Comparison between discectomy combined with transpedicular dynamic stabilization and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of single-level lumbar disc herniation / 中华骨科杂志

ABSTRACT

Objective:To compare the clinical effects of discectomy combined with transpedicular dynamic stabilization and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in treating single-level lumbar disc herniation.Methods:From November 2012 to November 2015, a total of 96 patients with single-level lumbar disc herniation (disc height decreased more than 1/3, the width of the basilar part of the herniated disc >6 mm, massive disc herniation or Modic type I endplate changes) treated by discectomy combined with Dynesys dynamic stabilization (Dynesys group, n=48) or TLIF (fusion group, n=48) were enrolled. Clinical assessments included operation duration, intraoperative blood loss, MacNab score, visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI) and rate of complications. Radiographs were evaluated for lumbar mobility, intervertebral height, etc. Results:A total of 86 patients were included in the final analysis (44 in Dynesys group and 42 in fusion group) and were evaluated after 5 years follow-up. The operation duration of Dynesys group (159.61±37.29 min) was less than that of the fusion group (177.42±39.90 min) significantly ( t=2.140, P=0.035). Intraoperative blood loss in Dynesys group (151.78±50.88 ml) was less than that in fusion group (197.74±76.55 ml) with significant difference ( t=3.293, P=0.001). At 5 years follow-up, there were 2 cases with screw loosening and 5 cases with adjacent segmental degeneration in Dynesys group without symptom. In fusion group, there were 12 cases with adjacent segmental degeneration and two of them with symptom. There were significant differences in the incidence of adjacent segment degeneration between the two groups ( χ2=4.012, P=0.045). According to the MacNab criteria, excellent or good cases accounted for 95% in Dynesys group and 93% in fusion group without significant differences ( Z=0.425, P=0.671). VAS back, VAS leg and ODI scores were improved significantly in both groups after 2 years and 5 years ( P<0.05). However, there were no significant differences between the two groups ( P<0.05). The activity of the surgical segment was 4.59°±0.48° in Dynesys group and 1.00°±0.42° in fusion group at 5 years after surgery. The height of intervertebral space in Dynesys group decreased from 11.19±2.07 mm before surgery to 9.98±2.02 mm at 2 years after surgery and to 9.86±1.64 mm at 5 years after surgery ( F=6.462, P=0.002). However, there was no statistically significant difference between the 2 and 5 years follow-up ( q=0.415, P>0.05). At 5 years after surgery, the activity of the first proximal segment in the two groups was 9.74°±3.29° and 11.69°±3.89°, respectively ( t=2.514, P=0.014). Conclusion:Both discectomy combined with dynamic stabilization and TLIF can achieve satisfied clinical effects in treating single-level lumbar disc herniation. Dynamic stabilization preserves the intervertebral activity of surgical segments and results in a lower incidence of adjacent segment degeneration compared with that in fusion surgery. Furthermore, discectomy combined with dynamic stabilization is a less invasive intervention with shorter operation duration and less blood loss compared with TLIF.