Tag: Recurrent herniation

Posted on

Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy: Revision Surgery for Recurrent Herniation After Microendoscopic Discectomy

WORLD NEUROSURGERY 99: 89-95, 2017

Most patients with recurrence of microendoscopic discectomy (MED) need to receive revision surgery. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) are common operative methods for MED recurrence, but no study has been made to compare the clinical outcomes of these 2 surgical methods as revision surgery for MED recurrence.

METHODS: A total of 105 patients who underwent either MIS-TLIF (58 patients) or PELD (47 patients) for revision of MED recurrence were included in this study. Perioperative outcomes (operation time, blood loss, and hospital stay), total cost, pain and functional scores (visual analog scale, Oswestry Disability Index, 12-item short form health survey) with a 12-month follow-up visit and review of complications and recurrence within 12 months postoperatively were recorded and assessed.

RESULTS: No significant difference of clinical outcome over time was observed between these 2 approaches. Compared with MIS-TLIF, PELD was associated with greater satisfaction in the early stage after surgery; this effect was equalized after 3 months postoperatively. PELD brought advantages in terms of shorter operation time, shorter hospital stay, less blood loss, and lower total cost compared with MIS-TLIF; however, PELD was also associated with a higher recurrence rate than MIS-TLIF.

CONCLUSIONS: Neither of these 2 surgical methods gave a clear advantage in long-term pain or function scores. Compared with MIS-TLIF, PELD could lead to a better perioperative result and less cost; however, the higher recurrence rate could not be ignored. Taking these characteristics into consideration was instrumental in pursuing personalized treatment for MED recurrence.

Posted on

The high-risk discectomy patient: prevention of reherniation in patients with large anular defects using an anular closure device

Barricaid

Eur Spine J (2013) 22:1030–1036

With lumbar discectomy for disc herniation, surgeons must choose between limited nucleus removal associated with higher reherniation risk or more aggressive nucleus removal associated with increased back pain and disc degeneration. This trade-off is particularly challenging in patients with large anular defects, which carry the highest risk of reherniation. We examined the effect of an anular closure device on reherniation and clinical outcomes.

Methods Seventy-five primary discectomy patients had a limited discectomy followed by implantation of an anular closure device and were followed-up to 2 years. Anular defect size and volume of removed nucleus was recorded at surgery. Reherniations were reported, pain and function were monitored throughout, and imaging was performed at annual visits.

Results The overall symptomatic reherniation rate was 1.4 %, and the asymptomatic reherniation rate was 1.5 % at 12 months and 5.1 % at 24 months. Both rates compare favorably with literature reports which include symptomatic rates ranging between 2 and 18 % (up to 27 % for patients with large anular defects) and an asymptomatic rate of 13 %.

Conclusions The low reherniation rate in patients at highrisk of reherniation based on anular defect size, despite discectomy being only limited, suggests that an anular closure device may reduce reherniation risk. Clinical outcomes for pain and function at 1 and 2 years post-operatively compared favorably with literature reports. Further study in a randomized controlled trial is required to confirm these results.

Proudly powered by WordPress