Tag: Microdiscectomy

Posted on

Risk Factors Associated With Revision Microdiscectomy or Subsequent Spinal Fusion Within Two Years of Index Lumbar Microdiscectomy

Spine 2025;50:1392–1399

This large retrospective study found that within two years of lumbar microdiscectomy, 5.5% required revision surgery and 6.6% required spinal fusion. Age 40–59, female sex, and at least one Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) comorbidity significantly increased the risk of subsequent fusion, but not revision microdiscectomy.

Revision microdiscectomy rates after index lumbar microdiscectomy were 3.5% at one year and 5.5% at two years.

• Lumbar fusion rates were 2.9% at one year and 6.6% at two years after index surgery.

• Age 40–59, female sex, and presence of at least one Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) comorbidity significantly increased risk of lumbar fusion, but not revision microdiscectomy.

• Having ≥1 CCI comorbidity increased the likelihood of needing fusion by about 80%.

• Specific comorbidities (e.g., congestive heart failure, peripheral/cerebrovascular disease, diabetes) were strong predictors for time-to-fusion.

• Age, sex, and CCI score were not predictive of time-to-revision microdiscectomy.

• Results suggest CCI may help identify patients at higher risk for spinal fusion after microdiscectomy.

• Findings may guide surgeons in perioperative decision-making and patient counseling.

Posted on

Outcomes of endoscopic discectomy compared with open microdiscectomy and tubular microdiscectomy for lumbar disc herniations: a meta-analysis

J Neurosurg Spine 31:802–815, 2019

Endoscopic discectomy (ED) has been advocated as a less-invasive alternative to open microdiscectomy (OM) and tubular microdiscectomy (TM) for lumbar disc herniations, with the potential to decrease postoperative pain and shorten recovery times. Large-scale, objective comparisons of outcomes between ED, OM, and TM, however, are lacking. The authors’ objective in this study was to conduct a meta-analysis comparing outcomes of ED, OM, and TM.

METHODS The PubMed database was searched for articles published as of February 1, 2019, for comparative studies reporting outcomes of some combination of ED, OM, and TM. A meta-analysis of outcome parameters was performed assuming random effects.

RESULTS Twenty-six studies describing the outcomes of 2577 patients were included. Estimated blood loss was significantly higher with OM than with both TM (p = 0.01) and ED (p < 0.00001). Length of stay was significantly longer with OM than with ED (p < 0.00001). Return to work time was significantly longer in OM than with ED (p = 0.001). Postoperative leg (p = 0.02) and back (p = 0.01) VAS scores, and Oswestry Disability Index scores (p = 0.006) at latest follow-up were significantly higher for OM than for ED. Serum creatine phosphokinase (p = 0.02) and C-reactive protein (p < 0.00001) levels on postoperative day 1 were significantly higher with OM than with ED.

CONCLUSIONS Outcomes of TM and OM for lumbar disc herniations are largely equivalent. While this analysis demonstrated that several clinical variables were significantly improved in patients undergoing ED when compared with OM, the magnitude of many of these differences was small and of uncertain clinical relevance, and several of the included studies were retrospective and subject to a high risk of bias. Further high-quality prospective studies are needed before definitive conclusions can be drawn regarding the comparative efficacy of the various surgical treatments for lumbar disc herniations.

 

Posted on

Minimally invasive tubular microdiscectomy for recurrent lumbar disc herniation

MIS discectomy

J Neurosurg Spine 24:48–53, 2016

The aim of the study was to investigate the safety and ef cacy of minimally invasive tubular microdiscec- tomy for the treatment of recurrent lumbar disc herniation (LDH). As opposed to endoscopic techniques, namely micro- endoscopic and endoscopic transforaminal discectomy, this microscopically assisted technique has never been used for the treatment of recurrent LDH.

Methods: Thirty consecutive patients who underwent minimally invasive tubular microdiscectomy for recurrent LDH were included in the study. The preoperative and postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) scores for pain, the clinical outcome according to modified Macnab criteria, and complications were analyzed retrospectively. The minimum follow-up was 1.5 years. Student t-test with paired samples was used for the statistical comparison of pre- and postoperative VAS scores. A p value < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.

Results: The mean operating time was 90 ± 35 minutes. The VAS score for leg pain was significantly reduced from 5.9 ± 2.1 preoperatively to 1.7 ± 1.3 postoperatively (p < 0.001). The overall success rate (excellent or good outcome according to Macnab criteria) was 90%. Incidental durotomy occurred in 5 patients (16.7%) without neurological consequences, CSF fistula, or negative influence to the clinical outcome. Instability occurred in 2 patients (6.7%).

Conclusions: The clinical outcome of minimally invasive tubular microdiscectomy is comparable to the reported success rates of other minimally invasive techniques. The dural tear rate is not associated to higher morbidity or worse outcome. The technique is an equally effective and safe treatment option for recurrent LDH.

Posted on

Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery Combined With a Tubular Retractor System for Minimally Invasive Thoracic Discectomy

Neurosurgery 68[ONS Suppl 1]:ons138–ons143, 2011 DOI: 10.1227/NEU.0b013e318209348c

Several approaches have been proposed for the treatment of thoracic disc herniations. Posterior approaches include transpedicular, costotransversectomy, and lateral extracavitary; anterior approaches include retropleural and transpleural thoracotomy and thoracoscopy.

OBJECTIVE: We present a novel minimally invasive approach to thoracic discectomies, combining thoracoscopy and a tubular retractor system. We discuss the utility and safety of this technique.

METHODS: The patient is placed in a lateral decubitus position, with a double-lumen endotracheal tube for single-lung ventilation. With use of thoracoscopic techniques, the disc space is identified; approximately 2 cm of the head and neck of the rib is removed to expose the pedicle of the lower vertebral body. The tubular retractor is deployed with continuous thoracoscopic visualization and a trough is created anterior to the canal by drilling the adjacent vertebral bodies straddling the disc space. The operative microscope is utilized to dissect the disc, pulling it anteriorly into the trough.

RESULTS: There were 5 patients in the past 9 months who were candidates for anterior thoracic discectomy. Disc herniations from T3-4 to T10-11 were treated without any significant complications. Patients were followed up clinically and radiographically.

CONCLUSION: Combining thoracoscopy with the tubular retractors allows continuous monitoring of the lung, aorta, and vena cava during the placement of the retractors. Additionally, use of the tubular retractors, as opposed to a complete thoracoscopic discectomy reduces the working distance and allows the use of the microscope with 3- dimensional visualization, thus enhancing the safety of this approach.

Posted on

Does minimally invasive lumbar disc surgery result in less muscle injury than conventional surgery? A randomized controlled trial

Eur Spine J (2011) 20:51–57. DOI 10.1007/s00586-010-1482-y

The concept of minimally invasive lumbar disc surgery comprises reduced muscle injury. The aim of this study was to evaluate creatine phosphokinase (CPK) in serum and the cross-sectional area (CSA) of the multifidus muscle on magnetic resonance imaging as indicators of muscle injury.

We present the results of a double-blind randomized trial on patients with lumbar disc herniation, in which tubular discectomy and conventional microdiscectomy were compared. In 216 patients, CPK was measured before surgery and at day 1 after surgery. In 140 patients, the CSA of the multifidus muscle was measured at the affected disc level before surgery and at 1 year after surgery. The ratios (i.e. post surgery/pre surgery) of CPK and CSA were used as outcome measures. The multifidus atrophy was classified into three grades ranging from 0 (normal) to 3 (severe atrophy), and the difference between post and pre surgery was used as an outcome. Patients’ low-back pain scores on the visual analogue scale (VAS) were documented before surgery and at various moments during follow-up.

Tubular discectomy compared with conventional microdiscectomy resulted in a nonsignificant difference in CPK ratio, although the CSA ratio was significantly lower in tubular discectomy. At 1 year, there was no difference in atrophy grade between both groups nor in the percentage of patients showing an increased atrophy grade (14% tubular vs. 18% conventional). The postoperative low-back pain scores on the VAS improved in both groups, although the 1-year between-group mean difference of improvement was 3.5 mm (95% CI; 1.4–5.7 mm) in favour of conventional microdiscectomy.

In conclusion, tubular discectomy compared with conventional microdiscectomy did not result in reduced muscle injury. Postoperative evaluation of CPK and the multifidus muscle showed similar results in both groups, although patients who underwent tubular discectomy reported more lowback pain during the first year after surgery.

Posted on

Does minimally invasive lumbar disc surgery result in less muscle injury than conventional surgery? A randomized controlled trial

Eur Spine J. DOI 10.1007/s00586-010-1482-y

The concept of minimally invasive lumbar disc surgery comprises reduced muscle injury. The aim of this study was to evaluate creatine phosphokinase (CPK) in serum and the cross-sectional area (CSA) of the multifidus muscle on magnetic resonance imaging as indicators of muscle injury.

We present the results of a double-blind randomized trial on patients with lumbar disc herniation, in which tubular discectomy and conventional microdiscectomy were compared. In 216 patients, CPK was measured before surgery and at day 1 after surgery. In 140 patients, the CSA of the multifidus muscle was measured at the affected disc level before surgery and at 1 year after surgery. The ratios (i.e. post surgery/pre surgery) of CPK and CSA were used as outcome measures. The multifidus atrophy was classified into three grades ranging from 0 (normal) to 3 (severe atrophy), and the difference between post and pre surgery was used as an outcome. Patients’ low-back pain scores on the visual analogue scale (VAS) were documented before surgery and at various moments during follow-up.

Tubular discectomy compared with conventional microdiscectomy resulted in a nonsignificant difference in CPK ratio, although the CSA ratio was significantly lower in tubular discectomy. At 1 year, there was no difference in atrophy grade between both groups nor in the percentage of patients showing an increased atrophy grade (14% tubular vs. 18% conventional). The postoperative low-back pain scores on the VAS improved in both groups, although the 1-year between-group mean difference of improvement was 3.5 mm (95% CI; 1.4–5.7 mm) in favour of conventional microdiscectomy.

In conclusion, tubular discectomy compared with conventional microdiscectomy did not result in reduced muscle injury. Postoperative evaluation of CPK and the multifidus muscle showed similar results in both groups, although patients who underwent tubular discectomy reported more lowback pain during the first year after surgery.

Posted on

Economic impact of improving outcomes of lumbar discectomy

The Spine Journal 10 (2010) 108–116.doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2009.08.453

BACKGROUND: Lumbar discectomy is usually a successful operation with a relatively low cost. Potential adjunctive procedures, such as repairing the anulus fibrosus or nucleus replacements, necessitate a cost-benefit analysis.

PURPOSE: This economic analysis was performed to understand the potential value of advanced implantable technologies designed to improve outcomes after discectomy.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Using an insurance claims–based database, the economics of lessthan- favorable outcomes after lumbar discectomy were studied. Estimates of improved clinical outcomes because of adjunctive surgical procedural items were modeled.

PATIENT SAMPLE: Using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT-4) codes and International Classification of Diseases, Clinical Modification procedure codes (ICD-9 CM), all lumbar discectomy patients were identified in a 6-month period from a large, 2002, commercially available claims-based data set representing 3.1 million insured lives.

OUTCOME MEASURES: Not applicable.

METHODS: Longitudinal data analysis from 3 years (2002–2004) of the database was performed for evidence of claims after the insured’s discectomy (up to 18 months post) as a utilization estimate of surgical and medical treatment resultant of less-than-favorable outcomes. Incidence and cost of secondary operations, medical management, and complications were determined. Using these inputs, an economic model was generated to estimate the effect of improvement in discectomy outcomes.

RESULTS: Of the 494 patients who had a discectomy within a 6-month period, 137 (28%) had subsequent claims that suggested the outcome was less than favorable within 18 months. Patients whose insurance claims included codes for a second operation (n552 patients with 56 operations; 11%) and patients being medically/nonsurgically managed (n585, 17%) were studied. Average reimbursed charges incurred (2006 dollars) of repeated discectomy (80% of cases) was $6,907 and for arthrodesis (20% of cases) was $24,375. Average additional medical treatment cost to diagnose or manage poor outcome requiring another surgery was $3,365. Procedure-related complications within 40 days of surgery were evident in 15% of the group; with additional average cost to manage of $3,939.

CONCLUSIONS: Substantial cost associated with poor discectomy outcomes is often overlooked or underappreciated. Surgical technologies that can improve outcomes of discectomy by 50% to 70% thus improving patient quality of life can be overall cost-neutral between $971 and $1,655 additionally per patient.

Proudly powered by WordPress