Literature DB >> 21792119

Tubular diskectomy vs conventional microdiskectomy for the treatment of lumbar disk herniation: 2-year results of a double-blind randomized controlled trial.

Mark P Arts1, Ronald Brand, M Elske van den Akker, Bart W Koes, Ronald H M A Bartels, W F Tan, Wilco C Peul.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Transmuscular tubular diskectomy has been introduced to increase the rate of recovery, although evidence is lacking.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the 2-year results of tubular diskectomy compared with conventional microdiskectomy.
METHODS: Three hundred twenty-eight patients with persistent leg pain caused by lumbar disk herniation were randomly assigned to undergo tubular diskectomy (167 patients) or conventional microdiskectomy (161 patients). Main outcome measures were scores from Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire for Sciatica, Visual Analog Scale for leg pain and low-back pain, and Likert self-rating scale of global perceived recovery.
RESULTS: On the basis of intention-to-treat analysis, there was no significant difference between tubular diskectomy and conventional microdiskectomy in Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire for Sciatica scores during 2 years after surgery (between-group mean difference [Δ] = 0.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.3-1.6). Patients treated with tubular diskectomy reported more leg pain (Δ = 3.3 mm; 95% CI, 0.2-6.2) and more low-back pain (Δ = 3.0 mm; 95% CI, -0.2-6.3) than those patients treated with conventional microdiskectomy. At 2 years, 71% of patients assigned to tubular diskectomy documented a good recovery vs 77% of patients assigned to conventional microdiskectomy (odds ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.45-1.28; P = .35). Repeated surgery rates within 2 years after tubular diskectomy and conventional microdiskectomy were 15% and 10%, respectively (P = .22).
CONCLUSION: Tubular diskectomy and conventional microdiskectomy resulted in similar functional and clinical outcomes. Patients treated with tubular diskectomy reported more leg pain and low-back pain, although the differences were small and not clinically relevant.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21792119     DOI: 10.1227/NEU.0b013e318214a98c

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neurosurgery        ISSN: 0148-396X            Impact factor:   4.654


  28 in total

1.  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

2.  Spine surgery: Minimally invasive spinal surgery--does size matter?

Authors:  Richard Mannion
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurol       Date:  2012-06-05       Impact factor: 42.937

3.  Evaluation of transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation.

Authors:  Kun Wang; Xin Hong; Bao-Yi Zhou; Jun-Ping Bao; Xin-Hui Xie; Feng Wang; Xiao-Tao Wu
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2015-04-12       Impact factor: 3.075

4.  Minimally invasive versus open surgery for cervical and lumbar discectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Nathan Evaniew; Moin Khan; Brian Drew; Desmond Kwok; Mohit Bhandari; Michelle Ghert
Journal:  CMAJ Open       Date:  2014-10-01

5.  Failed back (surgery) syndrome: time for a paradigm shift.

Authors:  Carmen Lam Vleggeert-Lankamp; Mark P Arts; Wilco Ch Jacobs; Wilco C Peul
Journal:  Br J Pain       Date:  2013-02

6.  Letter regarding Chang et al.: The safety and efficacy of minimally invasive discectomy: a meta-analysis of prospective randomised controlled trials.

Authors:  Qiuming Hu; Xixi Wu
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2014-10-11       Impact factor: 3.075

7.  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

Review 8.  Microendoscopic discectomy versus open discectomy for lumbar disc herniation: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  JuLiang He; ShanWen Xiao; ZhenJie Wu; ZhenChao Yuan
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-03-21       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  Intraoperative findings, complications, and short-term results after lumbar microdiscectomy with or without implantation of annular closure device.

Authors:  Jenny C Kienzler; Volkmar Heidecke; Richard Assaker; Javier Fandino; Martin Barth
Journal:  Acta Neurochir (Wien)       Date:  2020-10-18       Impact factor: 2.216

Review 10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.