Literature DB >> 27866034

Micro vs. macrodiscectomy: Does use of the microscope reduce complication rates?

Meghan E Murphy1, Jeffrey S Hakim2, Panagiotis Kerezoudis3, Mohammed Ali Alvi4, Daniel S Ubl5, Elizabeth B Habermann6, Mohamad Bydon7.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: A single level discectomy is one of the most common procedures performed by spine surgeons. While some practitioners utilize the microscope, others do not. We postulate improved visualization with an intraoperative microscope decreases complications and inferior outcomes.
METHODS: A multicenter surgical registry was utilized for this retrospective cohort analysis. Patients with degenerative spinal diagnoses undergoing elective single level discectomies from 2010 to 2014 were included. Univariate analysis was performed comparing demographics, patient characteristics, operative data, and outcomes for discectomies performed with and without a microscope. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was then applied to compare outcomes of micro- and macrodiscectomies.
RESULTS: Query of the registry yielded 23,583 patients meeting inclusion criteria. On univariate analysis the microscope was used in a greater proportion of the oldest age group as well as Hispanic white patients. Patients with any functional dependency, history of congestive heart failure, chronic corticosteroid use, or anemia (hematocrit<35%) also had greater proportions of microdiscectomies. Thoracic region discectomies more frequently involved use of the microscope than cervical or lumbar discectomies (25.0% vs. 16.4% and 13.0%, respectively, p<0.001). Median operative time (IQR) was increased in microscope cases [80min (60, 108) vs. 74min (54, 102), p<0.001]. Of the patients that required reoperation within 30days, 2.5% of them had undergone a microdiscectomy compared to 1.9% who had undergone a macrodiscectomy, p=0.044. On multivariable analysis, microdiscectomies were more likely to have an operative time in the top quartile of discectomy operative times, ≥103min (OR 1.256, 95% CI 1.151-1.371, p<0.001). In regards to other multivariable outcome models for any complication, surgical site infection, dural tears, reoperation, and readmission, no significant association with microdiscectomy was found.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of the microscope was found to significantly increase the odds of longer operative time, but not influence rates of postoperative complications. Thus, without evidence from this study that the microscope decreases complications, the use of the microscope should be at the surgeon's discretion, validating the use of both macro and micro approaches to discectomy as acceptable standards of care.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Discectomy; Macrodiscectomy; Microdiscectomy; Microscope; Outcomes

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27866034     DOI: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2016.11.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Neurol Neurosurg        ISSN: 0303-8467            Impact factor:   1.876


  3 in total

Review 1.  Lumbar Disc Herniation.

Authors:  Raj M Amin; Nicholas S Andrade; Brian J Neuman
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2017-12

2.  Small incision discectomy for lumbar disc herniation in 98 patients with 5-year follow-up: A retrospective case series study.

Authors:  Zhinan Ren; Zheng Li; Shugang Li; Derong Xu; Xin Chen
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 1.817

3.  Comparison of the Safety and Effectiveness of Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy for Treating Lumbar Disc Herniation Under Epidural Anesthesia and General Anesthesia.

Authors:  Zhiqiang Ren; Shenghua He; Jiao Li; Yeguang Wang; Juyi Lai; Zhitao Sun; Hualong Feng; Jian Wang
Journal:  Neurospine       Date:  2020-02-01
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.