Transtubular versus microsurgical approach for single lumbar disc herniation: a prospective study

Outcomes of endoscopic discectomy compared with open microdiscectomy and tubular microdiscectomy for lumbar disc herniations: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Endoscopic discectomy (ED) has been advocated as a less-invasive alternative to open microdiscectomy (OM) and tubular microdiscectomy (TM) for lumbar disc herniations, with the potential to decrease postoperative pain and shorten recovery times. Large-scale, objective comparisons of outcomes between ED, OM, and TM, however, are lacking. The authors' objective in this study was to conduct a meta-analysis comparing outcomes of ED, OM, and TM.

METHODS

The PubMed database was searched for articles published as of February 1, 2019, for comparative studies reporting outcomes of some combination of ED, OM, and TM. A meta-analysis of outcome parameters was performed assuming random effects.

RESULTS

Twenty-six studies describing the outcomes of 2577 patients were included. Estimated blood loss was significantly higher with OM than with both TM (p = 0.01) and ED (p < 0.00001). Length of stay was significantly longer with OM than with ED (p < 0.00001). Return to work time was significantly longer in OM than with ED (p = 0.001). Postoperative leg (p = 0.02) and back (p = 0.01) VAS scores, and Oswestry Disability Index scores (p = 0.006) at latest follow-up were significantly higher for OM than for ED. Serum creatine phosphokinase (p = 0.02) and C-reactive protein (p < 0.00001) levels on postoperative day 1 were significantly higher with OM than with ED.

CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes of TM and OM for lumbar disc herniations are largely equivalent. While this analysis demonstrated that several clinical variables were significantly improved in patients undergoing ED when compared with OM, the magnitude of many of these differences was small and of uncertain clinical relevance, and several of the included studies were retrospective and subject to a high risk of bias. Further high-quality prospective studies are needed before definitive conclusions can be drawn regarding the comparative efficacy of the various surgical treatments for lumbar disc herniations.

Tubular microscopes discectomy versus conventional microdiscectomy for treating lumbar disk herniation: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The application of tubular microscopes discectomy (TMD) was supposed to have similar or better results than conventional microdiscectomy (CMD). However, this conclusion had not been verified by sufficient evidence. Therefore, the focus of this meta-analysis was to assess the efficiency, safety, and clinical outcome of these 2 surgical procedures for treating lumbar disk herniation (LDH).

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Collaboration Central databases were searched for studies which compared the results of TMD and CMD for the treatment of LDH up to July 2017. Data analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.3. A standardized electronic form of 17 predefined criteria from the Consort statement was used for the quality assessment.

RESULTS

Eight randomized controlled trials (RCT) and 2 retrospective studies were included in this review, including 804 patients. The pooled analysis showed that there was no significant difference in operative time (P = .38), blood loss (P = .14), the length of hospital stay (P = .47), the rate of intraoperative complications (P = .79), postoperative complications (P = .16), dural tear (P = .87), the reoperation (P = .20), the short-term back visual analog scale (VAS) scores (P = .76), the long-term back VAS scores (P = .64), the short-term leg VAS scores (P = .09), the long-term leg VAS scores (P = .35), and the Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores (P = .41).

CONCLUSION

The results of this meta-analysis demonstrate that TMD and CMD are both safe and effective surgical procedures which can be recommended for treating LDH. Additionally, the conclusion should be cautiously treated, because it was reached in the context of limited amount of studies and relatively small sample size. Therefore, future studies with good design and more large samples are required to validate this conclusion.

Minimally invasive surgery for lumbar disc herniation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Assessing the benefits of surgical treatments for sciatica is critical for clinical and policy decision-making. To compare minimally invasive (MI) and conventional microdiscectomy (MD) for patients with sciatica due to lumbar disc herniation.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials including patients with sciatica due to lumbar disc herniation. Conventional microdiscectomy was compared separately with: (1) Interlaminar MI discectomy (ILMI vs. MD); (2) Transforaminal MI discectomy (TFMI vs. MD).

OUTCOMES

Back pain, leg pain, function, improvement, work status, operative time, blood loss, length of hospital stay, complications, reoperations, analgesics and cost outcomes were extracted and risk of bias assessed. Pooled effect estimates were calculated using random effect meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine studies, 16 RCTs and 13 non-randomised studies (n = 4,472), were included. Clinical outcomes were not different between the surgery types. There is low quality evidence that ILMI takes 11 min longer, results in 52 ml less blood loss and reduces mean length of hospital stay by 1.5 days. There were no differences in complications or reoperations. The main limitations were high risk of bias, low number of studies and small sample sizes comparing TF with MD.

CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate to low quality evidence of no differences in clinical outcomes between MI surgery and conventional microdiscectomy for patients with sciatica due to lumbar disc herniation. Studies comparing transforaminal MI with conventional surgery with sufficient sample size and methodological robustness are lacking.