Literature DB >> 14563140

One-level one-sided lumbar disc surgery with and without microscopic assistance: 1-year outcome in 114 consecutive patients.

Kudret Türeyen1.   

Abstract

OBJECT: The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes following macrodiscectomy and microsurgery for one-level one-sided lumbar disc excision.
METHODS: The authors prospectively studied 114 consecutive patients who underwent microdiscectomy (Group A, 63 patients [36 men, 27 women]) and macrodiscectomy (Group B, 51 patients [29 men, 22 women]) for one-level unilateral first-time lumbar disc herniation. Microdiscectomy was considered to involve a small incision with removal or opening of the ligamentum flavum, no or minimal bone excision, and use of the operating microscope to remove the disc material. Laminectomy combined with macrodiscectomy was defined as any operation requiring a large opening in or complete removal of the unilateral lamina. Diagnosis was confirmed by magnetic resonance imaging. A 1-year follow-up investigation was also conducted. Relief of radicular pain, improvement in muscle power, and changes in sensory and/or reflex abnormality were documented. Assessment of outcome was performed using the modified Stauffer-Coventry criteria. Good or excellent results were demonstrated in 90% of Group A and 89% of Group B patients (p > 0.05). One patient in each group underwent reoperation. There was infection over the fascia in two Group A patients. Mean operative time (+/- standard deviation) was 54 +/- 5.65 minutes in Group A and 25 +/- 7.07 minutes in Group B (p < 0.01). Median length of the incision was 4 and 6 cm in Group A and Group B, respectively (p < 0.05). The length of postoperative inpatient stay was 1 day in both groups (p > 0.05). Patients in the microsurgery-treated group returned to work in less time: 85% of Group A and 58% of Group B patients returned to their work within 4 weeks (p < 0.001). Some patients in each group (15% in Group A and 45% in Group B) needed narcotic analgesic medication at least twice between the 1st month and 1st year after the surgery (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Microdiscectomy allows the surgeon good visualization and is less traumatic to the involved tissues. Interestingly, the results of this study indicated that microsurgery does not reduce hospitalization time, nor does it improve the overall surgery-related outcome. The main differences between the two procedures were length of the incision and operative time. The author found that lumbar microdiscectomy allows patients earlier return to work and/or normal life with less reliance on postoperative narcotic analgesic agents.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14563140     DOI: 10.3171/spi.2003.99.3.0247

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurosurg        ISSN: 0022-3085            Impact factor:   5.115


  13 in total

1.  Comparison of a minimally invasive procedure versus standard microscopic discotomy: a prospective randomised controlled clinical trial.

Authors:  Jörg Franke; R Greiner-Perth; H Boehm; K Mahlfeld; H Grasshoff; Y Allam; F Awiszus
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-04-10       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  The safety and efficacy of minimally invasive discectomy: a meta-analysis of prospective randomised controlled trials.

Authors:  Xian Chang; Bin Chen; Hai-yin Li; Xiao-bo Han; Yue Zhou; Chang-qing Li
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2014-04-11       Impact factor: 3.075

3.  Use of an operating microscope during spine surgery is associated with minor increases in operating room times and no increased risk of infection.

Authors:  Bryce A Basques; Nicholas S Golinvaux; Daniel D Bohl; Alem Yacob; Jason O Toy; Arya G Varthi; Jonathan N Grauer
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2014-10-15       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  Clinical assessment of reformed lumbar microdiscectomy.

Authors:  Tao Li; Dunfu Han; Baodong Liu; Xishan Zhang; Pengyun Wang; Yingzhu Qiu
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2012-11-24

Review 5.  Incidence of Low Back Pain After Lumbar Discectomy for Herniated Disc and Its Effect on Patient-reported Outcomes.

Authors:  Scott L Parker; Stephen K Mendenhall; Saniya S Godil; Priya Sivasubramanian; Kevin Cahill; John Ziewacz; Matthew J McGirt
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 4.176

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

Authors:  Gerrit J Bouma; Martin Barth; Darko Ledic; Milorad Vilendecic
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-02-03       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 7.  A systematic review of randomised clinical trials using posterior discectomy to treat lumbar disc herniations.

Authors:  Alberto Gotfryd; Osmar Avanzi
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2008-05-24       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 8.  Microdiscectomy compared with standard discectomy: an old problem revisited with new outcome measures within the framework of a spine surgical registry.

Authors:  F Porchet; V Bartanusz; F S Kleinstueck; F Lattig; D Jeszenszky; D Grob; A F Mannion
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-03-03       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 9.  Surgical techniques for sciatica due to herniated disc, a systematic review.

Authors:  Wilco C H Jacobs; Mark P Arts; Maurits W van Tulder; Sidney M Rubinstein; Marienke van Middelkoop; Raymond W Ostelo; Arianne P Verhagen; Bart W Koes; Wilco C Peul
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-07-20       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  A novel approach to the surgical treatment of lumbar disc herniations: indications of simple discectomy and posterior transpedicular dynamic stabilization based on carragee classification.

Authors:  A F Ozer; F Keskin; T Oktenoglu; T Suzer; Y Ataker; C Gomleksiz; M Sasani
Journal:  Adv Orthop       Date:  2013-04-09
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.