Literature DB >> 26424346

Lumbar microdiscectomy complication rates: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Michael F Shriver1, Jack J Xie2, Erik Y Tye1, Benjamin P Rosenbaum3, Varun R Kshettry3,4, Edward C Benzel3,4, Thomas E Mroz4,5.   

Abstract

OBJECT Lumbar microdiscectomy and its various minimally invasive surgical techniques are seeing increasing popularity, but a systematic review of their associated complications has yet to be performed. The authors sought to identify all prospective clinical studies reporting complications associated with lumbar open microdiscectomy, microendoscopic discectomy (MED), and percutaneous microdiscectomy. METHODS The authors conducted MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase database searches for randomized controlled trials and prospective cohort studies reporting complications associated with open, microendoscopic, or percutaneous lumbar microdiscectomy. Studies with fewer than 10 patients and published before 1990 were excluded. Overall and interstudy median complication rates were calculated for each surgical technique. The authors also performed a meta-analysis of the reported complications to assess statistical significance across the various surgical techniques. RESULTS Of 9504 articles retrieved from the databases, 42 met inclusion criteria. Most studies screened were retrospective case series, limiting the number of studies that could be included. A total of 9 complication types were identified in the included studies, and these were analyzed across each of the surgical techniques. The rates of any complication across the included studies were 12.5%, 13.3%, and 10.8% for open, MED, and percutaneous microdiscectomy, respectively. New or worsening neurological deficit arose in 1.3%, 3.0%, and 1.6% of patients, while direct nerve root injury occurred at rates of 2.6%, 0.9%, and 1.1%, respectively. Hematoma was reported at rates of 0.5%, 1.2%, and 0.6%, respectively. Wound complications (infection, dehiscence, orseroma) occurred at rates of 2.1%, 1.2%, and 0.5%, respectively. The rates of recurrent disc complications were 4.4%, 3.1%, and 3.9%, while reoperation was indicated in 7.1%, 3.7%, and 10.2% of operations, respectively. Meta-analysis calculations revealed a statistically significant higher rate of intraoperative nerve root injury following percutaneous procedures relative to MED. No other significant differences were found. CONCLUSIONS This review highlights complication rates among various microdiscectomy techniques, which likely reflect real-world practice and conceptualization of complications among physicians. This investigation sets the framework for further discussions regarding microdiscectomy options and their associated complications during the informed consent process.

Entities:  

Keywords:  IQR = interquartile range; MED = microendoscopic discectomy; MIS = minimally invasive surgical; PCS = prospective cohort study; PRISMA = Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses; RCT = randomized controlled trial; complications; lumbar microdiscectomy; meta-analysis; microendoscopic discectomy; percutaneous discectomy; systematic review

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26424346     DOI: 10.3171/2015.7.FOCUS15281

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neurosurg Focus        ISSN: 1092-0684            Impact factor:   4.047


  27 in total

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

Authors:  Zhao Lang; Jing-Sheng Li; Felix Yang; Yan Yu; Kamran Khan; Louis G Jenis; Thomas D Cha; James D Kang; Guoan Li
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2018-06-28       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 2.  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

Review 3.  [Management of postoperative wound infections following spine surgery : First results of a multicenter study].

Authors:  M Rickert; P Schleicher; C Fleege; M Arabmotlagh; M Rauschmann; F Geiger; K J Schnake
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 1.087

4.  Surgeon clinical practice variation and patient preferences during the informed consent discussion: a mixed-methods analysis in lumbar spine surgery.

Authors:  Ali Zahrai; Kunal Bhanot; Xin Y Mei; Eric Crawford; Zachary Tan; Albert Yee; Valerie Palda
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2020-05-21       Impact factor: 2.089

Review 5.  [Minimally invasive decompression techniques for spinal cord stenosis].

Authors:  A Korge; C Mehren; S Ruetten
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2019-10       Impact factor: 1.087

6.  Complication rates of different discectomy techniques for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation: a network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Xiaolong Chen; Uphar Chamoli; Samuel Lapkin; Jose Vargas Castillo; Ashish D Diwan
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2019-09-16       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 7.  [The trend towards full-endoscopic decompression : Current possibilities and limitations in disc herniation and spinal stenosis].

Authors:  S Ruetten; M Komp
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 1.087

8.  Evidence Based Medicine Review of Posterior Thoracolumbar Minimally Invasive Technology.

Authors:  Charla R Fischer; Bryan Beaubrun; Jordan Manning; Sheeraz Qureshi; Juan Uribe
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2018-12-21

9.  Intraoperative disc level marking with needle: a technical note and prospective study on 30 patients.

Authors:  Marc Prod'homme; Didier Grasset; Mélissa Lecocq; Duccio Boscherini
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2021-06

Review 10.  Intervertebral Disk Degeneration: The Microenvironment and Tissue Engineering Strategies.

Authors:  Yiming Dou; Xun Sun; Xinlong Ma; Xin Zhao; Qiang Yang
Journal:  Front Bioeng Biotechnol       Date:  2021-07-20
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.