Revision after failed discectomy

Repeat Discectomy or Instrumented Surgery for Recurrent Lumbar Disk Herniation: An Overview of French Spine Surgeons' Practice

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective multicenter cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

Recurrent lumbar disc herniation (ReLDH) is a common condition requiring surgical intervention in a large proportion of cases. Evidence regarding the appropriate choice between repeat microdiscectomy (RD) and instrumented surgery (IS) is lacking. To understand the indications for either of the procedures and compare the results, we aimed to provide an overview of spine surgeon practice in France.

METHODS

This retrospective, multicenter analysis included adults who underwent surgery for ReLDHs between December 2020 and May 2021. Surgeons were asked which of the following factors determined their therapeutic choice: radio-clinical considerations, non-discal anatomical factors, patient preference, or surgeon background. Data on preoperative clinical status and radiologic findings were collected. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were assessed and compared using propensity scores preoperatively and at 3 and 12 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

The study included 150 patients (72 IS and 78 RD). Radioclinical elements, anatomical data, patient preferences, and surgeon background influenced the choice of RD in 57.7%, 1.3%, 25.6%, and 15.4% of the cases, respectively, and IS in 34.7%, 6.9%, 13.9%, and 44.5% of the cases, respectively. At 12 months, patient satisfaction, return to work, and changes in PROMs were not significantly different between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The decision-making process included both objective and subjective factors, resulting in patient satisfaction in 80.3% to 81.5% of cases, with significant clinical improvement in radicular symptoms in 75.8% to 91.8% of cases, and quality of life in 75.8% to 84.9% of cases, depending on the procedure performed.

Minimally invasive tubular microdiscectomy for recurrent lumbar disc herniation: step-by-step technical description with safe scar dissection

INTRODUCTION

Recurrent lumbar disc herniation (RLDH) is one of the most common reasons for re-operation after primary lumbar disc herniation with an incidence ranging from 5 to 23%. Numerous RLDH studies have been conducted; however, no available studies have provided a specific description of the use of the tubular retractor discectomy technique for RLDH emphasizing safe scar dissection. The objective of this study is to describe a detailed step-by-step technique for RLDH.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A surgical technique reporting on our experience from the year 2013-2021 in 9 patients with RLDH at the same level and same side was included in the study. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the visual analog score (VAS) for leg pain before and three months after surgery.

RESULTS

A significant improvement was observed between the preoperative and postoperative VASs [mean (SD): 9.2 (1) vs. 1.5 (1)] for all patients. We did not report any incidental durotomy, neurological deficits or mortality in this study. One patient had superficial wound infection. The study is limited by small population, short follow-up and not reporting stability or spondylolisthesis.

CONCLUSION

A modified tubular discectomy technique with safe scar dissection is effective for RLDH treatment. Technically, the only scar needed to be dissected is the scar lateral to the exposed normal dura and the scar extended caudally till the level of the superior end plate of the targeted disc space where the scar can be entered ventrally and the disc fragment retrieved. Adherence to the step-by-step procedure described in our study will help surgeons operate with more confidence and minimize complications of recurrent lumbar disc herniation.

Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation: Does Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Lead to Better Clinical and Radiological Outcomes than Redo-Discectomy?

STUDY DESIGN

randomized, prospective, and level I clinical study.

PURPOSE

To compare the clinical outcomes and radiological findings of revision discectomy alone versus revision discectomy with fusion as surgical treatment for recurrent lumbar disc herniation (RDH).

OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE

RDH is a common complication following a primary discectomy. The optimal surgical procedure for RDH is still debated.

METHODS

Sixty patients with RDH were randomly divided into two equal groups: the first group underwent revision discectomy alone and the second underwent revision discectomy with fusion. The primary outcomes evaluated were Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for low back and limb pains, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), disc height indexes, foraminal height index, and disc height subsidence. Secondary outcomes included operative time, blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, and complications.

RESULTS

Revision discectomy with fusion showed superior pain relief and improved functional outcomes, including better VAS scores for both back and leg pain and ODI at 24-month follow-up. Additionally, it restored the stability of the spine better with lower disc height subsidence without significant complications. However, these advantages came at the cost of increased blood loss and longer operative time and hospital stays.

CONCLUSIONS

Revision discectomy with fusion is recommended for RDH; however, the choice of the procedure should be made caseby- case basis, considering many factors related to the patient and surgical facilities.

Moderate to Severe Multifidus Fatty Atrophy is the Risk Factor for Recurrence After Microdiscectomy of Lumbar Disc Herniation

OBJECTIVE

We attempted to investigate the potential risk factors of recurrent lumbar disc herniation (rLDH) after tubular microdiscectomy.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the data of patients who underwent tubular microdiscectomy. The clinical and radiological factors were compared between the patients with and without rLDH.

RESULTS

This study included 350 patients with lumbar disc herniation (LDH) who underwent tubular microdiscectomy. The overall recurrence rate was 5.7% (20 of 350). The visual analogue scale (VAS) score and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at the final follow-up significantly improved compared with those preoperatively. There was no significant difference in the preoperative VAS score and ODI between the rLDH and non-rLDH groups, while the leg pain VAS score and ODI of the rLDH group were significantly higher than those of the non-rLDH group at final follow-up. This suggested that rLDH patients had a worse prognosis than non-rLDH patients even after reoperation. There were no significant differences in sex, age, body mass index, diabetes, current smoking and drinking, disc height index, sagittal range of motion, facet orientation, facet tropism, Pfirrmann grade, Modic changes, interdisc kyphosis, and large LDH between the 2 groups. Univariate logistic regression analysis revealed that rLDH was associated with hypertension, multilevel microdiscectomy, and moderate-severe multifidus fatty atrophy (MFA). A multivariate logistic regression analysis indicated that MFA was the sole and strongest risk factor for rLDH after tubular microdiscectomy.

CONCLUSION

Moderate-severe MFA was a risk factor for rLDH after tubular microdiscectomy, which can serve as an important reference for surgeons in formulating surgical strategies and the assessment of prognosis.

Long-term outcome of redo discectomy for recurrent lumbar disc herniations

PURPOSE

Recurrent lumbar disc herniation (RLDH) is an important cause of morbidity and healthcare costs. The goal of this investigation is to assess surgical outcomes and their predictors in patients who underwent revision discectomy for RLDH, with a minimum follow-up of ten years, to shed light on the best treatment to offer to these patients.

METHODS

Patients who underwent revision discectomy to treat RLDH between 2004 and 2011 in our Department were enrolled. Demographic, clinical, and surgical data were collected. The need of third intervention for RLDH was the primary outcome. Patient's satisfaction, Core Outcome Measures Index, Oswestry Disability Index, and EuroQoL-5D scores were also evaluated.

RESULTS

This study includes 55 patients, with a mean follow-up time of 144 months [112-199]. In this period, a third intervention was needed in 30.9% (n = 17) of patients. Most recurrences took place in the first 2 years after the second surgery (58.8%, n = 10) and the risk of needing a third surgery decreased over time. After 5 years, the probability of not having surgery for recurrence was 71% [CI 95%: 60-84%], with a tendency to stabilize after that. An interval between the first discectomy and the surgery for recurrence shorter than 7.6 months was identified as a predictor for a second recurrence.

CONCLUSION

The risk of needing a third surgery seems to stabilize after five years. Patients with an early recurrence after the first discectomy seem to have a higher risk of a new recurrence, so an arthrodesis might be worth considering.

Posterior Dynamic Stabilization with Limited Rediscectomy for Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation

Objective

Recurrent lumbar disc herniation (RLDH) is the most common cause of sciatica after primary discectomy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of transpedicular dynamic stabilization (TDS) combined with limited rediscectomy in the treatment of single-level RLDH.

Methods

We retrospectively evaluated a consecutive series of 24 middle-aged patients who underwent TDS (Dynesys system) combined with limited rediscectomy (i.e., removing only extruded or loose disc fragments) for single-level Carragee type II and type IV RLDH between April 2012 and September 2017. Clinical results were evaluated with visual analog scale (VAS) for leg and low back pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, and complications. Imaging data include lumbar segment motion and intervertebral height.

Results

The mean follow-up period was 38 months. The VAS and ODI scores were significantly improved at the last follow-up. The average range of motion (ROM) at the stabilized segment was 6.4° before surgery and 4.2° at the last follow-up, with a 78.6% mean preservation (P < 0.05). Intervertebral height at the stabilized segment decreased slightly after surgery (P < 0.05). However, there was no further decline at the last follow-up. There were no cases of reherniation, screw loosening, or segmental instability.

Conclusions

TDS combined with limited rediscectomy resulted in an effective procedure in middle-aged patients with Carragee type II and type IV RLDH. It was able to stabilize the operated segment with partial motion preservation. Moreover, it could maintain disc height and decrease the risk of recurrence in patients with a large posterior annular defect.

15-year survivorship analysis of an interspinous device in surgery for single-level lumbar disc herniation

BACKGROUND

Interspinous devices have been introduced as alternatives to decompression or fusion in surgery for degenerative lumbar diseases. This study aimed to investigate 15-year survivorship and risk factors for reoperation of a Device for Intervertebral Assisted Motion (DIAM) in surgery for 1-level lumbar disc herniation (LDH).

METHODS

A total of 94 patients (54 men and 40 women) underwent discectomy and DIAM implantation for 1-level LDH, with a mean follow-up of 12.9 years (range, 6.3-15.3 years). The mean age was 46.2 years (range, 21-65 years). Sixty-two patients underwent DIAM implantation for L4-5, 27 for L5-6, and 5 for L3-4. Reoperations due to any reason associated with DIAM implantation level or adjacent levels were defined as failure and used as the end point of determining survivorship.

RESULTS

During the 15-year follow-up, 8 patients (4 men and 4 women) underwent reoperation due to recurrence of LDH at the DIAM implantation level, a reoperation rate of 8.5%. The mean time to reoperation was 6.5 years (range, 0.8-13.9 years). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed a cumulative survival rate of the DIAM implantation of 97% at 5 years, 93% at 10 years, and 92% at 15 years after surgery; the cumulative reoperation rate of the DIAM implantation was 3% at 5 years, 7% at 10 years, and 8% at 15 years after surgery. Mean survival time was predicted to be 14.5 years (95% CI, 13.97-15.07). The log-rank test and Cox proportional hazard model showed that age, sex, and location did not significantly affect the reoperation rate of DIAM implantation.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results showed that DIAM implantation significantly decreased reoperation rate for LDH in the 15-year survivorship analysis. We suggest that DIAM implantation could be considered a useful intermediate step procedure for LDH surgery. To the best of our knowledge, this is the longest follow-up study in which surgical outcomes of interspinous device surgery were reported.

Full-Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy for Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Retrospective Study with Patient-Reported Outcome Measures

Introduction

Revision surgery for recurrent lumbar disc herniation after surgical treatment is at times challenging due to epidural adhesions and scar. This study aimed to review the clinical results and safety of full-endoscopic lumbar discectomy via interlaminar (FELD-IL) and transforaminal (FELD-TF) approaches for revision surgery.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective study including 52 lumbar disc herniation revision patients (mean age, 51.8 years; male/female, 13/39), with 17 FELD-IL and 35 FELD-TF cases. Complication incidences were assessed by reviewing surgical videos and postoperative magnetic resonance images of nerve decompression outcomes. Patients' responses to Japan Orthopedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ) and numerical rating scales (NRS) for lumbar pain, leg pain, and leg numbness were recorded before and during follow-up. The Wilcoxon-signed rank tests were utilized to compare pre- and postoperative group variables.

Results

The average operation time was 33.0 min in FELD-IL and 31.7 min in FELD-TF. Seven FELD-IL cases required lamina excavation with high-speed drill bars for scar tissue dissection from the lamina. Dura injury occurred during the excavation in one case. No complication was noted in the FELD-TF group. Successful decompression of the nerve was achieved in all cases. Complete sets of JOABPEQ and NRS were obtained in 64.5% of FELD-IL and in 82.9% of FELD-TF. The mean follow-up period was 18.6 months. All the subdomain of JOABPEQ and NRS improved significantly postoperative in both groups. There was no difference regarding the improvement of scores between the procedures except NRS for lumbar pain, which was more favorable in FELD-IL. Recurrence of herniation occurred in one patient (6%) after FELD-IL and two patients (6%) after FELD-TF.

Conclusions

Both FELD-IL and FELD-TF are safe and effective revision procedures for recurrent lumbar disc herniation. FELD-TF could be performed employing the same procedure as primary surgery in revisions, regardless of the previous surgical approach.