Advancing insights into recurrent lumbar disc herniation: A comparative analysis of surgical approaches and a new classification.

IF 1.3 Q2 OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY Journal of Craniovertebral Junction and Spine Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-13 DOI:10.4103/jcvjs.jcvjs_177_23
Gerald Musa, Medetbek Dzhumabekovich Abakirov, Gennady E Chmutin, Samat Temirbekovich Mamyrbaev, Manuel De Jesus Encarnacion Ramirez, Kachinga Sichizya, Alexander V Kim, Gennady I Antonov, Egor G Chmutin, Dmitri V Hovrin, Mihail V Slabov, Bipin Chaurasia
{"title":"Advancing insights into recurrent lumbar disc herniation: A comparative analysis of surgical approaches and a new classification.","authors":"Gerald Musa, Medetbek Dzhumabekovich Abakirov, Gennady E Chmutin, Samat Temirbekovich Mamyrbaev, Manuel De Jesus Encarnacion Ramirez, Kachinga Sichizya, Alexander V Kim, Gennady I Antonov, Egor G Chmutin, Dmitri V Hovrin, Mihail V Slabov, Bipin Chaurasia","doi":"10.4103/jcvjs.jcvjs_177_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The management of recurrent lumbar disc herniation (rLDH) lacks a consensus. Consequently, the choice between repeat microdiscectomy (MD) without fusion, discectomy with fusion, or endoscopic discectomy without fusion typically hinges on the surgeon's expertise. This study conducts a comparative analysis of postoperative outcomes among these three techniques and proposes a straightforward classification system for rLDH aimed at optimizing management.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>We examined the patients treated for rLDH at our institution. Based on the presence of facet resection, Modic-2 changes, and segmental instability, they patients were categorized into three groups: Types I, II, and III rLDH managed by repeat MD without fusion, MD with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) (MD + TLIF), and transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (TFED), respectively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 127 patients were included: 52 underwent MD + TLIF, 50 underwent MD alone, and 25 underwent TFED. Recurrence rates were 20%, 12%, and 0% for MD alone, TFED, and MD + TLIF, respectively. A facetectomy exceeding 75% correlated with an 84.6% recurrence risk, while segmental instability correlated with a 100% recurrence rate. Modic-2 changes were identified in 86.7% and 100% of patients experiencing recurrence following MD and TFED, respectively. TFED exhibited the lowest risk of durotomy (4%), the shortest operative time (70.80 ± 16.5), the least blood loss (33.60 ± 8.1), and the most favorable Visual Analog Scale score, and Oswestry Disability Index quality of life assessment at 2 years. No statistically significant differences were observed in these parameters between MD alone and MD + TLIF. Based on this analysis, a novel classification system for recurrent disc herniation was proposed.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In young patients without segmental instability, prior facetectomy, and Modic-2 changes, TFED was available should take precedence over repeat MD alone. However, for patients with segmental instability, MD + TLIF is recommended. The suggested classification system has the potential to enhance patient selection and overall outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":51721,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Craniovertebral Junction and Spine","volume":"15 1","pages":"66-73"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11029108/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Craniovertebral Junction and Spine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jcvjs.jcvjs_177_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The management of recurrent lumbar disc herniation (rLDH) lacks a consensus. Consequently, the choice between repeat microdiscectomy (MD) without fusion, discectomy with fusion, or endoscopic discectomy without fusion typically hinges on the surgeon's expertise. This study conducts a comparative analysis of postoperative outcomes among these three techniques and proposes a straightforward classification system for rLDH aimed at optimizing management.

Patients and methods: We examined the patients treated for rLDH at our institution. Based on the presence of facet resection, Modic-2 changes, and segmental instability, they patients were categorized into three groups: Types I, II, and III rLDH managed by repeat MD without fusion, MD with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) (MD + TLIF), and transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (TFED), respectively.

Results: A total of 127 patients were included: 52 underwent MD + TLIF, 50 underwent MD alone, and 25 underwent TFED. Recurrence rates were 20%, 12%, and 0% for MD alone, TFED, and MD + TLIF, respectively. A facetectomy exceeding 75% correlated with an 84.6% recurrence risk, while segmental instability correlated with a 100% recurrence rate. Modic-2 changes were identified in 86.7% and 100% of patients experiencing recurrence following MD and TFED, respectively. TFED exhibited the lowest risk of durotomy (4%), the shortest operative time (70.80 ± 16.5), the least blood loss (33.60 ± 8.1), and the most favorable Visual Analog Scale score, and Oswestry Disability Index quality of life assessment at 2 years. No statistically significant differences were observed in these parameters between MD alone and MD + TLIF. Based on this analysis, a novel classification system for recurrent disc herniation was proposed.

Conclusion: In young patients without segmental instability, prior facetectomy, and Modic-2 changes, TFED was available should take precedence over repeat MD alone. However, for patients with segmental instability, MD + TLIF is recommended. The suggested classification system has the potential to enhance patient selection and overall outcomes.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对复发性腰椎间盘突出症的深入了解:手术方法的比较分析和新的分类。
背景:复发性腰椎间盘突出症(rLDH)的治疗缺乏共识。因此,在不融合的重复显微椎间盘切除术(MD)、融合的椎间盘切除术或不融合的内镜下椎间盘切除术之间做出选择,通常取决于外科医生的专业知识。本研究对这三种技术的术后效果进行了比较分析,并提出了一个简单明了的rLDH分类系统,旨在优化管理:我们研究了在本院接受治疗的 rLDH 患者。根据是否存在切面切除、Modic-2 改变和节段不稳定性,将患者分为三组:I型、II型和III型rLDH分别采用不融合的重复腰椎间盘切除术(MD)、腰椎间盘切除术联合经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术(TLIF)(MD + TLIF)和经椎间孔内镜椎间盘切除术(TFED)进行治疗:结果:共纳入127名患者:结果:共纳入 127 例患者:52 例接受了 MD + TLIF,50 例仅接受了 MD,25 例接受了 TFED。单纯 MD、TFED 和 MD + TLIF 的复发率分别为 20%、12% 和 0%。超过 75% 的切面与 84.6% 的复发风险相关,而节段不稳定与 100% 的复发率相关。在 MD 和 TFED 术后复发的患者中,分别有 86.7% 和 100% 发现了 Modic-2 变化。TFED 的硬膜切开风险最低(4%),手术时间最短(70.80 ± 16.5),失血量最少(33.60 ± 8.1),视觉模拟量表评分和两年后的 Oswestry 失能指数生活质量评估结果最理想。在这些参数上,单纯 MD 与 MD + TLIF 之间未观察到明显的统计学差异。在此分析基础上,提出了一种新的复发性椎间盘突出症分类系统:结论:对于没有节段性不稳定、既往接受过椎面切除术和Modic-2改变的年轻患者,TFED应优先于单纯重复MD。然而,对于节段性不稳定的患者,建议采用 MD + TLIF。建议的分类系统有可能改善患者的选择和整体疗效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
9.10%
发文量
57
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Are C1 screws needed in occipitocervical fusion for traumatic cervical spine injury? A stratified analysis of multilevel direct decompression of degenerative lumbar central stenosis: Is fusion needed in the elderly? Adverse events associated with the Barricaid annular closure device: An analysis of the FDA MAUDE Database. Experience of using only transfacetal screws for cervical and lumbar spinal stabilization without decompression for degenerative spine disease. Comparison of freehand versus navigation-assisted C2 pedicle screw fixation: A retrospective accuracy and safety analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1