Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
J Craniovertebr Junction Spine ; 15(1): 66-73, 2024.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38644909

ABSTRACT

Background: The management of recurrent lumbar disc herniation (rLDH) lacks a consensus. Consequently, the choice between repeat microdiscectomy (MD) without fusion, discectomy with fusion, or endoscopic discectomy without fusion typically hinges on the surgeon's expertise. This study conducts a comparative analysis of postoperative outcomes among these three techniques and proposes a straightforward classification system for rLDH aimed at optimizing management. Patients and Methods: We examined the patients treated for rLDH at our institution. Based on the presence of facet resection, Modic-2 changes, and segmental instability, they patients were categorized into three groups: Types I, II, and III rLDH managed by repeat MD without fusion, MD with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) (MD + TLIF), and transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (TFED), respectively. Results: A total of 127 patients were included: 52 underwent MD + TLIF, 50 underwent MD alone, and 25 underwent TFED. Recurrence rates were 20%, 12%, and 0% for MD alone, TFED, and MD + TLIF, respectively. A facetectomy exceeding 75% correlated with an 84.6% recurrence risk, while segmental instability correlated with a 100% recurrence rate. Modic-2 changes were identified in 86.7% and 100% of patients experiencing recurrence following MD and TFED, respectively. TFED exhibited the lowest risk of durotomy (4%), the shortest operative time (70.80 ± 16.5), the least blood loss (33.60 ± 8.1), and the most favorable Visual Analog Scale score, and Oswestry Disability Index quality of life assessment at 2 years. No statistically significant differences were observed in these parameters between MD alone and MD + TLIF. Based on this analysis, a novel classification system for recurrent disc herniation was proposed. Conclusion: In young patients without segmental instability, prior facetectomy, and Modic-2 changes, TFED was available should take precedence over repeat MD alone. However, for patients with segmental instability, MD + TLIF is recommended. The suggested classification system has the potential to enhance patient selection and overall outcomes.

2.
Ann Med Surg (Lond) ; 86(2): 842-849, 2024 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38333282

ABSTRACT

Background: For recurrent lumbar disc herniation, many experts suggest a repeat discectomy without stabilization due to its minimal tissue manipulation, lower blood loss, shorter hospital stay, and lower cost, recent research on the role of instability in disc herniation has made fusion techniques popular among spinal surgeons. The authors compare the postoperative outcomes of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and repeat discectomy for same-level recurrent disc herniation. Methods: The patients included had previously undergone discectomy and presented with a same-level recurrent lumbar disc herniation. The patients were placed into two groups: 1) discectomy only, 2) PLIF based on the absence or presence of segmental instability. Preoperative and postoperative Oswestry disability index scores, duration of surgery, blood loss, duration of hospitalization, and complications were analyzed. Results: The repeat discectomy and fusion groups had 40 and 34 patients, respectively. The patients were followed up for 2.68 (1-4) years. There was no difference in the duration of hospitalization (3.73 vs. 3.29 days P=0.581) and operative time (101.25 vs. 108.82 mins, P=0.48). Repeat discectomy had lower intraoperative blood loss, 88.75 ml (50-150) versus 111.47 ml (30-250) in PLIF (P=0.289). PLIF had better ODI pain score 4.21 (0-10) versus 9.27 (0-20) (P-value of 0.018). Recurrence was 22.5% in repeat discectomy versus 0 in PLIF. Conclusion: PLIF and repeat discectomy for recurrent lumbar disc herniation have comparable intraoperative blood loss, duration of surgery, and hospital stay. PLIF is associated with lower durotomy rates and better long-term pain control than discectomy. This is due to recurrence and progression of degenerative process in discectomy patients, which are eliminated and slowed, respectively, by PLIF.

3.
Surg Neurol Int ; 14: 100, 2023.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37025530

ABSTRACT

Background: Recurrent disc herniations remain a challenge in spinal surgery. Although some authors recommend a repeat discectomy, others offer more invasive secondary fusions. Here, we reviewed the literature (2017-2022) regarding the safety/efficacy of treating recurrent disc herniations with repeated discectomy alone. Methods: Our literature search of recurrent lumbar disc herniations included; Medline, PubMed, Google scholar, and the Cochrane database. We focused on the types of discectomy performed, perioperative morbidity, costs, length of surgery, pain scores, and incidence of secondary dural tears. Results: We identified 769 cases that included 126 microdiscectomies, and 643 endoscopic discectomies. Rates of disc recurrence ranged from 1% to 25% with accompanying secondary durotomy varying from 2% to 15%. In addition, operative times were relatively short, ranging from 29.2 min to 125 min, with a relatively small average estimated blood loss (i.e., minimal to maximally 150 mls). Conclusion: Repeated discectomy was the most commonly performed treatment for same-level recurrent disc herniations. Despite minimal intraoperative blood loss and short operating times, there was a significant risk of durotomy. Notably, patients must be informed that more extensive bone removal for treating recurrent disc increases the risk for instability warranting subsequent fusion.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...