery, out-of-pocket costs, size of the scar, need of general anesthesia, need for hospitalization, effect on leg pain, and duration of the recovery period. RESULTS A total of 287 patients were included in the DCE analysis. All attributes, except scar size, had a significant influence on the overall preferences of patients. The effect on leg pain was the most important characteristic in the decision for a surgical procedure (by 44.8%). The potential out-of-pocket costs for the procedure (28.8%), the wait time (12.8%), need for general anesthesia (7.5%), need for hospitalization (4.3%), and the recovery period (1.8%) followed. Preferences were independent of the scores on patient-reported outcome measures and baseline characteristics. Three latent classes could be identified with specific preference patterns. Willingness-to-pay was the highest for effectiveness on leg pain, with patients willing to pay €3133 for a treatment that has a 90% effectiveness instead of 70%. CONCLUSIONS Effect on leg pain is the most important factor for patients in deciding to undergo surgery for sciatica. Not all proposed advantages of minimally invasive spine surgery (e.g., size of the scar, no need of general anesthesia) are necessarily perceived as advantages by patients. Spine surgeons should propose surgical techniques for sciatica, not only based on own ability and proposed eligibility, but also based on patient preferences as is part of shared decision making.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document