Literature DB >> 28760036

Tubular microdiscectomy: techniques, complication avoidance, and review of the literature.

Aaron J Clark1, Michael M Safaee1, Nickalus R Khan2, Matthew T Brown2, Kevin T Foley2,3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE Microendoscopic discectomy is a minimally invasive surgery technique that was initially described in 1997. It allows surgeons to work with 2 hands through a small-diameter, operating table-mounted tubular retractor, and to apply standard microsurgical techniques in which a small skin incision and minimal muscle dissection are used. Whether the surgeon chooses to use an endoscope or a microscope for visualization, the technique uses the same type of retractor and is thus called tubular microdiscectomy. The goal in this study was to review the current literature, examine the level of evidence supporting tubular microdiscectomy, and describe surgical techniques for complication avoidance. METHODS The authors performed a systematic PubMed review using the terms "microdiscectomy trial," "tubular and open microdiscectomy," "microendoscopic open discectomy," and "minimally invasive open microdiscectomy OR microdiskectomy." Of 317 references, 10 manuscripts were included for analysis based on study design, relevance, and appropriate comparison of open to tubular discectomy. RESULTS Similar and very favorable clinical outcomes can be expected from tubular and standard microdiscectomy. Studies have demonstrated equivalent operating times for both procedures, with lower blood loss and shorter hospital stays associated with tubular microdiscectomy. Furthermore, postoperative analgesic usage has been shown to be significantly lower after tubular microdiscectomy. Overall rates of complications are no different for tubular and standard microdiscectomy. CONCLUSIONS Prospective randomized trials have been used to evaluate outcomes of common minimally invasive lumbar spine procedures. For lumbar discectomy, Level I evidence supports equivalently good outcomes for tubular microdiscectomy compared with standard microdiscectomy. Likewise, Level I data indicate similar safety profiles and may indicate lower blood loss for tubular microdiscectomy. Future studies should examine the comparative value of these procedures.

Entities:  

Keywords:  EBL = estimated blood loss; LOS = length of hospital stay; ODI = Oswestry Disability Index; RDQ = Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire; SF-36 = 36-Item Short Form Health Survey; VAS = visual analog scale; lumbar; microdiscectomy; minimally invasive spine surgery; outcomes; review; tubular

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28760036     DOI: 10.3171/2017.5.FOCUS17202

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


  17 in total

1.  Clinicians' perceptions around discectomy surgery for lumbar disc herniation: a survey of orthopaedic and neuro-surgeons in Australia and New Zealand.

Authors:  Xiaolong Chen; Uphar Chamoli; Harold Fogel; Ashish D Diwan
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2021-07-03       Impact factor: 3.067

2.  Patient Outcomes After Minimally Invasive Excision of Lumbar Synovial Cysts, With and Without a Spondylolisthesis, in an Ambulatory Care Center Setting.

Authors:  Thomas L Francavilla; Michael C Weiss; Darren Umansky; Stephen Songhurst; Reginald J Davis
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2022-07-14

3.  Comparison of Endoscope-Assisted and Microscope-Assisted Tubular Surgery for Lumbar Laminectomies and Discectomies: Minimum 2-Year Follow-Up Results.

Authors:  Yaqing Zhang; Fanli Chong; Chencheng Feng; Yan Wang; Yue Zhou; Bo Huang
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2019-04-24       Impact factor: 3.411

4.  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

5.  Regional variations in acceptance, and utilization of minimally invasive spinal surgery techniques among spine surgeons: results of a global survey.

Authors:  Kai-Uwe Lewandrowski; José-Antonio Soriano-Sánchez; Xifeng Zhang; Jorge Felipe Ramírez León; Sergio Soriano Solis; José Gabriel Rugeles Ortíz; Carolina Ramírez Martínez; Gabriel Oswaldo Alonso Cuéllar; Kaixuan Liu; Qiang Fu; Marlon Sudário de Lima E Silva; Paulo Sérgio Teixeira de Carvalho; Stefan Hellinger; Álvaro Dowling; Nicholas Prada; Gun Choi; Girish Datar; Anthony Yeung
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2020-01

6.  Safe Discharge of Patients From an Ambulatory Care Center After Incidental Durotomy During Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery.

Authors:  Thomas L Francavilla; Michael C Weiss; Reginald Davis
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2019-08-31

7.  Readmissions After Outpatient Transforaminal Decompression for Lumbar Foraminal and Lateral Recess Stenosis.

Authors:  Kai-Uwe Lewandrowski
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2018-08-15

8.  Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy Versus Tubular Microendoscopy in Management of Single Level Degenerative Lumbar Canal Stenosis: A Prospective Study.

Authors:  Hayati Aygun; Khaled Abdulshafi
Journal:  Clin Spine Surg       Date:  2021-07-01       Impact factor: 1.723

9.  Implantation of a bone-anchored annular closure device in conjunction with tubular minimally invasive discectomy for lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective study.

Authors:  Frederic Martens; Geoffrey Lesage; Jeffrey M Muir; Jonathan R Stieber
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2018-07-27       Impact factor: 2.362

10.  Incidence, Management, and Cost of Complications After Transforaminal Endoscopic Decompression Surgery for Lumbar Foraminal and Lateral Recess Stenosis: A Value Proposition for Outpatient Ambulatory Surgery.

Authors:  Kai-Uwe Lewandrowski
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2019-02-22
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.