Christoph Mehren1,2, Lorenz Wanke-Jellinek3,4, Andreas Korge3,4. 1. Spine Center, Schön Klinik München Harlaching, Harlachinger Strasse 51, 81547, Munich, Germany. cmehren@schoen-kliniken.de. 2. Academic Teaching Hospital and Spine Research Institute, Paracelsus Private Medical University, Salzburg, Austria. cmehren@schoen-kliniken.de. 3. Spine Center, Schön Klinik München Harlaching, Harlachinger Strasse 51, 81547, Munich, Germany. 4. Academic Teaching Hospital and Spine Research Institute, Paracelsus Private Medical University, Salzburg, Austria.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Recurrent lumbar disc herniation is the most common complication after discectomy. Due to the altered anatomy with the presence of scar tissue, the surgical revision of already operated patients could be a surgical challenge. METHODS: We describe the microsurgical revision technique step by step with the evaluation of our own clinical results in comparison with primary lumbar disc surgeries. The clinical data are based on a clinical register with 2576 recorded primary surgeries (PD) and 592 cases of revisions (RD) with 12- and 24-month follow-up (FU). The intraoperative dura lesion rates of the surgeries between 2016 and 2018 were recorded retrospectively. Data from 894 primary disc surgeries and 117 revisions were evaluated. RESULTS: The ODI and the VAS for leg and back pain improved in both groups significantly with slightly inferior outcome of the revision group. The ODI improved from 46.3 (PD) and 45.9 (RD), respectively, to 12.6 (PD) and 22.9 (RD) at the 24-month FU. The VAS dropped down as well in both group [VAS back: 47.8 (PD) and 43.9 (RD) to 19.9 and 32.2 at the 24-month FU; VAS leg: 62.9 (PD) and 65.5 (RD) to 15.6 and 26.8 at the 24-month FU]. During the primary interventions, we observed 1.5% (11/894) and during revisions 7.7% (9/117) of dura lesions. CONCLUSIONS: There is no clear guideline for the surgical treatment of recurrent disc herniations. In most cases, a pure re-discectomy is sufficient and can be performed safely and effectively with the help of a microscope. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
PURPOSE: Recurrent lumbar disc herniation is the most common complication after discectomy. Due to the altered anatomy with the presence of scar tissue, the surgical revision of already operated patients could be a surgical challenge. METHODS: We describe the microsurgical revision technique step by step with the evaluation of our own clinical results in comparison with primary lumbar disc surgeries. The clinical data are based on a clinical register with 2576 recorded primary surgeries (PD) and 592 cases of revisions (RD) with 12- and 24-month follow-up (FU). The intraoperative dura lesion rates of the surgeries between 2016 and 2018 were recorded retrospectively. Data from 894 primary disc surgeries and 117 revisions were evaluated. RESULTS: The ODI and the VAS for leg and back pain improved in both groups significantly with slightly inferior outcome of the revision group. The ODI improved from 46.3 (PD) and 45.9 (RD), respectively, to 12.6 (PD) and 22.9 (RD) at the 24-month FU. The VAS dropped down as well in both group [VAS back: 47.8 (PD) and 43.9 (RD) to 19.9 and 32.2 at the 24-month FU; VAS leg: 62.9 (PD) and 65.5 (RD) to 15.6 and 26.8 at the 24-month FU]. During the primary interventions, we observed 1.5% (11/894) and during revisions 7.7% (9/117) of dura lesions. CONCLUSIONS: There is no clear guideline for the surgical treatment of recurrent disc herniations. In most cases, a pure re-discectomy is sufficient and can be performed safely and effectively with the help of a microscope. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
Entities:
Keywords:
Clinical results after lumbar discectomy and re-discectomy; Operative strategies in lumbar revision; Recurrent lumbar disc herniation