Literature DB >> 16540869

A prospective controlled study of limited versus subtotal posterior discectomy: short-term outcomes in patients with herniated lumbar intervertebral discs and large posterior anular defect.

Eugene J Carragee1, Anthony O Spinnickie, Todd F Alamin, Steve Paragioudakis.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Prospective observational study with historical control. The prospective study population consisted of 30 patients undergoing a posterior lumbar subtotal discectomy for lumbar disc herniation. This group was compared to a historical cohort of 46 patients treated with limited discectomy alone.
OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical outcomes after limited versus subtotal discectomy for lumbar disc herniations. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Large posterior anular defects found at posterior discectomy have been associated with more frequent reherniation when treated with limited discectomy (i.e., removing only extruded or loose intervertebral fragments). A trial of more aggressive discectomy (subtotal) was undertaken to determine if the rate of reherniation could be decreased with this technique.
METHODS: A total of 30 patients undergoing a posterior lumbar discectomy for lumbar disc herniation were treated with an aggressive (subtotal) resection of intervertebral disc material after removal of the extruded or protruded fragments. This group was compared against a historical cohort of 46 patients treated with limited discectomy alone. Reherniation rates and clinical outcomes were determined by independent evaluation at 6, 12, and 24 months after surgery.
RESULTS: The reherniation rate in the limited discectomy group was 18% versus 9% in the subtotal discectomy group at follow-up (P = 0.1). However, the back pain (visual analog scale) (P = 0.02) and Oswestry scores (P = 0.06) were worse in the subtotal discectomy group at 12-month follow-up. Time to return to work was longer, and pain medication usage was higher in the subtotal discectomy group at 12-month follow-up. Despite a trend toward a higher reherniation rate, the patient satisfaction at 2-year follow-up was higher in the limited discectomy group.
CONCLUSIONS: The more aggressive removal of remaining intervertebral disc material may decrease the risk of reherniation, but the overall outcome was less satisfactory, especially during the first year after surgery.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16540869     DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000203714.76250.68

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  75 in total

1.  Comparison of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy and open lumbar microdiscectomy for recurrent disc herniation.

Authors:  Dong Yeob Lee; Chan Shik Shim; Yong Ahn; Young-Geun Choi; Ho Jin Kim; Sang-Ho Lee
Journal:  J Korean Neurosurg Soc       Date:  2009-12-31

2.  Lumbar Microdiscectomy.

Authors:  Eeric Truumees; Matthew Geck; John K Stokes; Devender Singh
Journal:  JBJS Essent Surg Tech       Date:  2016-01-27

3.  Risk Factors for Reoperation in Patients Treated Surgically for Intervertebral Disc Herniation: A Subanalysis of Eight-Year SPORT Data.

Authors:  Dante Leven; Peter G Passias; Thomas J Errico; Virginie Lafage; Kristina Bianco; Alexandra Lee; Jon D Lurie; Tor D Tosteson; Wenyan Zhao; Kevin F Spratt; Tamara S Morgan; Michael C Gerling
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2015-08-19       Impact factor: 5.284

Review 4.  The role of stem cell therapies in degenerative lumbar spine disease: a review.

Authors:  David Oehme; Tony Goldschlager; Jeffrey V Rosenfeld; Peter Ghosh; Graham Jenkin
Journal:  Neurosurg Rev       Date:  2015-03-07       Impact factor: 3.042

5.  Development of a two-part biomaterial adhesive strategy for annulus fibrosus repair and ex vivo evaluation of implant herniation risk.

Authors:  Tyler J DiStefano; Jennifer O Shmukler; George Danias; Theodor Di Pauli von Treuheim; Warren W Hom; David A Goldberg; Damien M Laudier; Philip R Nasser; Andrew C Hecht; Steven B Nicoll; James C Iatridis
Journal:  Biomaterials       Date:  2020-08-12       Impact factor: 12.479

6.  CORR Insights®: What is the Rate of Revision Discectomies After Primary Discectomy on a National Scale?

Authors:  Charles A Reitman
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2017-09-07       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 7.  Is sequestrectomy a viable alternative to microdiscectomy? A systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Bahram Fakouri; Nitin R Shetty; Thomas C H White
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  Effects of Level, Loading Rate, Injury and Repair on Biomechanical Response of Ovine Cervical Intervertebral Discs.

Authors:  Rose G Long; Ivan Zderic; Boyko Gueorguiev; Stephen J Ferguson; Mauro Alini; Sibylle Grad; James C Iatridis
Journal:  Ann Biomed Eng       Date:  2018-06-20       Impact factor: 3.934

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

Authors:  Tuncay Kaner; Mehdi Sasani; Tunc Oktenoglu; Ahmet Levent Aydin; Ali Fahir Ozer
Journal:  Open Orthop J       Date:  2010-02-24

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.