Annular closure device lowers reoperation risk 4 years after lumbar discectomy

Combining adhesive and nonadhesive injectable hydrogels for intervertebral disc repair in an ovine discectomy model

Background

Intervertebral disc (IVD) disorders (e.g., herniation) directly contribute to back pain, which is a leading cause of global disability. Next-generation treatments for IVD herniation need advanced preclinical testing to evaluate their ability to repair large defects, prevent reherniation, and limit progressive degeneration. This study tested whether experimental, injectable, and nonbioactive biomaterials could slow IVD degeneration in an ovine discectomy model.

Methods

Ten skeletally mature sheep (4-5.5 years) experienced partial discectomy injury with cruciate-style annulus fibrosus (AF) defects and 0.1 g nucleus pulposus (NP) removal in the L1-L2, L2-L3, and L3-L4 lumbar IVDs. L4-L5 IVDs were Intact controls. IVD injury levels received: (1) no treatment (Injury), (2) poly (ethylene glycol) diacrylate (PEGDA), (3) genipin-crosslinked fibrin (FibGen), (4) carboxymethylcellulose-methylcellulose (C-MC), or (5) C-MC and FibGen (FibGen + C-MC). Animals healed for 12 weeks, then IVDs were assessed using computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, and histopathology.

Results

All repaired IVDs retained ~90% of their preoperative disc height and showed minor degenerative changes by Pfirrmann grading. All repairs had similar disc height loss and Pfirrmann grade as Injury IVDs. Adhesive AF sealants (i.e., PEGDA and FibGen) did not herniate, although repair caused local endplate (EP) changes and inflammation. NP repair biomaterials (i.e., C-MC) and combination repair (i.e., FibGen + C-MC) exhibited lower levels of degeneration, less EP damage, and less severe inflammation; however, C-MC showed signs of herniation via biomaterial expulsion.

Conclusions

All repair IVDs were noninferior to Injury IVDs by IVD height loss and Pfirrmann grade. C-MC and FibGen + C-MC IVDs had the best outcomes, and may be appropriate for enhancement with bioactive factors (e.g., cells, growth factors, and miRNAs). Such bioactive factors appear to be necessary to prevent injury-induced IVD degeneration. Application of AF sealants alone (i.e., PEGDA and FibGen) resulted in EP damage and inflammation, particularly for PEGDA IVDs, suggesting further material refinements are needed.

The effectiveness and safety of annulus closure device implantation in lumbar discectomy for patients with lumbar disc herniation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to systematically estimate the effectiveness and safety of annulus closure device (ACD) implantation in discectomy for patients with lumbar disc herniation (LDH).

METHODS

A systematic search was performed on PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trial (RCT) from inception until April 16, 2022. Trials which investigated comparisons between with and without ACD implantation in discectomy for LDH patients were identified.

RESULTS

In total, five RCTs involving 2380 patients with LDH underwent discectomy were included. The included patients were divided into ACD group and control group (CTL). Significant differences were found in the rate of re-herniation (ACD: 7.40%, CTL: 17.58%), reoperation (ACD: 5.39%, CTL: 13.58%) and serious adverse event (ACD: 10.79%, CTL: 17.14%) between ACD group and CTL group. No significant difference was found in VAS-BACK, VAS-LEG, ODI and SF-12 PCS between ACD and CTL. The surgical time of ACD was longer than CTL with statistical significance. In subgroup analyses based on discectomy type, significant differences were found in the rate of re-herniation (ACD: 10.73%, CTL: 21.27%), reoperation (ACD: 4.96%, CTL: 13.82%) and serious adverse event (ACD: 7.59%, CTL: 16.89%) between ACD and CTL in limited lumbar discectomy (LLD).

CONCLUSION

Discectomy either with or without ACD implantation is considered to achieve similar clinical outcomes. Whereas, the ACD implantation in LLD is associated with lower re-herniation and reoperation rate but prolonged surgical time for LDH patients. Researches on cost-effectiveness and effect of ACD implantation in different discectomy are needed in the future.

Annular closure device breakage due to recurrent lumbar disc herniation: a case report

Detailed surgical management, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and computer tomography (CT) images of a broken annular closure device (ACD) have not been reported yet. In this case, a 28-year-old male presented with a new onset of radiculopathy three years after lumbar discectomy and placement of an ACD. The CT-myelography and MRI revealed a recurrent disc herniation (RDH) and dislocation of a broken ACD. ACD removal was performed and confirmed breakage due to RDH with scarring around the RDH and displaced ACD. Implant-associated complications and management should be reported in detail in order to enhance knowledge on device-related complications.

International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery Policy 2019-Surgical Treatment of Lumbar Disc Herniation with Radiculopathy

Lumbar disc herniation (LDH) is a frequent cause of low back pain and radiculopathy, disability, and diminution in quality of life. While nonsurgical care remains the mainstay of initial treatment, symptoms that persist for prolonged periods of time are well treated with discectomy surgery. A large body of evidence shows that, in patients with unremitting symptoms despite a reasonable period of nonsurgical treatment, discectomy surgery is safe and efficacious. In patients with symptoms lasting greater than 6 weeks, various forms of discectomy (open, microtubular, and endoscopic) are superior to continued nonsurgical treatment. The small but significant proportion of patients with recurrent disc herniation experience less improvement overall than patients who do not experience reherniation after primary discectomy. Lumbar discectomy patients with large annular defects (≥6 mm wide) are at a higher risk for recurrent herniation and revision surgery. Annular closure via a bone-anchored device has been shown to decrease the rate of recurrent disc herniation and associated reoperation in these high-risk patients. After a detailed review of the literature, current clinical evidence supports discectomy (open, microtubular, or endoscopic discectomy) as a medically necessary procedure for the treatment of LDH with radiculopathy in indicated patients. Furthermore, there is new scientific evidence that supports the use of bone-anchored annular closure in patients with large annular defects, who are at greater risk for recurrent disc herniation.