A comparison between repeat discectomy versus fusion for the treatment of recurrent lumbar disc herniation: Systematic review and meta-analysis

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.

Management of recurrent lumbar disc herniation: a comparative analysis of posterior lumbar interbody fusion and repeat discectomy

Background

For recurrent lumbar disc herniation, many experts suggest a repeat discectomy without stabilization due to its minimal tissue manipulation, lower blood loss, shorter hospital stay, and lower cost, recent research on the role of instability in disc herniation has made fusion techniques popular among spinal surgeons. The authors compare the postoperative outcomes of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and repeat discectomy for same-level recurrent disc herniation.

Methods

The patients included had previously undergone discectomy and presented with a same-level recurrent lumbar disc herniation. The patients were placed into two groups: 1) discectomy only, 2) PLIF based on the absence or presence of segmental instability. Preoperative and postoperative Oswestry disability index scores, duration of surgery, blood loss, duration of hospitalization, and complications were analyzed.

Results

The repeat discectomy and fusion groups had 40 and 34 patients, respectively. The patients were followed up for 2.68 (1-4) years. There was no difference in the duration of hospitalization (3.73 vs. 3.29 days P=0.581) and operative time (101.25 vs. 108.82 mins, P=0.48). Repeat discectomy had lower intraoperative blood loss, 88.75 ml (50-150) versus 111.47 ml (30-250) in PLIF (P=0.289). PLIF had better ODI pain score 4.21 (0-10) versus 9.27 (0-20) (P-value of 0.018). Recurrence was 22.5% in repeat discectomy versus 0 in PLIF.

Conclusion

PLIF and repeat discectomy for recurrent lumbar disc herniation have comparable intraoperative blood loss, duration of surgery, and hospital stay. PLIF is associated with lower durotomy rates and better long-term pain control than discectomy. This is due to recurrence and progression of degenerative process in discectomy patients, which are eliminated and slowed, respectively, by PLIF.

Return to flight duty (RTFD) after posterior lumbar spine surgery for symptomatic lumbar disc herniation (LDH) and lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis (LIS) in Chinese military pilots

BACKGROUND

Symptomatic lumbar disc herniation (LDH) and lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis (LIS) present significant challenges for military pilots, which may result in grounding if not effectively managed. Surgical treatment for LDH and LIS may offer a pathway to return to flight duty (RTFD), but recent data on this crucial topic is lacking. This study seeks to address this gap by investigating the RTFD outcomes among Chinese military pilots who have undergone lumbar spine surgery for symptomatic LDH and LIS.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted on active-duty military pilots who underwent isolated decompressive or fusion procedures at an authorized military medical center from March 1, 2007, to March 1, 2023. The analysis utilized descriptive statistics to examine demographic, occupational, surgical, and outcome data, with a particular focus on preoperative flight status, recommended clearance by spine surgeons, and actual RTFD outcomes and time.

RESULTS

Among the identified cases of active-duty military pilots with LDH or LIS treated by lumbar surgery (n = 24), 70.8% (17 of 24) consistently maintained RTFD status without encountering surgical complications or medical issues during the follow-up period. Of the seven pilots who did not RTFD, one retired within a year of surgery, two had anterior cruciate ligament injuries, three had residual radicular symptoms, and one had chronic low back pain. Excluding pilots who retired and did not RTFD for reasons unrelated to their lumbar conditions, the RTFD rate stood at 81.0% (17 of 21). The median time for recommended clearance by spine surgeons was 143.0 days (inter-quartile range, 116.5-196.0), while the median duration for actual RTFD attainment was 221.0 days (inter-quartile range, 182.0-300.0). The median follow-up post-lumbar surgery was 1.7 years (inter-quartile range, 0.4-2.9).

CONCLUSION

Most military pilots diagnosed with symptomatic LDH and LIS can continue their careers and regain active-duty flight status following lumbar spine surgery, as reflected by the high RTFD rate. Lumbar spine surgery can successfully alleviate the physical constraints associated with spinal conditions, facilitating the return of military pilots to their demanding profession.

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

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.

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.

Repeat Discectomy for the Management of Same-Level Recurrent Disc Herniation: A Study of 50 Patients

Background Same-level recurrent disc herniation remains a challenge in spine surgery. Although most surgeons agree on discectomy as the treatment of choice for primary lumbar disc herniation, the management of recurrent disc herniation remains ambiguous and largely depends on the operating surgeon. Many surgeons recommend repeat discectomy over fusion because it is cheaper and less invasive. In this study, we analyzed 50 patients who underwent a repeat discectomy. Materials and methods The patients in the study had previously been managed for lumbar disc herniation and then presented with either recurrent same-level herniation or symptoms attributed to the same level. The patients were then managed with a repeat discectomy without fusion. We analyzed the preoperative and postoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), duration of surgery, blood loss, duration of hospitalization, and complications. Results Fifty patients were included: 27 females (54%), and 23 males (46%). They were followed up for an average of 2.81 years (range: 1-4). The mean duration of hospitalization was 4.06 ± 1.5 days (range: 2-8). The operative time was 104.60 minutes (range: 50-195), with an intraoperative blood loss of 85.40 mL (range: 50-150 mL). Durotomy occurred as a complication in eight (16%) patients. The recurrence rate was 26%, with 36% progressing to fusion. The change in preoperative ODI and postoperative ODI was 20.94 ± 7.24 (6-37), with a p-value of 0.04. There were no long-term complications recorded. Conclusion Repeat discectomy is a good management option for same-level recurrent disc herniation. The procedure is associated with low intraoperative blood loss and a short operating time, but there is a significant risk of durotomy. The risk of recurrence remains a concern due to the progression of degenerative changes, especially in the presence of Modic-2 changes. These advantages and disadvantages should be discussed with patients.

Spinal Fusion Versus Repeat Discectomy for Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Recurrent lumbar disc herniation (RLDH) is one of the major causes of failure for primary surgery. Repeat discectomy (RD) and spinal fusion (SF) are 2 surgical options for RLDH. The objective of our study is to compare the effectiveness of SF compared with RD in the treatment of RLDH.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Ovid Medline for studies (published between Jan 1, 1959 and July 8, 2022; no language restriction) comparing SF and RD for the RLDH. Odds ratio and weighted mean difference were calculated for binary outcomes and continuous outcomes. The quality of each outcome was graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations criteria.

RESULTS

We identified 5029 studies, of which 11 studies were included. There were 2 randomized controlled trials and the remaining were observational studies. Comparing SF and RD groups, no differences were found in visual analog scales for leg and back and Oswestry Disability Index. Furthermore, the Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores of SF were significantly higher than the RD group. In terms of complications, the incidence of neurological deficit, segmental instability, and re-recurrence is significantly lower with SF than with the RD group. Lastly, the SF group was associated with longer hospital stays and operation time, and more blood loss.

CONCLUSIONS

The pooled evidence suggests that fusion achieves better results than RD for RLDH. The results of this review should be further confirmed by future high-quality randomized controlled trials.

Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy for Lumbar Disc Herniation With Type II Modic Changes

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) has become a favorable surgical approach for lumbar radiculopathy caused by intervertebral disc herniation. Studies have revealed patients with type II Modic change may suffer from unrelieved low back pain and higher lumbar disc herniation (LDH) recurrence after herniated nucleus pulposus removal. Therefore, in this study, we aim to evaluate how PELD performed in management of LDH patients with type II Modic change.

METHODS

We collected 267 single-level LDH cases aged 20-50 yearswho underwent PELD from December 2016 to December 2019. The mean follow-up time was 26.3 months (range: 12-48 months). The visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and MacNab scores, as well as the recurrence rate, were analyzed pre- and post-surgery, as well as at the time points of 3 months, 12 months, and the final follow-up time after surgery. The clinical outcomes in LDH patients with or without type II Modic change who underwent PELD were thoroughly analyzed.

RESULTS

Within the 267 LDH patients enrolled, 145 cases present Modic signals, among which 3 are type I and 142 are type II. The VAS and ODI scores of the patients in the 2 groups at different follow-up times were significantly lower than those before surgery. The excellent and good MacNab scores in the control group and Modic type II change group were 87.0% and 82.1%, respectively. However, with the extension of follow-up time, the VAS and ODI scores, as well as the recurrence rate, were found to be higher in the type II Modic change group when compared with those in the non-Modic change group.

CONCLUSIONS

PELD performed well in management of LDH patients. However, we need to pay more attention to the continuous low back pain and the recurrence possibility in the cases with type II Modic change. In these cases, longer brace support or other interventions could be applied.

Emerging Issues Questioning the Current Treatment Strategies for Lumbar Disc Herniation

Lumbar disc herniation is among the common phenotypes of degenerative lumbar spine diseases, significantly affecting patients' quality of life. The practice pattern is diverse. Choosing conservative measures or surgical treatments is still controversial in some areas. For those who have failed conservative treatment, surgery with or without instrumentation is recommended, causing significant expenditures and frustrating complications, that should not be ignored. In the article, we performed a literature review and summarized the evidence by subheadings to unravel the cons of surgical intervention for lumbar disc herniation. There are tetrad critical issues about surgical treatment of lumbar disc herniation, i.e., favorable natural history, insufficient evidence in a recommendation of fusion surgery for patients, metallosis, and implant removal. Firstly, accumulating evidence reveals immune privilege and auto-immunity hallmarks of human lumbar discs within the closed niche. Progenitor cells within human discs further expand the capacity with the endogenous repair. Clinical watchful follow-up studies with repeated diagnostic imaging reveal spontaneous resolution for lumbar disc herniation, even calcified tissues. Secondly, emerging evidence indicates long-term complications of lumbar fusion, such as adjacent segment disease, pseudarthrosis, implant failure, and sagittal spinal imbalance, which get increasing attention. Thirdly, systemic and local reactions (metallosis) for metal instrumentation have been noted with long-term health concerns and toxicity. Fourthly, the indications and timing for spinal implant removal have not reached a consensus. Other challenging issues include postoperative lumbar stiffness. The review provided evidence from a negative perspective for surgeons and patients who attempt to choose surgical treatment. Collectively, the emerging underlying evidence questions the benefits of traditional surgery for patients with lumbar disc herniation. Therefore, the long-term effects of surgery should be closely observed. Surgical decisions should be made prudently for each patient.

Adjuvant surgical decision-making system for lumbar intervertebral disc herniation after percutaneous endoscopic lumber discectomy: a retrospective nonlinear multiple logistic regression prediction model based on a large sample

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Lumbar disc herniation (LDH) is a common condition that can affects an individual' quality of life. In patients for whom conservative treatment is ineffective after 3 months, surgical treatment, such as percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD), is recommended. Because PELD is minimally invasive and produces thorough nerve root decompression, both surgeons and patients often prefer it to other techniques.

PURPOSE

Surgeons find it challenging to prevent postoperative recurrent LDH (rLDH) when they use PELD. We created and verified a model for evaluating patients' recurrence risk factors before surgery so that surgeons can choose other surgical techniques when necessary.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

One thousand eight hundred seven patients who underwent PELD at our hospital between 2012 and 2015 were enrolled.

OUTCOME MEASURE

The main outcome measure was rLDH at any follow-up time point.

METHODS

Data were retrospectively analyzed for 1807 patients who underwent PELD at our hospital at some point between 2012 and 2015; all patients had been monitored for at least 5 years after surgery. They were divided into a recurrence group and a nonrecurrence group. Clinical and radiological risk factors were assessed over time to determine their correlations with recurrence and to exclude less important factors. A nonlinear multivariate logistic regression model was established to predict the recurrence rate before surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 1706 patients were monitored after PELD; data were missing for 101 additional patients. The total recurrence rate was 10.38%, and the most common time from surgery to recurrence was 1 year. Ten risk factors were assessed and included in the analysis. Regarding clinical risk factors, patients with hypertension (p < .001; correlation coefficient R [R] = 0.235; odds ratio [OR] = 4.749), diabetes (p < .001; R = 0.381; OR = 16.797), a history of smoking (p < .001; R = 0.347; OR = 9.012), and a history of performing intense physical labor (p < .001; R = 0.409; OR = 19.592) had a higher recurrence rate. Regarding radiological risk factors, patients with disc degeneration (Pfirrmann grade III) (p < .001; R = 0.228; OR = 4.919), Modic changes (level 2) (p < .001; R = 0.309; OR = 7.934), herniation in the form of extrusion (p < .001; R = 0.365; OR = 12.228), a higher disc height index (DHI) (p < .001; R = 0.336), and a larger segmental range of motion (p < .001; R = 0.243) had a higher recurrence rate. When the lumbar motion angle was negative (p < .001; R = 0.318; OR = 13.680), the recurrence rate was high. The overall accuracy of the final model was 97.6% (1665 of 1706). The recognition rate for non-rLDH cases was 99.0% (1514 of 1529), and the rate for rLDH cases was 85.3% (151 of 177); the AUC was 0.9315. A simple model was used. For those patients with postoperative trauma (p < .001; R = 0.382; OR = 13.680), a comparison model was established, and the corresponding recurrence rate was 23.0% ± 25.0% (0-76%).

CONCLUSIONS

A large cohort of patients underwent long-term monitoring, and 11 risk factors were verified for assessing each patient's risks before surgery to predict the postoperative recurrence of LDH following PELD. The risk of recurrence may be effectively reduced with the use of alternative surgical techniques in high risk cases.

Revision Discectomy with or without Fusion for the Treatment of Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Nationwide Analysis of Risk Profiles and Short-Term Outcomes

OBJECTIVE

We compared the demographics, risk factors, and complications for adult patients with recurrent lumbar disc herniation (RLDH) undergoing revision discectomy with or without concurrent fusion.

METHODS

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was used to identify patients who had undergone revision discectomy with or without simultaneous fusion. The demographic variables and various peri- and postoperative complications were compared between these 2 patient groups.

RESULTS

A total of 6901 discectomy patients were included in the present study, of whom 2996 (43.4%) had undergone revision discectomy with fusion and 3905 (56.6%) had undergone revision discectomy alone. The revision discectomy with fusion group was significantly more likely to be older, female, and White or Black and to have a higher average body mass index than was the revision discectomy alone group. The discectomy with fusion group had longer hospital lengths of stay and was more likely to have a diagnosis of hypertension, insulin-dependent and non-insulin-dependent diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. In addition, the patients who had undergone discectomy with fusion were significantly more likely to develop pneumonia, require ventilation for >48 hours, require a blood transfusion, and to develop urinary tract infection, myocardial infarction, deep vein thrombosis, or pulmonary embolism compared with the patients who had undergone revision discectomy only.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings reveal that older patients with more comorbidities were more likely to undergo revision discectomy with fusion. Also, this surgical group experienced more adverse events after their procedure compared with the revision discectomy only group.

International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery Policy 2019-Surgical Treatment of Lumbar Disc Herniation with Radiculopathy

Lumbar disc herniation (LDH) is a frequent cause of low back pain and radiculopathy, disability, and diminution in quality of life. While nonsurgical care remains the mainstay of initial treatment, symptoms that persist for prolonged periods of time are well treated with discectomy surgery. A large body of evidence shows that, in patients with unremitting symptoms despite a reasonable period of nonsurgical treatment, discectomy surgery is safe and efficacious. In patients with symptoms lasting greater than 6 weeks, various forms of discectomy (open, microtubular, and endoscopic) are superior to continued nonsurgical treatment. The small but significant proportion of patients with recurrent disc herniation experience less improvement overall than patients who do not experience reherniation after primary discectomy. Lumbar discectomy patients with large annular defects (≥6 mm wide) are at a higher risk for recurrent herniation and revision surgery. Annular closure via a bone-anchored device has been shown to decrease the rate of recurrent disc herniation and associated reoperation in these high-risk patients. After a detailed review of the literature, current clinical evidence supports discectomy (open, microtubular, or endoscopic discectomy) as a medically necessary procedure for the treatment of LDH with radiculopathy in indicated patients. Furthermore, there is new scientific evidence that supports the use of bone-anchored annular closure in patients with large annular defects, who are at greater risk for recurrent disc herniation.