Microsurgical reoperation following lumbar disc surgery. Timing, surgical findings, and outcome in 92 patients

Comparison of histopathologic findings of initial and recurrent lumbar disc herniation

OBJECTIVE

Recurrent lumbar disc hernia (RLDH) is a common and challenging complication after an initial discectomy. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between the histopathologic outcomes of the initial and recurrent disc tissues.

METHODS

This study investigated 70 patients who underwent a microdiscectomy and subsequently developed same-level same-side lumbar disc herniation (LDH) recurrence. The clinic, western blot, and immunohistochemical evaluations of patients with initial LDH and RLDH were conducted and statistically analyzed.

RESULTS

The effect of inflammation and apoptosis in the degenerative changes of intervertebral disc hernia and increased histopathologic findings in RLDH was demonstrated. The degeneration of the hernia disc tissue is a major pathological process, which is characterized by cellular apoptosis, inflammation, and reduced synthesis of extracellular matrix. Currently, there is no clinical therapy targeting the reversal of disc degeneration.

CONCLUSIONS

This, therefore, stay away from factors that increase inflammation in the intervention of intervertebral disc hernia, applying to reduce inflammation the medicines, could allow reducing disc collagen degeneration, and more successful outcomes. These findings might shed some new lights on the mechanism of disc degeneration and provide new strategies for the treatments of initial and recurrent LDH.

Histopathological Study of the Effects of Dura Adhesive Agents Used in Spinal Surgery Practice on Spinal Epidural Fibrosis in Experimental Animal Model

Objective

Histopathological examination of the effects of Tisseel, Cova, Glubran and Coseal, which are used for sealing purposes in spinal surgery practice, on epidural fibrosis is aimed.

Methods

Forty Sprague Dawley rats were randomly divided into five groups in our study as Group 1 (n=8) control group (Laminectomy); Group 2 (n=8) Cova group (Laminectomy + Cova); Group 3 (n=8) Tissel group (Laminectomy + Tisseel); Group 4 (n=8) Coseal group (Laminectomy + Coseal); and Group 5 Glubrane group (Laminectomy + Glubrane). Control group was only applied laminectomy. After laminectomy to other groups, Cova was applied to the 2nd group, Tissel to the 3rd group, Coseal to the 4th group and Glubran to the 5th group in surgical fields. After the rats were monitored in separate cages for 6 weeks after the operation, the relevant spinal level was extracted and the samples were examined histopathologically and the results were evaluated statistically.

Results

It was found that there was a statistically significant difference in Tisseel and Glubran groups in terms of fibrosis grading compared to the control group, and this had a positive effect on fibrosis. Compared to the control group, there was no statistically significant difference on fibrosis in Cova and Coseal groups.

Conclusion

As dura adhesive agents used in spinal surgery practice did not increase spinal epidural fibrosis statistically significantly, we concluded that these products can be used safely during spinal surgery if necessary.

Functional Outcomes After Discectomy for Recurrent Lumbar Herniation Using the Destandau Endospine System: A Retrospective Study of 44 Patients

Background Recurrent disc herniation is a major cause of morbidity and surgical failure after disc surgery. This study aimed to investigate the feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of the Destandau endospine system (DES) for treating recurrent lumbar disc herniation (LDH). Methodology A total of 44 patients who underwent minimally invasive Destandau endoscopic lumbar discectomy (DELD) for recurrent LDH were included in this study. All data were collected retrospectively. The preoperative and postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) score was used for the evaluation and gradation of pain. The clinical outcome was analyzed according to modified MacNab criteria. The minimum follow-up was two years. Preoperative and postoperative VAS scores were compared using the paired Student's t-test. Statistical significance was set at a p-value <0.05. Results The mean surgical time was 30 ± 20 minutes. The VAS score for leg pain was improved in all cases from 5.9 ± 2.1 to 1.7 ± 1.3 (p< 0.001). In 98% of cases, a successful outcome was noted (excellent or good outcome according to MacNab criteria). In three (7%) patients, incidental durotomy occurred, but there was no neurological worsening, cerebrospinal fluid fistula, or negative influence on the clinical outcome. No recurrence or instability occurred in our series. Conclusions The clinical outcomes of minimally invasive DES for LDH were found to be comparable with the reported success rates of other minimally invasive techniques reported in the existing literature. The dural tear rate was independent of postoperative morbidity and functional outcome. The technique is a safe and effective treatment option for recurrent LDH.

Advantages of Revision Transforaminal Full-Endoscopic Spine Surgery in Patients who have Previously Undergone Posterior Spine Surgery

BACKGROUND

 Revision lumbar spine surgery via a posterior approach is more challenging than primary surgery because of epidural or perineural scar tissue. It demands more extensive removal of the posterior structures to confirm intact bony landmarks and could cause iatrogenic instability; therefore, fusion surgery is often added. However, adjacent segment disease after fusion surgery could be a problem, and further exposure of the posterior muscles could result in multiple operated back syndrome. To address these problems, we now perform transforaminal full-endoscopic spine surgery (TF-FES) as revision surgery in patients who have previously undergone posterior lumbar surgery. There have been several reports on the advantages of TF-FES, which include feasibility of local anesthesia, minimal invasiveness to posterior structures, and less scar tissue with fewer adhesions. In this study, we aim to assess the clinical outcomes of revision TF-FES and its advantages.

METHODS

 We evaluated 48 consecutive patients with a history of posterior lumbar spine surgery who underwent revision TF-FES (at 60 levels) under local anesthesia. Intraoperative blood loss, operating time, and complication rate were evaluated. Postoperative outcomes were assessed using the modified Macnab criteria and visual analog scale (VAS) scores for leg pain, back pain, and leg numbness. We also compared the outcome of revision FES with that of primary FES.

RESULTS

 Mean operating time was 70.5 ± 14.4 (52-106) minutes. Blood loss was unmeasurable. The clinical outcomes were rated as excellent at 16 levels (26.7%), good at 28 (46.7%), fair at 10 (16.7%), and poor at 6 (10.0%). The mean preoperative VAS score was 6.0 ± 2.6 for back pain, 6.8 ± 2.4 for leg pain, and 6.3 ± 2.8 for leg numbness. At the final follow-up, the mean postoperative VAS scores for leg pain, back pain, and leg numbness were 4.3 ± 2.5, 3.8 ± 2.6, and 4.6 ± 3.2, respectively. VAS scores for all three parameters were significantly improved (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in operating time, intraoperative blood loss, or the complication rate between revision FES and primary FES.

CONCLUSIONS

 Clinical outcomes of revision TF-FES in patients with a history of posterior lumbar spine surgery were acceptable (excellent and good in 73.4% of cases). TF-FES can preserve the posterior structures and avoid scar tissue and adhesions. Therefore, TF-FES could be an effective procedure for patients who have previously undergone posterior lumbar spine surgery.

Epidemiology of the causes of complaints after discectomy collected from a French insurance company

INTRODUCTION

Lumbar discectomy is a frequent procedure performed by surgeons from specialties at risk of patient complaints. The objective of the study was to analyze the causes of litigations following lumbar discectomy to be able to reduce their frequency.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This observational, retrospective study was carried out at a French insurance company (Branchet). All files opened between the 1st of January 2003 and the 31st of December 2020, following lumbar discectomy without instrumentation and without any other associated code, undertaken by a surgeon insured by Branchet, were analyzed. The data was extracted from the database by a consultant from the insurance company and analyzed by an orthopedic surgeon.

RESULTS

One hundred and forty-four records met all inclusion criteria and were complete and available for analysis. Infection was the leading cause of litigation, responsible for 27% of complaints. Residual postoperative pain was the second cause of complaint with 26% of cases, of which 93% had persistent pain. Neurological deficits were the third cause of complaint with 25% of cases among which 76% were related to the appearance of a deficit and 20% related to the persistence of an existing deficit. Early recurrence of herniated disc also appeared as a cause of complaint, accounting for 7% of cases.

CONCLUSION

Surgical site infection, persistence of pain, and the appearance or persistence of neurological disorders are the primary causes of complaints leading to investigation in the aftermath of lumbar discectomy. It seems essential to us that this information be brought to the attention of surgeons to enable them to better adapt their explanations in the delivery of preoperative information.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Efficacy of Repeat Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Decompression for Reoperation of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Retrospective Study

Purpose

To evaluate the efficacy of repeat percutaneous endoscopic lumbar decompression (PELD) in lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) reoperation.

Patients and Methods

This study included patients with LSS who relapsed following treatment with PELD therapy between March 2017 and March 2020. Visual analog scale (VAS) scores and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were analyzed preoperatively, postoperatively at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months, and at final follow-up. The modified MacNab criteria were used to assess clinical effects. All complications were recorded.

Results

At a mean follow-up of 3 years, 24 patients with LSS who underwent repeat PELD were identified. The patients' mean operative time was 122.3±29.2 min, blood loss was 12.5±5.3 mL, and mean hospital stay was 7.0±1.9 days. VAS leg-pain score improved from 6.1±1.0 to 2.0±1.2 (P<0.001), VAS back-pain score improved from 6.2±0.8 to 2.1±1.1 (P<0.001), and ODI improved from 68.9±6.0 to 20.9±5.6 (P <0.001). According to the modified MacNab criteria, the good-to-excellent rate was 83.3%. Postoperative complications, including hematoma, nerve root injury, and dural injury, developed in four patients.

Conclusion

Repeat PELD for reoperation in patients with LSS has a good clinical effect, and is recommended in routine clinical practice. Careful intraoperative manipulation is recommended to prevent complications.

Additional operations after surgery for lumbar disc prolapse : indications, type of surgery, and long-term follow-up of primary operations performed from 2007 to 2008

AIMS

Lumbar disc prolapse is a frequent indication for surgery. The few available long-term follow-up studies focus mainly on repeated surgery for recurrent disease. The aim of this study was to analyze all reasons for additional surgery for patients operated on for a primary lumbar disc prolapse.

METHODS

We retrieved data from the Swedish spine register about 3,291 patients who underwent primary surgery for a lumbar disc prolapse between January 2007 and December 2008. These patients were followed until December 2020 to record all additional lumbar spine operations and the reason for them.

RESULTS

In total, 681 of the 3,291 patients (21%) needed one or more additional operations. More than three additional operations was uncommon (2%; 15/906). Overall, 906 additional operations were identified during the time period, with a mean time to the first of these of 3.7 years (SD 3.6). The most common reason for an additional operation was recurrent disc prolapse (47%; 426/906), followed by spinal stenosis or degenerative spondylolisthesis (19%; 176/906), and segmental pain (16%; 145/906). The most common surgical procedures were revision discectomy (43%; 385/906) and instrumented fusion (22%; 200/906). Degenerative spinal conditions other than disc prolapse became a more common reason for additional surgery with increasing length of follow-up. Most patients achieved the minimally important change (MIC) for the patient-reported outcomes after the index surgery. After the third additional spinal operation, only 20% (5/25) achieved the MIC in terms of leg pain, and 29% (7/24) in terms of the EuroQol five-dimension index questionnaire visual analogue scale.

CONCLUSION

More than one in five patients operated on for a lumbar disc prolapse underwent further surgery during the 13-year follow-up period. Recurrent disc prolapse was the most common reason for additional surgery, followed by spinal stenosis and segmental pain. This study shows that additional operations after primary disc surgery are needed more frequently than previously reported, and that the outcome profoundly deteriorates after the second additional operation. The findings from this study can be used in the shared decision-making process. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(5):627-632.

Characteristics and Short-Term Surgical Outcomes of Patients with Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation after Percutaneous Laser Disc Decompression

Background and Objectives: Although percutaneous laser disc decompression (PLDD) is one of the common treatment methods for patients with lumbar disc herniation (LDH), the recurrence of LDH after PLDD is estimated at 4–5%. This study compares the preoperative clinical data and clinical outcomes of patients who underwent primary microendoscopic discectomy (MED) or MED following PLDD. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 2678 patients who underwent MED for LDH. The PLDD group included patients with previous PLDD history at the same level of LDH, and a matched control group was created using propensity score matching for age, sex, and body mass index. Preoperative data, preoperative radiographic findings, and surgical data of the groups were compared. To compare postoperative changes in clinical scores between the groups, a mixed-effect model was used. Results: As a result, 42 patients (1.6%) had previously undergone PLDD, and a control group with 42 patients were created. The disc degeneration severity was not significantly different between the groups. However, Modic changes were more frequent in the PLDD group than in the matched control group (p = 0.028). There were no significant differences in dural adhesion rate or surgery-related complications including dural injury, length of stay, and recurrence rate of LDH after surgery. In addition, the improvement of clinical scores did not significantly differ between the two groups (p = 0.112, 0.913, respectively). Conclusions: We concluded that patients with recurrent LDH after PLDD have advanced endplate degeneration, which may reflect endplate injury from a previous PLDD. However, a previous history of PLDD does not have a negative impact on the clinical result of MED.

Artificial intelligence predicts disk re-herniation following lumbar microdiscectomy: development of the "RAD" risk profile

PURPOSE

Surgical treatment of herniated lumbar intervertebral disks is a common procedure worldwide. However, recurrent herniated nucleus pulposus (re-HNP) may develop, complicating outcomes and patient management. The purpose of this study was to utilize machine-learning (ML) analytics to predict lumbar re-HNP, whereby a personalized risk prediction can be developed as a clinical tool.

METHODS

A retrospective, single center study was conducted of 2630 consecutive patients that underwent lumbar microdiscectomy (mean follow-up: 22-months). Various preoperative patient pain/disability/functional profiles, imaging parameters, and anthropomorphic/demographic metrics were noted. An Extreme Gradient Boost (XGBoost) classifier was implemented to develop a predictive model identifying patients at risk for re-HNP. The model was exported to a web application software for clinical utility.

RESULTS

There were 1608 males and 1022 females, 114 of whom experienced re-HNP. Primary herniations were central (65.8%), paracentral (17.6%), and far lateral (17.1%). The XGBoost algorithm identified multiple re-HNP predictors and was incorporated into an open-access web application software, identifying patients at low or high risk for re-HNP. Preoperative VAS leg, disability, alignment parameters, elevated body mass index, symptom duration, and age were the strongest predictors.

CONCLUSIONS

Our predictive modeling via an ML approach of our large-scale cohort is the first study, to our knowledge, that has identified significant risk factors for the development of re-HNP after initial lumbar decompression. We developed the re-herniation after decompression (RAD) profile index that has been translated into an online screening tool to identify low-high risk patients for re-HNP. Additional validation is needed for potential global implementation.

Fusion versus nonfusion treatment for recurrent lumbar disc herniation

Background:

Recurrent lumbar disc herniation (RLDH) is one of the major causes for failure of primary surgery. The optimal surgical treatment of RLDH remains controversial.

Aim:

Retrospectively, we evaluate 135 patients and compare the clinical outcomes between fusion and nonfusion treatment of RLDH.

Methods:

Records of 75 men and 35 women aged 28–60 years for conventional revision discectomy alone (nonfusion) and 15 men and 10 women aged 30–65 years for revision discectomy with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and transpedicular screw fixation (fusion) were reviewed. Demographics, surgical data, and complications were collected and pre- and postoperative assessment were done by the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scale and Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score. The results after surgery were assessed according to the recovery rate as excellent, good, fair, and poor.

Results:

The mean follow-up period was 28.8 and 24.6 months in Group A (nonfusion) and Group B (fusion group), respectively. The preoperative data between both the groups showed no statistically significant difference. The postoperative mean VAS and JAO scores, recovery rate, and satisfaction rate showed no statistically significant difference except postoperative low back pain and occasional radicular pain and neurological deficit in nonfusion group which was significantly higher than that of fusion group. In comparison to fusion group, nonfusion group required significantly less operative time, less intraoperative blood loss, less postoperative hospital stay, no blood transfusion, and less total cost of the procedure. Satisfaction rate was 80% and 88% in nonfusion and fusion groups, respectively.

Conclusions:

Both convention revision discectomy (nonfusion) and discectomy with instrumented fusion (TLIF) surgery are effective in patients with RLDH.

Full endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (FEID) for recurrent lumbar disc herniation: surgical technique, clinical outcome, and prognostic factors

Background

The objective of this study is to determine the effectiveness and prognostic factors of revisional full endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (FEID) for recurrent herniation after conventional open disc surgery. The major concerns of the repeated discectomy for recurrent lumbar disc herniation (RLDH) are the epidural scar and postoperative segmental instability. Compared to open discectomy, endoscopic method has advantages of less tissue traumatization, clearer visualization and better tissue identification. With the improvement of endoscopic technique and instrument, the problems related to adhesive scar tissues or postoperative instability could be overcome.

Methods

From June 2014 to December 2016, FEID was performed in consecutive 24 patients for RLDH. The age ranged from 25 to 60 years (mean 44.6 years). The level operated was L5-S1 in 16 cases and L4-5 in 8 cases. To avoid injury to the neural tissue, we started with the bony structure. A small part of facet or lamina might be resected in severe stenotic or adhesive condition. Aggressive separation of the scar from the neural tissue might lead to dural tear and should be avoided. The herniated disc material was removed after neural tissue had been clearly identified and protected.

Results

The follow-up period was at least 24 months. The visual analog scale (VAS) for leg pain and back pain, and Oswestry disability index (ODI) showed significant improvement after treatment. Excellent or good outcome by the modified Macnab's criteria was obtained in 22 of 24 patients at two years follow-up. Excellent outcome was noted in 100 percent patients younger than 50 years. Small durotomy occurred in 2 patients and no visible cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leakage was detected despite repair was not performed. Two additional surgery was performed including one repeated FEID for re-recurrence of disc herniation and one fusion surgery for postoperative back pain.

Conclusions

FEID is a safe and effective alternative for recurrent disc herniation. The successful rate was greater than 90 percent, especially in the younger patients with the advantages of early recovery and no need for fusion.

Is fusion the most suitable treatment option for recurrent lumbar disc herniation? A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Recurrent lumbar disc herniation (rLDH) is a common issue after primary discectomy and can cause severe pain, morbidity, and reoperation. The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the surgical management of recurrent lumbar disc herniation.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted using Pubmed and Embase databases on 18^thAugust, 2019. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied according to study design, surgical approach, language, number of patients; and spinal level. Data extracted included patient demographics, and clinical outcomes (patients with excellent/good outcomes; VAS back and leg score improvement, complication and recurrence rates).

RESULTS

Sixteen studies, (comprising of seven prospective and nine retrospective) met the inclusion criteria. Ten studies evaluated discectomy only; four analysed fusion, and two analysed both discectomy only and fusion approaches. Fusion approaches recorded a superior success rate (8.3 % higher, p>0.05); postoperative VAS back score improvement (5 % higher, p>0.05) than discectomy alone.  However, discectomy alone approaches recorded a more favourable postoperative VAS leg score improvement (4.2 % higher p>0.05), and complication rate (3.2% lower, p>0.05) than fusion techniques.

CONCLUSION

There is significant heterogeneity in clinical outcomes reported for studies after surgical intervention in rLDH patients. Neither discectomy nor fusion's superiority was statistically significant. Despite fusion yielding longer operative times, and length of stay (adding to the expense), it is superior in minimising mechanical instability and recurrence. Finally, we conclude that both approaches are equally efficacious in rLDH cases, and choice should be based on a case by case basis.

Preoperative lumbar epidural steroid injections administered within 6 weeks of microdiscectomy are associated with increased rates of reoperation

PURPOSE

Lumbar epidural steroid injections (LESIs) are widely utilized for back pain. However, as studies report adverse effects from these injections, defining a safe interval for their use preoperatively is necessary. We investigated the effects of preoperative LESI timing on the rates of recurrent microdiscectomy.

METHODS

This study utilized the PearlDiver national insurance claims database. Microdiscectomy patients were stratified by the timing of their most recent LESI prior to surgery into bimonthly cohorts (0-2 months, 2-4 months, 4-6 months). This first cohort was further stratified into biweekly cohorts (0-2 weeks, 2-4 weeks, 4-6 weeks, 6-8 weeks). The 6-month reoperation rate was assessed and compared between each injection cohort and a control group of patients with no injections within 6 months before surgery. Univariate analyses of reoperation were conducted followed by multivariate analyses controlling for risk factors where appropriate.

RESULTS

A total of 12,786 microdiscectomy patients were identified; 1090 (8.52%) received injections within 6 months before surgery. We observed a significant increase in the 6-month reoperation rates in patients who received injections within 6 weeks prior to surgery (odds ratio [OR] 1.900, 1.218-2.963; p = 0.005) compared to control. No other significant differences were observed.

DISCUSSION

In this study, microdiscectomy performed within 6 weeks following LESIs was associated with a higher risk of reoperation, while microdiscectomy performed more than 6 weeks from the most recent LESI demonstrated no such association with increased risk. Further research into the interaction between LESIs and recurrent disk herniation is necessary.

Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Surgical Management of Post-Discectomy Syndrome

STUDY DESIGN

This was a prospective case series of 30 patients with post-discectomy syndrome with an average of 18 months of follow-up (level IV).

PURPOSE

The efficacy of post-discectomy syndrome managed by minimally invasive surgery transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) was evaluated.

OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE

In post-discectomy syndrome wherein conservative treatment had failed, the best surgical treatment modality still remains controversial.

METHODS

Patients were functionally assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for low back pain (LBP) and leg pain (LP) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Radiological fusion was confirmed with plain X-rays and when indicated with computed tomography scan at 12 months postoperatively. A total of 30 patients with 37 operated at lumbar levels with failed discectomy surgery who met our inclusion criteria were treated with MIS-TLIF.

RESULTS

The ODI of all patients showed significant improvement from a mean of 73.78% preoperatively to 16.67% at 1 month and 14.13% at 12 months postoperatively. The preoperative LBP VAS score (mean, 4.37) showed a significant decrease (p <0.001) to 1.90 at 1 month and 1.10 at 12 months. Preoperative LP VAS score of limb pain averaged 7.53 and showed a significant (p <0.001) decrease to 3.47 at 1 month and 1.10 at 12 months. All patients attained radiological fusion at 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

MIS-TILF constitutes a valid and effective treatment option for patients with post-discectomy syndrome.

Patients Undergoing Revision Microdiskectomy for Recurrent Lumbar Disk Herniation Experience Worse Clinical Outcomes and More Revision Surgeries Compared With Patients Undergoing a Primary Microdiskectomy

INTRODUCTION

Recurrent disk herniation treatment aims to optimize outcomes. This study compares the demographics and patient-reported outcomes of patients who underwent primary or revision lumbar microdiskectomy surgery for recurrent disk herniation.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort analysis was performed of consecutive patients who underwent primary or revision lumbar microdiskectomies between January 2008 and December 2015. Patients were divided into two groups: primary (primary) and revision (recurrent). Herniated disks were confirmed preoperatively using MRI. Patient-reported outcomes included Visual Analog Scales (VAS) scores for the back and leg, Oswestry Disability Index scores, 12-Item Short Form Mental and Physical Survey scores, and the Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Mental and Physical Survey scores.

RESULTS

One hundred ten patients met inclusion criteria: 72 from primary cohort and 38 from recurrent cohort. Recurrent patients experienced presurgical symptoms for significantly less time. On bivariate analysis, recurrent patients reported significantly worse preoperative VAS-back and VAS-leg scores. On multivariate analysis, recurrent patients reported significantly worse postoperative VAS-back, VAS-leg, and Oswestry Disability Index scores. Recurrent patients were less likely to be satisfied with surgical outcomes and to feel that surgery had met or exceeded their expectations.

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing revision microdiskectomy are likely to experience worse postoperative symptoms and disability relative to patients undergoing primary microdiskectomy.

Revision Surgery after Percutaneous Endoscopic Transforaminal Discectomy Compared with Primary Open Surgery for Symptomatic Lumbar Degenerative Disease

Objective

To evaluate the clinical outcome of reoperation after percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) as compared with primary spinal decompression and fusion.

Methods

A retrospective study from December 2014 to December 2017 was conducted at Peking Union Medical College Hospital and comprised 39 patients with symptomatic lumbar degenerative disease (LDD): 13 post‐PELD who underwent reoperation (revision surgery group) and 26 who received primary spinal decompression and fusion (primary open surgery group). The two groups were compared regarding: operative time, blood loss, transfusion, hospitalization, postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) scores, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) improvement rate, and postoperative complications. The Mann–Whitney U‐test was applied to analyze continuous parameters, and the χ²‐test for categorical parameters. Fisher's exact test was used for small data subsets.

Results

There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in mean age (52.7 years vs 52.9 years), gender ratio (6 men‐to‐7 women vs 12 men‐to‐14 women), body mass index, medical history, preoperative diagnosis, or surgical spine level (P > 0.05). The mean operative time of the revision surgery group was significantly longer than that of the primary open surgery group (160.0 min vs 130.2 min, P < 0.05). The revision surgery group also had a significantly higher mean estimated blood loss, postoperative drainage, and length of hospital stay (P < 0.05). However, no significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of hemoglobin and hematocrit values, preoperatively and postoperatively. The rate of transitional neurological irritation was higher in the revision surgery group (61.5% vs 3.8%; P < 0.05), as was intraoperative durotomy and cerebrospinal fluid leakage (30.8% vs 3.8%, P < 0.05). At 1 month, the VAS and ODI scores of the primary open surgery group were significantly better than those of the revision surgery group, while the improvement in JOA scores was similar. After 6 and 12 months’ follow‐up, the VAS and ODI scores and the rates of JOA improvement were comparable.

Conclusion

Patients with LDD who received primary spinal decompression and fusion experienced lower rates of perioperative complications and shorter hospitalization compared with patients who underwent revision surgery after PELD, but the clinical outcomes at the last follow‐up of both groups were satisfactory.

Reoperation of decompression alone or decompression plus fusion surgeries for degenerative lumbar diseases: a systematic review

PURPOSE

The objective of this paper was to compare the reoperation rates, timing and causes between decompression alone and decompression plus fusion surgeries for degenerative lumbar diseases through a systematic review of the published data.

METHODS

A search of the literature was conducted on PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Collaboration Library. Reports that included reoperations after decompression alone and/or decompression plus fusion surgeries were selected using designed eligibility criteria. Comparative analysis of reoperation rates, timing and causes between the two surgeries was conducted.

RESULTS

Thirty-two retrospective and three prospective studies were selected from 6401 papers of the literature search. The analysis of data reported in these studies revealed that both surgeries resulted in similar reoperation rates after the primary surgery. However, majority of reoperations following the fusion surgeries were due to adjacent-segment diseases, and following the decompression alone surgeries were due to the same-segment diseases. Reoperation rates were not found to decrease in patients operated more recently than those operated in early times.

CONCLUSIONS

Reoperation rates were similar following decompression alone or plus fusion surgeries for degenerative lumbar diseases. However, different underlying major causes exist between the two surgeries. There is no evidence showing that the reoperation rate has a trend to decline with newer surgical techniques used. The exact mechanisms of reoperation after both surgeries are still unclear. Further researches are necessary to investigate the mechanisms of reoperation for improvement of surgical techniques that aim to delay or prevent reoperation after lumbar surgery. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Review

STUDY DESIGN

Narrative review.

OBJECTIVES

To identify the risk factors and surgical management for recurrent lumbar disc herniation using a systematic review of available evidence.

METHODS

We conducted a review of PubMed, MEDLINE, OVID, and Cochrane Library databases using search terms identifying recurrent lumbar disc herniation and risk factors or surgical management. Abstracts of all identified articles were reviewed. Detailed information from articles with levels I to IV evidence was extracted and synthesized.

RESULTS

There is intermediate levels III to IV evidence detailing perioperative risk factors and the optimal surgical technique for recurrent lumbar disc herniations.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple risk factors including smoking, diabetes mellitus, obesity, intraoperative technique, and biomechanical factors may contribute to the development of recurrent disc disease. There is widespread variation regarding optimal surgical management for recurrent herniation, which often include revision discectomies with or without fusion via open and minimally invasive techniques.

The Role of Full-Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy in Surgical Treatment of Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Health-Related Quality of Life Approach

Objective

To investigate the utility of full-endoscopic lumbar discectomy (FELD) in surgical treatment of recurrent lumbar disc herniation (RLDH).

Methods

Forty-five patients were prospectively studied. All patients were subjected to FELD for RLDH. They were assessed preoperatively and in regular intervals at 6 weeks and 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months postoperatively. Evaluation was conducted with visual analogue scale for leg (VAS-LP) and low back (VAS-BP) pain. Short-Form 36 Health Survey Questionnaire was utilized for health-related quality of life assessment.

Results

All studied parameters featured statistically significant amelioration at all follow-up intervals. Maximal improvement was in general at 6 weeks observed, with subsequent lesser improvement until 6 months and stabilization until the end of follow-up. Comparative assessment indicated that VAS-BP displayed quantitatively lower improvement, whereas physical function, bodily pain, and role-emotional parameters demonstrated greater amelioration.

Conclusion

FELD is associated with a favorable impact in postoperative daily life of patients with RLDH.

Recurrent lumbar disc herniation: Is there a correlation with the surgical technique? A multivariate analysis

Purpose

The recurrence of a lumbar disc herniation (LDH) is a common cause of poor outcome following lumbar discectomy. The aim of this study was to assess a potential relationship between the incidence of recurrent LDH and the surgical technique used. Furthermore, we tried to define the best surgical technique for the treatment of recurrent LDH to limit subsequent recurrences.

Materials and Methods

A retrospective study was conducted on 979 consecutive patients treated for LDH. A multivariate analysis tried to identify a possible correlation between (1) the surgical technique used to treat the primary LDH and its recurrence; (2) technique used to treat the recurrence of LDH and the second recurrence; and (3) incidence of recurrence and clinical outcome. Data were analyzed with the Pearson's Chi-square test for its significance.

Results

In 582 cases (59.4%), a discectomy was performed, while in 381 (40.6%), a herniectomy was undertaken. In 16 cases, a procedure marked as "other" was performed. Among all patients, 110 (11.2%) had a recurrence. Recurrent LDH was observed in 55 patients following discectomy (9.45%), in 45 following herniectomy (11.8%), and in 10 (62.5%) following other surgery. Our data showed that 90.5% of discectomies and 88.2% of the herniectomies had a good clinical outcome, whereas other surgeries presented a recurrence rate of 62.5% (Pearson's χ²< 0.001). No statistical differences were observed between discectomy or herniectomy, for the treatment of the recurrence, and the incidence for the second recurrences (P > 0.05). A significant statistical correlation emerged between the use of other techniques and the incidence for the second recurrences (P < 0.05).

Conclusions

The recurrence of an LDH is one of the most feared complications following surgery. Although the standard discectomy has been considered more protective toward the recurrence compared to herniectomy, our data suggest that there is no significant correlation between the surgical technique and the risk of LDH recurrence.

Analysis of Revision Surgery of Microsurgical Lumbar Discectomy

Study Design

A retrospective study.

Purpose

Our objectives were to determine the association between the pathological changes of disc herniation and the interval between primary and revision surgeries and to investigate the frequency and site of the dural laceration in the primary and revision surgeries.

Overview of Literature

Among 382 patients who underwent microsurgical lumbar discectomy, we investigated 29 who underwent revision surgery to analyze recurrent herniation pathologies and complications to determine the manner in which lumbar disc herniation can be more efficiently managed.

Methods

Of 29 patients, 22 had recurrent disc herniation at the same level and site. The pathological changes associated with compression factors were classified into the following two types depending on intraoperative findings: (1) true recurrence and (2) minor recurrence with peridural fibrosis (>4 mm thickness). The sites of dural laceration were examined using video footage and operative records.

Results

The pathological findings and days between the primary and revision surgeries showed no statistical difference (p=0.14). Analysis of multiple factors, revealed no significant difference between the primary and revision surgery groups with regard to hospital days (p=0.23), blood loss (p=0.99), and operative time (p=0.67). Dural lacerations obviously increased in the revision surgery group (1.3% vs. 16.7%, p<0.01) and were mainly located near the herniated disc in the primary surgery group and near the root shoulder in the revision surgery group, where severe fibrosis and adhesion were confirmed. To avoid dural laceration during revision surgery, meticulous decompressive manipulation must be performed around the root sleeve.

Conclusions

We recommend that meticulous epidural dissection around the scar formation must be performed during revision surgery to avoid complications.

Factors associated with patient satisfaction for PLIF: Patient satisfaction analysis

Introduction: Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) has produced satisfactory clinical outcomes; however, all previous reports have only included evaluations by surgeon-based methods. The purpose of this study was to investigate patient-based surgical outcomes and the factors associated with patient satisfaction for PLIF. Methods: Patients who underwent PLIF for lumbar spondylolisthesis were reviewed (n=443). The average follow-up period was 8 years. Surgical outcomes were assessed using an original questionnaire, a numerical rating scale (NRS), the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), the Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score, and the recovery rate. The original questionnaire consisted of five categories, with patient-evaluated score out of 100 points for surgery, satisfaction, improvement, recommendation to others, and willingness to undergo repeat surgery on a 5-point scale. According to the questionnaire responses, patient-based outcomes were divided into three groups: positive, intermediate, and negative and were compared with the NRS, SF-36, and JOA scores. Furthermore, factors associated with patient satisfaction were examined. Results: A total of 273 patients responded. Response rate was 62%. The average patient-evaluated score for surgery was 82 points. In terms of satisfaction section, positive, intermediate, and negative response rates were 82%, 7%, and 11%, respectively. With respect to other sections, positive, intermediate, and negative response rates were 87%, 7%, and 6% in improvement section; 66%, 23%, and 11% in recommending section; and 72%, 18%, and 10% in repeat section, respectively. The average pre- and postoperative JOA scores were 12 and 24, respectively. Significant correlations were detected between patient-based surgical outcomes and the NRS scores, physical component scores of the SF-36, and the JOA score. Postoperative permanent motor loss and multiple revision surgery were the major factors related to a negative response. Conclusions: High satisfaction rate to PLIF and significant correlation between patient- and surgeon-based surgical outcomes were detected. Postoperative permanent motor loss and multiple revision surgery were the major factors related to a negative response.

Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) as an option for recurrent disc herniations: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Recurrent intervertebral disc herniation is a relatively common occurrence after primary discectomy for lumbar intervertebral disc herniation. For recurrent herniations after repeat discectomies, a growing body of evidence suggests that fusion is effective in appropriately selected cases. Theoretically, anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) allows for comprehensive discectomy, less trauma to spinal nerves and paraspinal muscles and avoidance of the disadvantages of repeat posterior approaches. However, ALIF has also been associated with risk of vascular injury and retrograde ejaculation. This current systematic review and meta-analysis aims to assess the viability of ALIF as a surgical treatment for recurrent disc herniations.

Methods

Seven studies were identified from six electronic databases and secondary reference lists. Pre-defined endpoints were extracted from the included studies and meta-analyzed.

Results

For the 181 patients from included studies, ALIF resulted in significant average improvements in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores (50.49%, P<0.001), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) back pain scores (47.85%, P<0.001) and VAS leg pain scores (37.00%, P<0.001). Average blood loss was acceptable at 122 mL (P<0.001) and average operation duration was 89 minutes (P<0.001). Average hospital stay was 5.28 days (P<0.001). Only 22 perioperative complications were reported, with subsidence the most commonly reported complication.

Conclusions

Pooled evidence suggests that ALIF is a feasible approach for the treatment of recurrent disc herniations, demonstrating significant improvements in back and leg pain and minimal complications. These findings warrant further investigation in large prospective registries and multi-center studies.

Treatment for Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Recurrent lumbar disc herniation (RLDH) is the most common indication for reoperation after a lumbar discectomy. The purpose of this manuscript is to review the incidence, risk factors, and treatment for RLDH.

RECENT FINDINGS

Patients who require revision surgery for RLDH improved significantly compared to baseline; however, the magnitude of improvement is less than in primary discectomy patients. Treatment with either repeat discectomy or instrumented fusion has comparable clinical outcomes. Repeat discectomy patients, however, have shorter operative times and length of stay. Hospital charges are dramatically lower for repeat discectomy compared to instrumented fusion. The incidence of RLDH is somewhere between 5 and 18%. Risk factors include younger age, lack of a sensory or motor deficit, and a higher baseline Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score. Available evidence suggests that some patients may respond to nonoperative interventions and avoid the need for reoperation. For those that fail a trial of conservative management or present with neurologic deficit, both repeat lumbar discectomy and instrumented fusion appear to effectively treat patients with similar complication rates and clinical outcomes.

Treatment of Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation With or Without Fusion in Workers' Compensation Subjects

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

To determine outcomes after reoperation discectomy with or without fusion surgery for recurrent lumbar disc herniation (RLDH) in the workers' compensation (WC) population.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

RLDH is estimated to occur in 7% to 24% of patients after discectomy. There are two main surgical options after reherniation: a revision discectomy (RD), or an RD combined with fusion (RDF).

METHODS

A total of 10,592 patients received lost-work compensation from the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation for a lumbar disc herniation between 2005 and 2012. Patients with lumbar spine comorbidities, a smoking history, or multilevel surgery were excluded. One hundred two patients had RD alone for RLDH and 196 had RDF procedures. The primary outcome was whether subjects returned to work (RTW).

RESULTS

A total of 298 WC patients met our study criteria, including 230 (77.2%) men and 68 (22.8%) women with an average age of 39.4 years (range 19-66). The RDF group had lower rates of RTW than the RD group (27.0% vs 40.2%; P = 0.03). Multivariate regression analysis showed that reoperation with discectomy and fusion (P = 0.04; odds ratio [OR] = 0.56), psychiatric illness (P < 0.01; OR = 0.19), and opioid analgesic use within 1 month of reoperation (P < 0.01; OR = 0.44) were independent negative predictors of RTW. RDF patients were supplied with opioids for 252.3 days longer (P < 0.01) and incurred $34,914 (31.8%) higher medical costs (P < 0.01) than the RD alone group.

CONCLUSION

We analyzed outcomes after operative management of RLDH in the WC population. WC patients receiving RDF had lower RTW rates, higher costs, and a longer duration of postoperative opioid use than those receiving RD alone. This information allows for informed patient management decisions and suggests that fusion should be reserved for patients with clear indications for its use. We are unable to conclude what treatment method is best, but rather we provide a baseline for future studies.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Comparing clinical outcomes of repeat discectomy versus fusion for recurrent disc herniation utilizing the N2QOD

OBJECTIVE

Recurrent lumbar disc herniation (RLDH) is a significant cause of morbidity in patients undergoing lumbar discectomy and has been reported to occur in up to 18% of cases. While repeat discectomy is often successful in treating these patients, concern over repeat RLDH may lead surgeons to advocate instrumented fusion even in the absence of instability. The authors' goal was to compare clinical outcomes for patients undergoing repeat discectomy versus instrumented fusion for RLDH.

METHODS

The authors used the National Neurosurgery Quality and Outcomes Database (N2QOD) to assess outcomes of patients who underwent repeat discectomy versus instrumented fusion at a single institution from 2012 to 2015. Primary outcomes included Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score, visual analog scale (VAS) score, and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) measures. Secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay, discharge status, and hospital charges.

RESULTS

The authors identified 25 repeat discectomy and 12 instrumented fusion patients with 3- and 12-month follow-up records. The groups had similar ODI and VAS scores and QALY measurements at 3 and 12 months. Patients in the instrumented fusion group had significantly longer hospitalizations (3.7 days vs 1.0 days, p < 0.001) and operative times (229.6 minutes vs 82.7 minutes, p < 0.001). They were also more likely to be female (p = 0.020) and to be discharged to inpatient rehabilitation instead of home (p = 0.036). Hospital charges for the instrumented fusion group were also significantly higher ($54,458.29 vs $11,567.05, p < 0.001). Rates of reoperation were higher in the repeat discectomy group (12% vs 0%), but the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.211).

CONCLUSIONS

Repeat discectomy and instrumented fusion result in similar clinical outcomes at short-term follow-up. Patients undergoing repeat discectomy had significantly shorter operative times and length of stay, and they incurred dramatically lower hospital charges. They were also less likely to require acute rehabilitation postoperatively. Further research is needed to compare these two management strategies.

Mini-open Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation Following Posterior Instrumentation

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to evaluate, clinically and radiographically, the efficacy of mini-open retroperitoneal anterior lumbar discectomy followed by anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) for recurrent lumbar disc herniation following primary posterior instrumentation.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Recurrent disc herniation following previous disc surgery occurs in 5 to 15% of cases. This is often treated by further surgical intervention where posterior approach is generally preferred. However, posterior surgery may be problematic if the initial surgery involved posterior instrumentation. An anterior approach may be indicated in these patients, and recent findings suggest that a "mini-open" procedure may have some benefits when compared with traditional open techniques and their associated morbidities.

METHODS

A total of 35 recurrent lumbar disc herniation patients (10 male, 25 female) following primary posterior instrumentation with an average age of 52.8 years (range: 34-70 yrs) who underwent the mini-open ALIF procedures between August 2001 and February 2012 were evaluated retrospectively. The ALIF was performed at the levels L4-L5 (n = 14), L5-S1 (n = 15), or both L4-L5 and L5-S1 (n = 6). Visual Analog pain Scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) together with radiological results were assessed.

RESULTS

The mean operating time, intraoperative estimated blood loss, and hospital stay were 115 minutes, 70 mL, and 6 days, respectively. No blood transfusion was needed. Transient complication was recorded in two patients. Postoperative follow-up was a minimum 24.3 months. VAS score and ODI percentage decreased significantly from 7.9 ± 0.8 and 78.8% ± 12.4% pre-operatively to 1.4 ± 0.6 and 21.7 ± 4.2% at final follow-up, respectively. There was no neurological worsening and radicular pain improved significantly compared with pre-operation in all the patients. Computed tomographic reconstruction 12 and 24 months after surgery showed bony fusion, normal position, and morphology of the fusion cage in all patients.

CONCLUSION

Mini-open retroperitoneal ALIF is an effective treatment for patients with recurrent lumbar disc herniation following primary posterior instrumentation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.

Treatment of Recurrent Disc Herniation: A Systematic Review

Intervertebral disc herniation is one of the most common causes of back and extremity pain. The most commonly used surgical treatment is lumbar discectomy. About 0.5-25% go on to develop recurrent disc herniation (rDH) after a successful first discectomy. Currently, there aren't any guidelines to assist surgeons in determining which approach is most appropriate to treat rDH. A recent survey showed significant heterogeneity among surgeons regarding treatment options for rDH. It remains unclear which methods lead to better outcomes, as there are no comparative studies with a sufficient level of evidence. In this study, we aimed to perform a systematic review to compare treatment options for rDH and determine if one intervention provides better outcomes than the other; more specifically, whether outcome differences exist between discectomy alone and discectomy with fusion. We applied the PICOS (participants, intervention, comparison, outcome, study design) format to develop this systematic review through PubMed. Twenty-seven papers from 1978-2014 met our inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. Nine papers reported outcomes after discectomy and seven of them showed good or excellent outcomes (70.60%-89%). Ten papers reported on minimally invasive discectomy. The percent change in visual analog scale (VAS) ranged from -50.77% to -86.57%, indicating an overall pain reduction. Four studies out of the ten reported good or excellent outcomes (81% to 90.2%). Three studies looked at posterolateral fusion. Three studies analyzed posterior lumbar interbody fusion. For one study, we found the VAS percentage change to be -46.02%. All reported good to excellent outcomes. Six studies evaluated the transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. All reported improvement in pain. Four used VAS, and we found the percent change to be -54% to -86.5%. The other two used the Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score, and we found the percent change to be 68.3% to 93.3%. We did not find enough evidence to support any significant difference in outcomes between discectomy alone and discectomy with fusion. The limitation of our study includes the lack of standardized outcomes reporting in the literature. However, reviewing the selected articles shows that fusion may have a greater improvement in pain compared to reoperation without fusion. Nonetheless, our study shows that further and more in-depth investigation is needed on the of treatment of rDH.

Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Management of Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation

Study Design

Retrospective study.

Purpose

To study the surgical outcome of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) combined with trans-pedicular screws fixation for management of selected cases of recurrent lumbar disc herniation.

Overview of Literature

Recurrent lumbar disc herniation is a major cause of surgical failure, occurring in 5%–11% of cases. The optimal technique for treatment is controversial. Some authors believe that repeated simple discectomy is the treatment of choice, but approach-related complications can be considerable. Other surgeons prefer more removal of posterior elements (as lamina and facet joints) with posterior fusion.

Methods

The study included 15 patients who presented with symptomatic recurrent lumbar disc herniation who underwent reoperation through posterior trans-pedicular screws and TLIF in our department from April 2008 to May 2010, with a 24-month follow-up. Japanese Orthopedic Association Scale (JOA) was used for low back pain. The results of surgery were also evaluated with the MacNab classification.

Results

The mean JOA score showed significant improvement, increasing from 9.5 before surgery to 24.0 at the end of follow-up (p<0.001). Clinical outcome was excellent in 7 patients (46% of cases), good in 6 patients (40%) and fair in only 2 patients (14%). There was a significant difference (p<0.05) between patients presenting with recurrent disc at the ipsilateral side and those at the contralateral side.

Conclusions

In spite of the small number of patients and the short follow-up period, the good clinical and radiological outcome achieved in this study encourage the belief that TLIF is an effective option for the treatment of selected cases of recurrent lumbar disc herniation.

Quality of life outcomes after revision lumbar discectomy

OBJECT

The authors investigated quality of life (QOL) outcomes after primary versus revision discectomy.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed for all patients who had undergone a primary or revision discectomy at the Cleveland Clinic Center for Spine Health from January 2008 through December 2011. Among patients in the revision cohort, they identified those who needed a second revision discectomy. Patient QOL measures were recorded before and after surgery. These measures included responses to the EQ-5D health questionnaire, Patient Health Questionnaire–9, Pain and Disability Questionnaire, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Cohorts were compared by using independent-sample t-tests and Fisher exact tests for continuous and categorical variables, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to adjust for confounding.

RESULTS

A total of 196 patients were identified (116 who underwent primary discectomy and 80 who underwent revision discectomy); average follow-up time was 150 days. There were no preoperative QOL differences between groups. Postoperatively, both groups improved significantly in all QOL measures. For QALYs, the primary cohort improved by 0.25 points (p < 0.001) and the revision cohort improved by 0.18 points (p < 0.001). QALYs improved for significantly more patients in the primary than in the revision cohort (76% vs 59%, respectively; p = 0.02), and improvement exceeded the minimum clinically important difference for more patients in the primary cohort (62% vs 45%, respectively; p = 0.03). Of the 80 patients who underwent revision discectomy, yet another recurrent herniation (third herniation) occurred in 14 (17.5%). Of these, 4 patients (28.6%) chose to undergo a second revision discectomy and the other 10 (71.4%) underwent conservative management. For those who underwent a second revision discectomy, QOL worsened according to all questionnaire scores.

CONCLUSIONS

QOL, pain and disability, and psychosocial outcomes improved after primary and revision discectomy, but the improvement diminished after revision discectomy.

Risk factors for recurrent lumbar disc herniations

The most common complication after lumbar discectomy is reherniation. As the first step in reducing the rate of recurrence, many studies have been conducted to find out the factors that may increase the reherniation risk. Some reported factors are age, sex, the type of lumbar disc herniation, the amount of fragments removed, smoking, alcohol consumption and the length of restricted activities. In this review, the factors studied thus far are summarized, excepting factors which cannot be chosen or changed, such as age or sex. Apart from the factors shown here, many other risk factors such as diabetes, family history, history of external injury, duration of illness and body mass index are considered. Few are agreed upon by all. The reason for the diverse opinions may be that many clinical and biomechanical variables are involved in the prognosis following operation. For the investigation of risk factors in recurrent lumbar disc herniation, large-scale multicenter prospective studies will be required in the future.

Recurrent lumbar disc herniation: A prospective comparative study of three surgical management procedures

Context:

The optimal surgical treatment of recurrent lumbar disc herniation is controversial.

Aim:

To compare prospectively the clinical outcomes of surgical treatment of recurrent lumbar disc herniation by three different methods; discectomy alone, discectomy with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), and diecectomy with posterolateral fusion (PLF), regardless of the postoperative radiological findings.

Study Design:

This is a prospective, randomized, comparative study.

Materials and Methods:

This is a prospective, randomized, comparative study on 45 patients with first time recurrent lumbar disc herniation. Patients were evaluated clinically by using the criteria of the Japanese Orthopedic Association's evaluation system for low back pain syndrome (JOA score). The patients were classified into three groups: Group A; patients who had revision discectomy alone, group B; patients who had revision discectomy with TLIF, and group C; patients who had revision discectomy with PLF. The mean follow-up period was 37 (±7.85 STD) months.

Results:

The mean overall recovery rate was 87.2% (±19.26 STD) and the satisfactory rate was 88.9%. Comparison between the three groups showed no significant difference with regard to the mean total postoperative JOA score, recovery rate, and satisfactory rate. However, the postoperative low back pain was significantly higher in group A than that of group B and C. Two patients in group A required further revision surgery. The incidences of dural tear and postoperative neurological deficit were higher in group A. The intraoperative blood loss and length of operation were significantly less in group A. The total cost of the procedure was significantly different between the three groups, being least in group A and highest in group B. There was no significant difference between the three groups with regard to the length of postoperative hospital stay.

Conclusion:

Revision discectomy is effective in patients with recurrent lumbar disc herniation. Fusion with revision discectomy improves the postoperative low back pain, decreases the intraoperative risk of dural tear or neural damage and decreases the postoperative incidence of mechanical instability or re-recurrence. TLIF and PLF have comparable results when used with revision discectomy, but PLF has significantly less total cost than TLIF.

A comparative study of the outcomes of primary and revision lumbar discectomy surgery

The outcome of surgery for recurrent lumbar disc herniation is debatable. Some studies show results that are comparable with those of primary discectomy, whereas others report worse outcomes. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcome of revision lumbar discectomy with that of primary discectomy in the same cohort of patients who had both the primary and the recurrent herniation at the same level and side.

A retrospective analysis of prospectively gathered data was undertaken in 30 patients who had undergone both primary and revision surgery for late recurrent lumbar disc herniation. The outcome measures used were visual analogue scales for lower limb (VAL) and back (VAB) pain and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI).

There was a significant improvement in the mean VAL and ODI scores (both p < 0.001) after primary discectomy. Revision surgery also resulted in improvements in the mean VAL (p < 0.001), VAB (p = 0.030) and ODI scores (p < 0.001). The changes were similar in the two groups (all p > 0.05).

Revision discectomy can give results that are as good as those seen after primary surgery.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:90–4.

Revision lumbar surgery in elderly patients with symptomatic pseudarthrosis, adjacent-segment disease, or same-level recurrent stenosis. Part 1. Two-year outcomes and clinical efficacy: clinical article

OBJECT

Same-level recurrent lumbar stenosis, pseudarthrosis, and adjacent-segment disease (ASD) are potential complications that can occur after index lumbar spine surgery, leading to significant discomfort and radicular pain. While numerous studies have demonstrated excellent results following index lumbar spine surgery in elderly patients (age > 65 years), the effectiveness of revision lumbar surgery in this cohort remains unclear. The aim of this study was to assess the long-term effectiveness of revision lumbar decompression and fusion in the treatment of symptomatic pseudarthrosis, ASD, and same-level recurrent stenosis, using validated patient-reported outcomes.

METHODS

After a review of the institutional database, 69 patients who had undergone revision neural decompression and instrumented fusion for ASD (28 patients), pseudarthrosis (17 patients), or same-level recurrent stenosis (24 patients) were included in this study. Baseline and 2-year scores on the visual analog scale for leg pain (VAS-LP), VAS for back pain (VAS-BP), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS) as well as the time to narcotic independence, time to return to baseline activity level, health state utility (EQ-5D, the EuroQol-5D health survey), and physical and mental component summary scores of the 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12 PCS and MCS) were assessed.

RESULTS

Compared with the preoperative status, VAS-BP was significantly improved 2 years after surgery for ASD (mean ± standard deviation 9 ± 2 vs 4.01 ± 2.56, p = 0.001), pseudarthrosis (7.41 ± 1 vs 5.52 ± 3.08, p = 0.02), and same-level recurrent stenosis (7 ± 2.00 vs 5.00 ± 2.34, p = 0.003). The 2-year ODI was also significantly improved after surgery for ASD (29 ± 9 vs 23.10 ± 10.18, p = 0.001), pseudarthrosis (28.47 ± 5.85 vs 24.41 ± 7.75, p = 0.001), and same-level recurrent stenosis (30.83 ± 5.28 vs 26.29 ± 4.10, p = 0.003). The Zung SDS score and SF-12 MCS did not change appreciably after surgery in any of the cohorts, with an overall mean 2-year change of 1.01 ± 5.32 (p = 0.46) and 2.02 ± 9.25 (p = 0.22), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Data in this study suggest that revision lumbar decompression and extension of fusion for symptomatic pseudarthrosis, ASD, and same-level recurrent stenosis provides improvement in low-back pain, disability, and quality of life and should be considered a viable treatment option for elderly patients with persistent or recurrent back and radicular pain. Mental health symptoms may be more refractory to revision surgery.

Revision lumbar surgery in elderly patients with symptomatic pseudarthrosis, adjacent-segment disease, or same-level recurrent stenosis. Part 2. A cost-effectiveness analysis: clinical article

OBJECT

Despite advances in technology and understanding in spinal physiology, reoperation for symptomatic adjacent-segment disease (ASD), same-level recurrent stenosis, and pseudarthrosis in elderly patients continues to occur. While revision lumbar surgery is effective, attention has turned to questions on the utility and value of the revision decompression and fusion procedure. To date, an analysis of the cost and health state gain associated with revision lumbar surgery in elderly patients with symptomatic pseudarthrosis, ASD, or same-level recurrent lumbar stenosis has yet to be performed. The aim of this study was to assess the long-term outcomes and cost-effectiveness of revision surgery in elderly patients with recurrent or persistent back and leg pain.

METHODS

After reviewing their institutional database, the authors found 69 patients 65 years of age and older who had undergone revision decompression and instrumented fusion for back and leg pain associated with pseudarthrosis (17 patients), same-level recurrent stenosis (24 patients), or ASD (28 patients) and included them in this study. Total 2-year back-related medical resource utilization and health state values (quality-adjusted life years [QALYs], calculated from the EQ-5D, the EuroQol-5D health survey, with US valuation) were assessed. Two-year resource use was multiplied by unit costs based on Medicare national allowable payment amounts. The mean total 2-year cost per QALY gained after revision surgery was assessed.

RESULTS

The mean (± standard deviation) time between the index surgery and revision surgery was 3.51 ± 3.63 years. A mean cumulative 2-year gain of 0.35 QALY was observed after revision surgery. The mean total 2-year cost of revision surgery was $28,256 ± $3000 (ASD: $28,829 ± $3812, pseudarthrosis: $28,069 ± $2508, same-level recurrent stenosis: $27,871 ± $2375). Revision decompression and extension of fusion was associated with a mean 2-year cost of $80,594 per QALY gained.

CONCLUSIONS

Revision decompression and fusion provided a significant gain in health state utility for elderly patients with symptomatic pseudarthrosis, same-level recurrent stenosis, or ASD, with a mean 2-year cost of $80,594 per QALY gained. When indicated, revision surgery for symptomatic ASD, same-level recurrent stenosis, and pseudarthrosis is a valuable treatment option for elderly patients experiencing persistent back and leg pain. Findings in this study provided a value measure of surgery that can be compared with future cost-per-QALY-gained studies of medical management or alternative surgical approaches.

Reoperation for recurrent lumbar disc herniation: a study over a 20-year period in a Japanese population

BACKGROUND

Many studies have been reported on recurrent lumbar disc herniations covering several pathological conditions. In those studies, reoperation rate of revised disc excisions was calculated by simple division between the number of reoperations and that of the total primary disc excisions. To determine the real reoperation rate, strict definition of pathologies, a large number of patients, a long observation period, and survival function method are necessary.

METHODS

Between 1988 and 2007, 5,626 patients with disc excision were enrolled by the spine registration system of the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Tohoku University, Japan. Among them, 192 had revised disc surgery, and we obtained data of 186 patients whose clinical features were assessed and reoperation rates analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

In total, 205 disc herniations were excised in the revision surgery (including contralateral herniation at the same level and new herniation at a different level), and 101 were real recurrent herniations (recurrence at the same level and side as the primary herniation). The kappa coefficient of the spinal level and side between the primary and revision surgeries was 0.41, indicting moderate correlations. Real recurrent herniations showed shorter intervals between primary and revision surgeries. Male patients with surgery at a younger age carried a higher risk of reoperation. In the revision surgery, transligamentous extrusion was significantly more common than other types of herniation. On Kaplan-Meier analysis, the reoperation rate of overall revised excisions was 0.62% at 1 year, 2.4% at 5 years, 4.4% at 10 years, and 5.9% after 17 years. That of real recurrent herniations was 0.5%, 1.4%, and 2.1%, respectively, and 2.8% after 15.7 years.

CONCLUSION

Reoperation rate of real recurrent herniations calculated using survival function method gradually increased year by year, from 0.5% at 1 year after primary surgery to 2.8% at 15.7 years.

Revisional percutaneous full endoscopic disc surgery for recurrent herniation of previous open lumbar discectomy

Study Design

A retrospective study.

Purpose

To determine the feasibility and effectiveness of revisional percutaneous full endoscopic discectomy for recurrent herniation after conventional open disc surgery.

Overview of the Literature

Repeated open discectomy with or without fusion has been the most common procedure for recurrent lumbar disc herniation. Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for recurrent herniation has been thought of as an impossible procedure. Despite good results with open revisional surgery, major problems may be caused by injuries to the posterior stabilized structures. Our team did revisional full endoscopic lumbar disc surgery on the basis of our experience doing primary full endoscopic disc surgery.

Methods

Between February 2004 and August 2009 a total of 41 patients in our hospital underwent revisional percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy using a YESS endoscopic system and a micro-osteotome (designed by the authors). Indications for surgery were recurrent disc herniation following conventional open discectomy; with compression of the nerve root revealed by Gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging; corresponding radiating pain which was not alleviated after conservative management over 6 weeks. Patients with severe neurologic deficits and isolated back pain were excluded.

Results

The mean follow-up period was 16 months (range, 13 to 42 months). The visual analog scale for pain in the leg and back showed significant post-treatment improvement (p < 0.001). Based on a modified version of MacNab's criteria, 90.2% showed excellent or good outcomes. There was no measurable blood loss. There were two cases of recurrence of and four cases with complications.

Conclusions

Percutaneous full-endoscopic revisional disc surgery without additional structural damage is feasible and effective in terms of there being less chance of fusion and bleeding. This technique can be an alternative to conventional repeated discectomy.

Obesity increases the risk of recurrent herniated nucleus pulposus after lumbar microdiscectomy

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Recurrent herniation of the nucleus pulposus (HNP) frequently causes poor outcomes after lumbar discectomy. The relationship between obesity and recurrent HNP has not previously been reported.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to investigate the association of obesity with recurrent HNP after lumbar microdiscectomy.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective Cohort.

PATIENT SAMPLE

We reviewed all cases of one- or two-level lumbar microdiscectomy from L2-S1 performed by a single surgeon with a minimum follow-up of 6 months.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary clinical outcomes were evidence of recurrent HNP on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and need for repeat surgery.

METHODS

All patients with recurrent radicular pain or new neurological deficits underwent a postoperative MRI scan. Recurrent HNP was defined as a HNP at the same side and same level as the index procedure.

RESULTS

Seventy-five patients were included in the study. The average body mass index (BMI) was 27.6+/-4.6. Thirty-two patients received an MRI scan. The time from operation to repeat MRI scan varied widely (3 days to 15 months). Eight patients (10.7%) had recurrent HNP. Four patients had persistent symptoms requiring reoperation (5.3%). The mean BMI of patients with recurrent HNP was significantly higher than that of those without recurrence (33.6+/-5.1 vs. 26.9+/-3.9, p<.001). In univariate analysis, obese patients (BMI >or=30) were 12 times more likely to have recurrent HNP than nonobese patients (odds ratio [OR]: 12.46, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.25-69.90). Obese patients were 30 times more likely to require reoperation (OR: 32.81, 95% CI: 1.67-642.70). Age, sex, smoking, and being a manual laborer were not significantly associated with recurrent HNP. A logistic regression analysis supported the findings of the univariate analysis. In a survival analysis using a Cox proportional hazards model, the hazard ratio of recurrent HNP for obese patients was 17 (OR: 17.08, 95% CI: 2.85-102.30, p=.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Obesity was a strong and independent predictor of recurrent HNP after lumbar microdiscectomy. Surgeons should incorporate weight loss counseling into their preoperative discussions with patients.

Clinical outcomes after microendoscopic discectomy for recurrent lumbar disc herniation

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective review of consecutive case series.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the safety and efficacy of the microendoscopic approach for treatment of recurrent lumbar disc herniation.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The standard surgical approach for the treatment of recurrent disc herniation uses an open technique with a wide exposure. Many would consider a minimally invasive approach such as microendoscopic discectomy (MED) to be contraindicated in the setting of recurrent disc herniation.

METHODS

Sixteen consecutive patients with recurrent lumbar disc herniation who failed conservative management underwent MED. Before surgery and at follow-up, patients completed the Oswestry Disability Index, SF-36, and assessment of leg pain using the Visual Analog Scale. Outcome was also assessed using modified McNab criteria.

RESULTS

No case required conversion to an open procedure. Mean operative time was 108 minutes, and mean estimated blood loss was 32 mL. The only surgical complications were 2 durotomies that were treated with dural sealant without sequelae. Mean hospital stay was 23 hours, and mean follow-up was 14.7 months. Approximately 80% of patients had good or excellent outcomes based on modified McNab criteria. The remaining 3 patients had fair outcomes, and no patient had a poor outcome. All standardized measures improved significantly, including mean Visual Analog Scale for leg pain (8.2 to 2.2, P<0.001), mean Oswestry Disability Index (59.3 to 26.7, P<0.001), SF-36 Physical Component Summary score (28.3 to 42.4, P<0.001), and SF-36 Mental Component Summary score (38.2 to 48.3, P<0.001). As of last follow-up no patient has showed recurrence of herniation or evidence of delayed instability.

CONCLUSIONS

MED is a safe and effective surgical approach for the treatment of recurrent lumbar disc herniation. Standardized measures of outcome show that MED for recurrent herniation produces improvement in pain, disability, and functional health that is at least comparable with outcomes reported for conventional open microdiscectomy.

Qual a relevância dos sinais e sintomas no prognóstico de pacientes com hérnia de disco lombar?

INTRODUÇÃO: a hérnia de disco lombar (HDL) é uma patologia prevalente na atualidade, que acarreta limitações físicas, psiquícas e sociais ao paciente. Os sinais e sintomas mais frequentes são lombociatalgia, distúrbios motores e sensitivos e sinal de Lasègue. Nos pacientes com HDL refrátarios ao tratamento clínico, microdiscectomia é o procedimento padrão para a melhora dos sintomas. OBJETIVOS: estudar a relevância prognóstica dos sinais e sintomas nos pacientes com HDL refratários ao tratamento clínico. MÉTODOS: foram pesquisados, nas principais bases de dados biomédicas, os artigos que estudaram a percentagem de melhora e o valor prognóstico dos sinais e sintomas pré-operatórios dos pacientes com HDL. Os sinais e os sintomas avaliados foram dor lombar, dor na perna, distúrbios motores e sensitivos e sinal de Lasègue. CONCLUSÃO: o índice de sucesso da cirurgia dos pacientes com HDL refratários ao tratamento clínico correlaciona-se com a ausência de lombalgia, a presença de ciatalgia com tempo de evolução de até 6 meses, o déficit sensitivo presente de forma isolada ou associado ao déficit motor e a presença de sinal de Lasègue positivo no período pré-operatório.

Minimum two-year follow-up of cases with recurrent disc herniation treated with microdiscectomy and posterior dynamic transpedicular stabilisation

The objective of this article is to evaluate two-year clinical and radiological follow-up results for patients who were treated with microdiscectomy and posterior dynamic transpedicular stabilisation (PDTS) due to recurrent disc herniation. This article is a prospective clinical study. We conducted microdiscectomy and PDTS (using a cosmic dynamic screw-rod system) in 40 cases (23 males, 17 females) with a diagnosis of recurrent disc herniation. Mean age of included patients was 48.92 +/- 12.18 years (range: 21-73 years). Patients were clinically and radiologically evaluated for follow-up for at least two years. Patients' postoperative clinical results and radiological outcomes were evaluated during the 3rd, 12th, and 24th months after surgery. Forty patients who underwent microdiscectomy and PDTS were followed for a mean of 41 months (range: 24-63 months). Both the Oswestry and VAS scores showed significant improvements two years postoperatively in comparison to preoperative scores (p<0.01). There were no significant differences between any of the three measured radiological parameters (alpha, LL, IVS) after two years of follow-up (p > 0.05). New recurrent disc herniations were not observed during follow-up in any of the patients. We observed complications in two patients. Performing microdiscectomy and PDTS after recurrent disc herniation can decrease the risk of postoperative segmental instability. This approach reduces the frequency of failed back syndrome with low back pain and sciatica.

Recurrent lumbar disc herniation after conventional discectomy: a prospective, randomized study comparing full-endoscopic interlaminar and transforaminal versus microsurgical revision

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, controlled study of patients with recurrent lumbar disc herniations after conventional discectomy, operated either in a full-endoscopic or microsurgical technique.

OBJECTIVE

Comparison of results of lumbar revision discectomies in full-endoscopic interlaminar and transforaminal technique with the conventional microsurgical technique.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Recurrences after lumbar disc operations cannot be prevented. Because of the existing scarring, the risk of intraoperative complications may be increased and consecutive damage may arise owing to greater traumatization. In disc surgery, tissue-sparing interventions are becoming more widespread. Endoscopic techniques have become the standard in many areas because of the advantages they offer intraoperatively and postoperatively. With the transforaminal and interlaminar techniques, 2 full-endoscopic procedures are available for the lumbar spine.

METHODS

Eighty-seven patients with recurrent herniation after conventional discectomy underwent full-endoscopic or microsurgical intervention and were followed for 2 years. In addition to general and specific parameters, the following measuring instruments were used: visual analog scale, German version of the North American Spine Society Instrument, Oswestry Low-Back Pain Disability Questionnaire.

RESULTS

Postoperatively, 79% of the patients no longer had leg pain, and 16% had occasional pain. The clinical results were the same in both groups. The re-recurrence rate was 5.7% with no difference between the groups. The full-endoscopic techniques brought significant advantages in the following areas: rehabilitation, complications, and traumatization.

CONCLUSIONS

The clinical results of the full-endoscopic technique are equal to those of the microsurgical technique. At the same time, there are advantages in the operation technique and reduced traumatization. With the surgical devices and the possibility of selecting an interlaminar or posterolateral to lateral transforaminal procedure, recurrent lumbar disc herniations can be sufficiently removed using the full-endoscopic technique. Full-endoscopic surgery is a sufficient and safe supplementation and alternative to microsurgical procedures.