Literature DB >> 19255791

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

F Porchet1, V Bartanusz, F S Kleinstueck, F Lattig, D Jeszenszky, D Grob, A F Mannion.   

Abstract

Studies comparing the relative merits of microdiscectomy and standard discectomy report conflicting results, depending on the outcome measure of interest. Most trials are small, and few have employed validated, multidimensional patient-orientated outcome measures, considered essential in outcomes research. In the present study, data were collected prospectively from six surgeons participating in a surgical registry. Inclusion criteria were: lumbar/lumbosacral degenerative disease; discectomy/sequestrectomy without additional fusion/stabilisation; German or English-speaking. Before and 3 and 12 months after surgery, patients completed the Core Outcome Measures Index comprising questions on leg/buttock pain, back pain, back-related function, symptom-specific well-being, general quality-of-life, and social and work disability. At follow-up, they rated overall satisfaction, global outcome, and perceived complications. Compliance with the registry documentation was excellent: 87% for surgeons (surgery forms), 91% for patients (for 12 months follow-up). 261 patients satisfied the inclusion criteria (225 microdiscectomy, 36 standard discectomy). The standard discectomy group had significantly greater blood-loss than the microdiscectomy (P < 0.05). There were no group differences in the proportion of surgical complications or duration of hospital stay (P > 0.05). The groups did not differ in relation to any of the patient-orientated outcomes or individual outcome domains (P > 0.05). Though not equivalent to an RCT, the study included every single eligible patient in our Spine Center and allowed surgeons to use their regular procedure; it hence had extremely high external validity (relevance/generalisability). There was no clinically relevant difference in outcome after lumbar disc excision dependent on the use of the microscope. The decision to use the microscope should rest with the surgeon.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19255791      PMCID: PMC2899328          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-009-0917-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   3.134


  20 in total

1.  Microsurgery versus standard removal of the herniated lumbar disc. A 3-year comparison in 150 cases.

Authors:  C Barrios; M Ahmed; J Arrótegui; A Björnsson; P Gillström
Journal:  Acta Orthop Scand       Date:  1990-10

Review 2.  Primer: challenges in randomized and observational studies.

Authors:  Robert Landewé; Désirée van der Heijde
Journal:  Nat Clin Pract Rheumatol       Date:  2007-11

3.  Lumbar diskectomy under the operating microscope.

Authors:  V P Sachdev
Journal:  Mt Sinai J Med       Date:  1991-03

4.  Experience of microsurgical compared with conventional technique in lumbar disc operations.

Authors:  B Nyström
Journal:  Acta Neurol Scand       Date:  1987-08       Impact factor: 3.209

5.  Does microscopic removal of lumbar disc herniation lead to better results than the standard procedure? Results of a one-year randomized study.

Authors:  T Tullberg; J Isacson; L Weidenhielm
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1993-01       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  [Comparative study of disk surgery with or without microscopy. A prospective study of 80 cases].

Authors:  J Lagarrigue; P Chaynes
Journal:  Neurochirurgie       Date:  1994       Impact factor: 1.553

7.  Microlumbar discectomy: a conservative surgical approach to the virgin herniated lumbar disc.

Authors:  R W Williams
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1978-06       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  The clinical importance of changes in outcome scores after treatment for chronic low back pain.

Authors:  O Hägg; P Fritzell; A Nordwall
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2002-10-24       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  Retrospective analysis of microsurgical and standard lumbar discectomy.

Authors:  D W Andrews; M H Lavyne
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1990-04       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  The Caspar microsurgical discectomy and comparison with a conventional standard lumbar disc procedure.

Authors:  W Caspar; B Campbell; D D Barbier; R Kretschmmer; Y Gotfried
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  1991-01       Impact factor: 4.654

View more
  15 in total

1.  Development of a documentation instrument for the conservative treatment of spinal disorders in the International Spine Registry, Spine Tango.

Authors:  J T Kessler; M Melloh; Thomas Zweig; E Aghayev; C Röder
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-06-09       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  The efficacy of minimally invasive discectomy compared with open discectomy: a meta-analysis of prospective randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Hormuzdiyar H Dasenbrock; Stephen P Juraschek; Lonni R Schultz; Timothy F Witham; Daniel M Sciubba; Jean-Paul Wolinsky; Ziya L Gokaslan; Ali Bydon
Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine       Date:  2012-03-09

Review 3.  The Michel Benoist and Robert Mulholland yearly European Spine Journal Review: a survey of the "surgical and research" articles in the European Spine Journal, 2009.

Authors:  Robert C Mulholland
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-12-19       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Criteria for failure and worsening after surgery for lumbar disc herniation: a multicenter observational study based on data from the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery.

Authors:  David A T Werner; Margreth Grotle; Sasha Gulati; Ivar M Austevoll; Greger Lønne; Øystein P Nygaard; Tore K Solberg
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-06-14       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  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

6.  Recovery of muscle strength after microdiscectomy for lumbar disc herniation: a prospective cohort study with 1-year follow-up.

Authors:  Greger Lønne; Tore K Solberg; Kristin Sjaavik; Øystein P Nygaard
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-12-23       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Transforaminal Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy: Basic Concepts and Technical Keys to Clinical Success.

Authors:  Sang Gu Lee; Yong Ahn
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2021-12

8.  Microdiscectomy for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation: an evaluation of reoperations and long-term outcomes.

Authors:  Alexander Aichmair; Jerry Y Du; Jennifer Shue; Gisberto Evangelisti; Andrew A Sama; Alexander P Hughes; Darren R Lebl; Jayme C Burket; Frank P Cammisa; Federico P Girardi
Journal:  Evid Based Spine Care J       Date:  2014-10

9.  Microdiscectomy or tubular discectomy: Is any of them a better option for management of lumbar disc prolapse.

Authors:  Pallav S Bhatia; Harvinder S Chhabra; Bibhudendu Mohapatra; Ankur Nanda; Gururaj Sangodimath; Rahul Kaul
Journal:  J Craniovertebr Junction Spine       Date:  2016 Jul-Sep

10.  Comparison of outcomes between conventional lumbar fenestration discectomy and minimally invasive lumbar discectomy: an observational study with a minimum 2-year follow-up.

Authors:  Shiju A Majeed; C S Vikraman; Vivek Mathew; Anish T S
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2013-09-24       Impact factor: 2.359

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.