Literature DB >> 32274586

Complication rates of different discectomy techniques for symptomatic lumbar disc herniation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Xiaolong Chen1, Uphar Chamoli2,3, Jose Vargas Castillo4, Vivek A S Ramakrishna1,5, Ashish D Diwan1,4.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: This meta-analysis aims to compare the complication rates of discectomy/microdiscectomy (OD/MD), microendoscopic discectomy (MED), percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD), percutaneous laser disc decompression (PLDD), and tubular discectomy for symptomatic lumbar disc herniation (LDH) using general classification and modified Clavien-Dindo classification (MCDC) schemes.
METHODS: We searched three online databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies. Overall complication rates and complication rates per the above-mentioned classification schemes were considered as primary outcomes. Risk ratio (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were evaluated.
RESULTS: Seventeen RCTs and 20 cohort studies met the eligibility criteria. RCTs reporting OD/MD, MED, PELD, PLDD, and tubular discectomies had overall complication rates of 16.8% and 16.1%, 21.2%, 5.8%, 8.4%, and 25.8%, respectively. Compared with the OD/MD, there was moderate-quality evidence suggesting that PELD had a lower risk of overall complications (RR = 0.52, 95% CI 0.29-0.91) and high-quality evidence suggesting a lower risk of Type I complications per MCDC (RR = 0.37, 95% CI 0.16-0.81). Compared with the OD/MD data from cohort studies, there was low-quality evidence suggesting a higher risk of Type III complications per MCDC (RR = 10.83, 95% CI 1.29-91.18) for MED, higher risk of reherniations (RR = 1.67,95% CI 1.05-2.64) and reoperations (RR = 1.75, 95% CI 1.20-2.55) for PELD, lower risk of overall complication rates (RR = 0.42, 95% CI 0.25-0.70), post-operative complication rates (RR = 0.42, 95% CI 0.25-0.70), Type III complications per MCDC (RR = 0.39, 95% CI 0.22-0.69), reherniations (RR = 0.56, 95% CI 0.33-0.97) and reoperations (RR = 0.39, 95% CI 0.22-0.69) for PLDD.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the OD/MD, results of this meta-analysis suggest that PELD has a lower risk of overall complications and a lower risk of complications necessitating conservative treatment. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Keywords:  Complication; Discectomy; Lumbar disc herniation; Meta-analysis; Minimally invasive surgery

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32274586     DOI: 10.1007/s00586-020-06389-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   3.134


  7 in total

1.  Effect of a strutted intradiscal spacer (DIVA®) on disc reherniation following lumbar discectomy: A 2-year retrospective matched cohort study.

Authors:  Robin Srour; Amira El Arbi; Ahmed Rahmouni; Hani Aljohani; Daniel Orenstein; Xavier Hoarau; Mustapha Ali Benali; Jihad Mortada; François Sellal
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2021-05-07

2.  Symptomatic Postoperative Discal Pseudocyst After Percutaneous Endoscopic Interlaminar Discectomy: Case Report and Literature Review.

Authors:  Wen-Bin Xu; Dan-Ju Wu; Chao Chen; Xing Zhao; Zhi-Jun Hu; Shun-Wu Fan; Xiang-Qian Fang
Journal:  Orthop Surg       Date:  2020-12-16       Impact factor: 2.071

3.  Comparative Study between Full-Endoscopic Discectomy and Microendoscopic Discectomy for the Treatment of Lumbar Disc Herniation.

Authors:  Muneyoshi Fujita; Tomoaki Kitagawa; Masahiro Hirahata; Takahiro Inui; Hirotaka Kawano; Hiroki Iwai; Hirohiko Inanami; Hisashi Koga
Journal:  Medicina (Kaunas)       Date:  2020-12-18       Impact factor: 2.430

4.  Puncture and localization for percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy with C-arm navigation: a randomized controlled cadaver trial.

Authors:  Hao Qin; Li Deng; Lin Xu; Qingchun Mu; Xiang Luo; Shengbin Huang; Maosheng Wang; Chunmei Luo; Chunming Huang; Wenhua Huang
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2021-12

5.  Clinical outcomes, complications and fusion rates in endoscopic assisted intraforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (iLIF) versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF): systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  José Miguel Sousa; Hugo Ribeiro; João Luís Silva; Paulo Nogueira; José Guimarães Consciência
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-02-08       Impact factor: 4.379

6.  A comparative study of single and double incision for L4/5 and L5/S1 double-level percutaneous interlaminar lumbar discectomy.

Authors:  Yingchuang Tang; Zixiang Liu; Hao Liu; Junxin Zhang; Xiaoyu Zhu; Zhonglai Qian; Huilin Yang; Haiqing Mao; Kai Zhang; Hao Chen; Kangwu Chen
Journal:  Front Surg       Date:  2022-08-30

7.  Percutaneous Transforaminal Endoscopic Discectomy Versus Open Microdiscectomy for Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Pravesh S Gadjradj; Biswadjiet S Harhangi; Jantijn Amelink; Job van Susante; Steven Kamper; Maurits van Tulder; Wilco C Peul; Carmen Vleggeert-Lankamp; Sidney M Rubinstein
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2021-04-15       Impact factor: 3.241

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.