Lumbar disc herniation surgery with microdiscectomy plus interspinous stabilization: Good clinical results, but failure to lower the incidence of re-operation

Decompression Alone Versus Interspinous/Interlaminar Device Placement for Degenerative Lumbar Pathologies: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Interspinous devices (ISDs) and interlaminar devices (ILDs) are marketed as alternatives to conventional surgery for degenerative lumbar conditions; comparisons with decompression alone are limited. The present study reviews the extant literature comparing the cost and effectiveness of ISDs/ILDs with decompression alone.

METHODS

Articles comparing decompression alone with ISD/ILD were identified; outcomes of interest included general and disease-specific patient-reported outcomes, perioperative complications, and total treatment costs. Outcomes were analyzed at <6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, and last follow-up. Analyses were performed using random effects modeling.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine studies were included in the final analysis. ILD/ISD showed greater leg pain improvement at 3 months (mean difference, -1.43; 95% confidence interval, [-1.78, -1.07]; P < 0.001), 6 months (-0.89; [-1.55, -0.24]; P = 0.008), and 12 months (-0.97; [-1.25, -0.68]; P < 0.001), but not 2 years (P = 0.22) or last follow-up (P = 0.09). Back pain improvement was better after ISD/ILD only at 1 year (-0.87; [-1.62, -0.13]; P = 0.02). Short-Form 36 physical component scores or Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ) symptom severity scores did not differ between the groups. ZCQ physical function scores improved more after decompression alone at 6 months (0.35; [0.07, 0.63]; P = 0.01) and 12 months (0.23; [0.00, 0.46]; P = 0.05). Oswestry Disability Index and EuroQoL 5 dimensions scores favored ILD/ISD at all time points except 6 months (P = 0.07). Reoperations (odds ratio, 1.75; [1.23, 2.48]; P = 0.002) and total care costs (standardized mean difference, 1.19; [0.62, 1.77]; P < 0.001) were higher in the ILD/ISD group; complications did not differ significantly between the groups (P = 0.41).

CONCLUSIONS

Patient-reported outcomes are similar after decompression alone and ILD/ISD; the observed differences do not reach accepted minimum clinically important difference thresholds. ISD/ILDs have higher associated costs and reoperation rates, suggesting current evidence does not support ILD/ISDs as a cost-effective alternative to decompression alone.

Microdiscectomy for Lumbar Intervertebral Disc Prolapse: Is Fixation Required?

Introduction Microdiscectomy, as of now, is considered the gold standard for the treatment of herniated lumbar disc. It preserves motion at the spinal segment and does not alter the local spinal anatomy significantly, resulting in a “functional and mobile” spine. Development of increasingly better-quality implants has seen their indiscriminate use in cases without any demonstrable instability. We see an increasing number of patients of lumbar disc prolapse being treated by fixation and fusion procedures, without any clear indication or evidence supporting such practice. This adds to the operating time, blood loss, cost of surgery and leads to loss of motion at the spinal segment resulting in a “stiff and immobile spine.” Our 10-year experience of treating lumbar disc herniation by micro-discectomy makes a strong case for preserving the spinal motion segment wherever possible and to use fixation very judiciously only in cases of proven instability.

Materials and Methods A total of 295 cases of lumbar disc prolapse operated by the first author from January 2013 to April 2022 were analyzed. All the patients had unilateral or bilateral radicular pain. Preoperatively instability was ruled out by dynamic X-rays. All the patients were operated in prone position on Wilson's frame. Microdiscectomy was done through the inter-laminar space. Patient outcomes and complications were analyzed.

Results There was no mortality in our series. All the patients had significant relief of lower limb pain with improved visual analog scale scores postoperatively. The patients were followed up for 6 months. There were complications in 17 patients, all of which were treated successfully with a good outcome. None of the complications were attributable to failure of doing fixation.

Conclusion Lumbar disc prolapse can be treated effectively by microdiscectomy. Fixation should be reserved for only those cases with demonstrable preoperative instability.

THE MICROSCOPIC AND ENDOSCOPIC TECHNIQUES IN LUMBAR DISCECTOMY: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

ABSTRACT Objectives: To compare microdiscectomy (MD) and endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (EID) as methods for the surgical treatment of lumbar disc herniation, describing their efficiency in reducing hospitalization time, pain, and neurological deficit, and comparing the findings and the quality of studies that used the microscopic and endoscopic techniques. Methods: A systematic literature review that used the PRISMA protocol as a methodology. The search was conducted in the PUBMED/MEDLINE and The Cochrane Library databases, using publications from the last 5 years in Portuguese and English. After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria and validating the qualified studies via STROBE and CONSORT, there were a total of 16 studies for data compilation. Results: A sample of 1004 patients who underwent lumbar discectomy was obtained, 62% of whom were male, and 493 of whom underwent EID (49%) and 511 MD (51%). The mean patient age was 38.7 years and the predominant vertebral level operated was L5-S1 (64.8%). The EID had shorter surgical time (66.38 min) and hospitalization time (3.3 days), in addition to greater variation in the VAS LLLL score (5.38), while the MD presented greater variation in the VAS LUMBAR score (3.14). Conclusion: EID demonstrated efficacy like that of MD, given the similarity in the results obtained, in addition to non-inferiority in the reduction of pain and neurological deficit, and superiority in surgical and hospitalization times. Level of Evidence I; Systematic review .

Lumbar disc herniation surgery: Is it worth adding interspinous spacer or instrumented fusion with regard to disc excision alone?

BACKGROUND

Discectomy is sometimes associated with recurrence of disc herniation and pain after surgery. The evidence to use an interspinous dynamic stabilization system or instrumented fusion in association with disc excision to prevent pain and re-operation remains controversial. In this study, we analyzed if adding interspinous spacer or fusion, offers advantages in relation to microdiscetomy alone.

METHODS

Patients with lumbar disc herniation were divided in 3 groups; microdiscectomy alone (MD), microdiscectomy plus interspinous spacer (IS) and open discectomy plus posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). The clinical efficacy was measured using the Owestry Disability Index (ODI). Other outcome parameters including visual analogue scale for pain (VAS) back and legs, length of stay, direct in-hospital cost, 90-day complication rate, and 1-year re-operation rate were also evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 103 patients whose mean age was 39.1 (±8.5) years were included. A significant improvement of the ODI and VAS back and legs pain baseline score was detected in the 3 groups. After 1 year, no significant differences in ODI, VAS back and legs pain were found between the 3 groups. There was an increase of 169% of the total direct in- hospital cost in IS group and 287% in PLIF group, in relation to MD (p < 0.001). Length of stay was 86% higher in the IS group and 384% longer in the PLIF group compared to MD (p < 0.001). The 1 year re-operation rates were 5.6%, 10% and 16.2% (p = 0.33). Discectomy seems to be the main responsible for the clinical improvement, without the interspinous spacer or fusion adding any benefit. The addition of interspinous spacer or fusion increased direct in-hospital cost, length of stay, and did not protect against re-operation.

Three-Dimensional Volumetric Changes and Clinical Outcomes after Decompression with DIAM™ Implantation in Patients with Degenerative Lumbar Spine Diseases

Background and objectives: The prevalence of degenerative lumbar spine diseases has increased. In addition to standard lumbar decompression and/or fusion techniques, implantation of interspinous process devices (IPDs) can provide clinical benefits in highly selected patients. However, changes in spinal structures after IPD implantation using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have rarely been discussed. This volumetric study aimed to evaluate the effect of IPD implantation on the intervertebral disc and foramen using three-dimensional assessment. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients with lumbar degenerative disc diseases treated with IPD implantation and foraminotomy and/or discectomy between January 2016 and December 2019. The mean follow-up period was 13.6 months. The perioperative lumbar MRI data were processed for 3D-volumetric analysis. Clinical outcomes, including the Prolo scale and visual analog scale (VAS) scores, and radiographic outcomes, such as the disc height, foraminal area, and translation, were analyzed. Results: Fifty patients were included in our study. At the one-year follow-up, the VAS and Prolo scale scores significantly improved (both p < 0.001). The disc height and foraminal area on radiographs also increased significantly, but with limited effects up to three months postoperatively. MRI revealed an increased postoperative disc height with a mean difference of 0.5 ± 0.1 mm (p < 0.001). Although the mean disc volume difference did not significantly increase, the mean foraminal volume difference was 0.4 ± 0.16 mm³ (p < 0.05). Conclusions: In select patients with degenerative disc diseases or lumbar spinal stenosis, the intervertebral foramen was enlarged, and disc loading was reduced after IPD implantation with decompression surgery. The 3D findings were compatible with the clinical benefits.