Microsurgery for recurrent lumbar disk herniation at the same level and side: do patients fare worse? Experience with 95 consecutive cases

Clinical Effects of the End-Love Technique in the Treatment of Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation 1 Year After Surgery

Background

The number of patients with lumbar disc herniation in China is increasing year by year. Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) is currently the main surgical method for treating lumbar disc herniation (LDH). However, with the increase in the number of surgical cases, the number of patients with recurrent lumbar disc herniation (RLDH) is also increasing. Currently, the common method in China is lumbar fusion surgery, but this surgery would cause the loss of fusion segment mobility and considerable postoperative complications. In order to solve the problem above the following technique will be studied: the technique of posterior lumbar laminectomy and nucleus pulposus removal under fully visualized spinal endoscopy (ENDO-LOVE) to treat RLDH. Its clinical effects will be observed in this paper, too.

Methods

This series includes RLDH patients treated with ENDO-LOVE technology between January 2017 and January 2021. All patients will undergo at least three follow-up visits one year after surgery. The modified MacNab standard, VAS, JOA, and ODI scores will be used to evaluate clinical efficacy, observe for cerebrospinal fluid leak, nerve root injury, and surgical site infection, and evaluate clinical safety.

Results

All 29 patients completed the surgery successfully. Three patients had postoperative pain and numbness in the area of nerve root innervation, and all patients had no serious complications. The VAS, JOA scores and ODI indices of back pain and leg pain 1-day, 3-months, and 1-year postoperatively differed statistically significantly from the preoperative scores (p < 0.05). Efficacy evaluated at 1-year postoperatively using the modified MacNab criteria showed an excellent rate of 89.7%.

Conclusion

ENDO-LOVE technology has demonstrated good clinical efficacy and safety in the treatment of patients with RLDH. It should be considered for all patients with this condition.

Factors associated with the recurrence of lumbar disk herniation: non-biomechanical-radiological and intraoperative factors

BACKGROUND

Recurrent lumbar disk herniation (RLDH) is one of the most undesirable complications following lumbar discectomy (LD). This study aimed to prospectively investigate the non-biomechanical-radiological and intraoperative factors affecting the recurrence after discectomy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data of 988 consecutive patients with Lumbar disk herniation (LDH) who underwent LD at our department for over 2 years (2014-2015) were prospectively collected. Patients who met our study criteria were included (n = 816). Patients were divided into the following groups; group 1 included patients with symptomatic RLDH within the first postoperative 2 years (PO24M), group 2 included patients with symptomatic RLDH after PO24M, and group 3 included patients without symptomatic RLDH/LDH. The preoperative non-biomechanical-radiological, surgical, and intraoperative characteristics were compared among the groups.

RESULTS

A total of 842 LDHs in 816 (386 men and 430 women) patients received LD. The mean age was 46.9 years. The mean follow-up period was 72.8 months. The first recurrence rates within the first PO24M and after PO24M were 7.1% and 3.2%, respectively. Disks with Modic changes type-II and contained disks without fragments were associated with the short- and long-term RLDH [(p = 0.004; HR = 0.6); (p < 0.0001; HR = 0.14)] and [(p = 0.041; HR = 0.6); (p < 0.0001; HR = 0.16)], respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Several radiological, surgical, and intraoperative factors can play a critical role in RLDH; therefore, the selection criteria of patients with LDH should be carefully considered for surgical treatment to obtain acceptable outcomes.

ABBREVIATIONS

ANOVA: A one-way analysis of variance, CIs: 95% confidence intervals, HR: Hazard ratio, LD: Lumbar discectomy, LDH: Lumbar disc herniation, LF: ligamentum flavum, MRI: Magnetic resonance imaging, MC-I: Modic changes type I, MC-II: Modic changes type II, MC-III: Modic changes type III, n: Number, ODI: Oswestry Disability Index, OR: Odds ratio, p-value: Probability value, PO: Postoperative, Pre: Preoperative, Pts: Patients, RLDH: Recurrent lumbar disc herniation, RR: Relative/risk ratio, SPSS: Statistical package for the social science, T1WIs: T1-weighted images, T2WIs: T2-weighted images, VAS: Visual analog scale.

Factors associated with the recurrence of lumbar disk herniation: biomechanical-radiological and demographic factors

Many risk factors associated with recurrent lumbar disk herniation (RLDH) following lumbar discectomy (LD) have been reported. This study aimed to elucidate the biomechanical-radiological, clinical, and demographic factors that affect symptomatic RLDH prospectively.We collected prospective data of 988 consecutive patients with LDH who underwent LD at our department from January 2014 to December 2015. Patients who met the study criteria and were followed up postoperatively for more than 5 years were included (n = 816). Patients were divided into 3 groups; group 1 included patients who experienced symptomatic RLDH within the first postoperative 24 months (PO24M), group 2 included patients with symptomatic RLDH after PO24M, and group 3 included the patients who hadn't experienced symptomatic RLDH/LDH. The preoperative biomechanical-radiological, clinical, and the patients' demographic characteristics were compared among the groups.A total of 816 patients with 842 LDH met our study criteria. The mean age at the first LD was 46.9 years. The mean follow-up period was 72.8 months. The preoperative trauma history, postoperative trauma history, and BMI > 24.5 kg/m² were independent risk factors for RLDH. Large sROM at the L4-5 level and a higher intervertebral disk height index (IDH) were significantly higher in groups 1 and 2.Biomechanical-radiological and demographic factors can affect the incidence of symptomatic RLDH. To reduce the risk of RLDH, patients with these risk factors should receive more attention during surgical interventions. The patients should avoid gaining weight and potential traumatic accidents.

Change in Patient-Reported Outcome Measures as Predictors of Revision Lumbar Decompression Procedures

Objective

To assess change in Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROM) as predictors for revision lumbar decompression (LD).

Methods

Patients who underwent primary, single or multilevel LD were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were categorized according to whether or not they underwent revision LD within 2 years of the primary procedure. Visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), 12-item Short Form Health Survey and 12-item Veterans RAND physical component score (SF-12 PCS and VR-12 PCS), and Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System physical function (PROMIS-PF) were recorded. Delta PROM scores were evaluated for differences between groups and as a risk factor for a revision LD.

Results

The study included 135 patients, 91 undergoing a primary procedure only and 44 undergoing a primary and revision procedure. Matched patients did not demonstrate any significant differences in demographics or perioperative characteristics. Patients who underwent a revision had a mean time to revision of 7.4 ± 5.7 months. Primary cohort significantly improved for all PROMs (all p < 0.05), while the primary plus revision cohort significantly improved for VAS back, ODI, and PROMIS-PF (all p < 0.05). However, cohorts differed in VAS back and PROMIS-PF (p < 0.05). Delta PROMs were not a significant risk factor for revision except at 6 months for PROMIS-PF (p = 0.024).

Conclusion

LD has been associated with reliable outcomes, but early identification of patients at risk for revision is critical. This study suggests that tools such as PROMIS-PF may serve a role in predicting who is at risk and the 6-month follow-up period may be valuable for counseling patients who are not experiencing improvement.

Recoup From Home? Comparison of Relative Cost Savings for ACDF, Lumbar Discectomy, and Short Segment Fusion Performed in the Inpatient Versus Outpatient Setting

STUDY DESIGN

Broad narrative review.

OBJECTIVE

To review and summarize the current literature on the cost efficacy of performing ACDF, lumbar discectomy and short segment fusions of the lumbar spine performed in the outpatient setting.

METHODS

A thorough review of peer- reviewed literature was performed on the relative cost-savings, as well as guidelines, outcomes, and indications for successfully implementing outpatient protocols for routine spine procedures.

RESULTS

Primary elective 1-2 level ACDF can be safely performed in most patient populations with a higher patient satisfaction rate and no significant difference in 90-day reoperations and readmission rates, and a savings of 4000 to 41 305 USD per case. Lumbar discectomy performed through minimally invasive techniques has decreased recovery times with similar patient outcomes to open procedures. Performing lumbar microdiscectomy in the outpatient setting is safe, cheaper by as much as 12 934 USD per case and has better or equivalent outcomes to their inpatient counterparts. Unlike ACDF and lumbar microdiscectomy, short segment fusions are rarely performed in ASCs. However, with the advent of minimally invasive techniques paired with improved pain control, same-day discharge after lumbar fusion has limited clinical data but appears to have potential cost-savings up to 65-70% by reducing admissions.

CONCLUSION

Performing ACDF, lumbar discectomy and short segment fusions in the outpatient setting is a safe and effective way of reducing cost in select patient populations.

Is fusion the most suitable treatment option for recurrent lumbar disc herniation? A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Recurrent lumbar disc herniation (rLDH) is a common issue after primary discectomy and can cause severe pain, morbidity, and reoperation. The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the surgical management of recurrent lumbar disc herniation.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted using Pubmed and Embase databases on 18^thAugust, 2019. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied according to study design, surgical approach, language, number of patients; and spinal level. Data extracted included patient demographics, and clinical outcomes (patients with excellent/good outcomes; VAS back and leg score improvement, complication and recurrence rates).

RESULTS

Sixteen studies, (comprising of seven prospective and nine retrospective) met the inclusion criteria. Ten studies evaluated discectomy only; four analysed fusion, and two analysed both discectomy only and fusion approaches. Fusion approaches recorded a superior success rate (8.3 % higher, p>0.05); postoperative VAS back score improvement (5 % higher, p>0.05) than discectomy alone.  However, discectomy alone approaches recorded a more favourable postoperative VAS leg score improvement (4.2 % higher p>0.05), and complication rate (3.2% lower, p>0.05) than fusion techniques.

CONCLUSION

There is significant heterogeneity in clinical outcomes reported for studies after surgical intervention in rLDH patients. Neither discectomy nor fusion's superiority was statistically significant. Despite fusion yielding longer operative times, and length of stay (adding to the expense), it is superior in minimising mechanical instability and recurrence. Finally, we conclude that both approaches are equally efficacious in rLDH cases, and choice should be based on a case by case basis.

Impact of lumbar interbody fusion surgery on postoperative outcomes in patients with recurrent lumbar disc herniation: Analysis of the US national inpatient sample

Little information is available on associations between different lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) surgeries and postoperative outcomes. The present study aims to comprehensively investigate whether different LIF techniques are associated with postoperative outcomes such as complications and length of hospital stay. The United States Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) was searched for patients diagnosed with recurrent lumbar disc herniation who underwent lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) surgeries between 2005 and 2014. Patients were categorized based on LIF approaches: anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF); lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF); or posterior lumbar interbody fusion/transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF/TLIF). A total of 2625 patients were included in this study. After adjusting for age, severity of illness, and comorbidities, patients who received LLIF and PLIF/TLIF approaches had significantly shorter hospital stays than those receiving ALIF (LLIF vs. ALIF, β = -0.64; PLIF/TLIF vs. ALIF, β = -0.40). In addition, patients who received LLIF and PLIF/TLIF approaches had significantly lower risk of digestive system complications compared to those receiving ALIF (LLIF vs. ALIF, aOR = 0.25; PLIF/TLIF vs. ALIF, aOR = 0.18). In conclusion, in patients with recurrent lumbar disc herniation, LLIF and PLIF/TLIF approaches are associated with shorter hospital stays and lower risk of digestive system complications than ALIF. However, LIF approaches do not correlate significantly with the risk of postoperative bleeding or nervous system complications.

Safety and Efficacy of Revision Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression in the Ambulatory Setting

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective analysis.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate differences in perioperative outcomes between patients undergoing revision minimally invasive lumbar spine decompression (MIS LD) in the ambulatory and hospital-based surgical settings.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Revision LD has been associated with an increased risk of complications compared with primary LD. Furthermore, ambulatory primary LD has been demonstrated to be a safe and viable option in appropriately selected patients. However, there is a paucity of information comparing hospital-based versus ambulatory outcomes in revision LD.

METHODS

A prospectively maintained surgical registry of patients undergoing revision MIS lumbar laminectomy and/or discectomy for degenerative pathology from 2013 to 2017 was retrospectively reviewed. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for measured confounding variables, including patient age, comorbidity burden as measured by Charlson Comorbidity Index, and preoperative diagnosis. Differences in operative variables, complication rates, pain scores, narcotics consumption, and reoperation rates were assessed using Pearson Chi-squared analysis (categorical) and Student t test (continuous).

RESULTS

Seventy patients were included, of whom 35 underwent revision MIS LD at a hospital-based center (HBC), and 35 underwent surgery at an ambulatory surgical center (ASC). HBC and ASC patients demonstrated similar postoperative visual analog scale pain scores and hourly narcotics consumption during surgical stay (P < 0.001). ASC patients exhibited a significantly shorter length of stay than hospital-based patients (2.7 vs. 11.6 hours, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing revision MIS LD in an ASC demonstrated similar perioperative outcomes as compared to patients undergoing revision MIS LD in a HBC. These results suggest that revision MIS LD can be performed safe and effectively in the ambulatory setting in an appropriately selected surgical population. Further study of patient outcomes following spine surgery performed outside of the traditional hospital setting is crucial, as the delivery of care in the ambulatory setting continues to grow in popularity.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Clinical Characteristics and Risk Factors of Recurrent Lumbar Disk Herniation: A Retrospective Analysis of Three Hundred Twenty-One Cases

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective clinical series.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the clinical features and the risk factors for recurrent lumbar disc herniation (rLDH) in China.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

rLDH is a common cause of poor outcomes after lumbar microdiscectomy surgery. Risk factors for rLDH are increasingly being investigated. However, results in these previous studies were not always consistent.

METHODS

Between June 2005 and July 2012, 321 consecutive patients with single-level LDH, who underwent surgery, were enrolled in this study. We divided the patients into the recurrent group (R group) and the nonrecurrent group (N group) and compared their clinical parameters and preoperative radiologic parameters. The relationships between the variables and rLDH were evaluated by univariate analysis and multiple logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

There was significant difference between groups in sex (P = 0.003), age (P = 0.003), current smoking (P = 0.004), body mass index (BMI) (P = 0.04), occupational lifting (P < 0.001), trauma history (P = 0.04), procedures (P = 0.04), herniation type (P = 0.006), disc height index (DUI) (P = 0.04), facet orientation (FO) (P = 0.04), facet tropism (FT) (P = 0.04), and sagittal range of motion (from) (P = 0.04). By putting these differences in logistic regression analysis, it showed that being male, young age, current smoking, higher BMI, herniation type (transligamentous extrusion), surgical procedures (bilateral laminectomy or total laminectomy), heavy works, undergoing a traumatic event, a large from, a high DUI, a large FT, and a small FO significantly related with rLDH.

CONCLUSION

Based on our data, sex, age, current smoking, BMI, occupational lifting, trauma, surgical procedures, herniation type, DUI, FO, FT, and from showed a significant correlation with the incidence of rLDH. Patients with these risk factors should be paid more attention for prevention of recurrence after primary surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Surgical Treatment of Recurrent Lumbar Disk Herniation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Consensus is lacking regarding optimal surgical treatment of recurrent lumbar disk herniation. A systematic search of multiple databases was conducted for studies evaluating outcomes after treatment for recurrent lumbar disk herniation. Treatment options included decompression surgeries and fusion surgeries. Although fusion surgeries eliminated re-recurrence of disk herniation, this coincided with higher incidences of complications and reoperation. Decompression surgeries and fusion surgeries both resulted in improvements in Japanese Orthopaedic Association, Oswestry Disability Index, and visual analog scale back and leg scores postoperatively (P<.05). The complication risk profiles of decompression surgeries and fusion surgeries must be balanced with the risk of disk herniation re-recurrence, as both procedures lead to improvements in functional outcomes. [Orthopedics. 2018; 41(4):e457-e469.].

Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) as an option for recurrent disc herniations: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Recurrent intervertebral disc herniation is a relatively common occurrence after primary discectomy for lumbar intervertebral disc herniation. For recurrent herniations after repeat discectomies, a growing body of evidence suggests that fusion is effective in appropriately selected cases. Theoretically, anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) allows for comprehensive discectomy, less trauma to spinal nerves and paraspinal muscles and avoidance of the disadvantages of repeat posterior approaches. However, ALIF has also been associated with risk of vascular injury and retrograde ejaculation. This current systematic review and meta-analysis aims to assess the viability of ALIF as a surgical treatment for recurrent disc herniations.

Methods

Seven studies were identified from six electronic databases and secondary reference lists. Pre-defined endpoints were extracted from the included studies and meta-analyzed.

Results

For the 181 patients from included studies, ALIF resulted in significant average improvements in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores (50.49%, P<0.001), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) back pain scores (47.85%, P<0.001) and VAS leg pain scores (37.00%, P<0.001). Average blood loss was acceptable at 122 mL (P<0.001) and average operation duration was 89 minutes (P<0.001). Average hospital stay was 5.28 days (P<0.001). Only 22 perioperative complications were reported, with subsidence the most commonly reported complication.

Conclusions

Pooled evidence suggests that ALIF is a feasible approach for the treatment of recurrent disc herniations, demonstrating significant improvements in back and leg pain and minimal complications. These findings warrant further investigation in large prospective registries and multi-center studies.

Treatment of Recurrent Disc Herniation: A Systematic Review

Intervertebral disc herniation is one of the most common causes of back and extremity pain. The most commonly used surgical treatment is lumbar discectomy. About 0.5-25% go on to develop recurrent disc herniation (rDH) after a successful first discectomy. Currently, there aren't any guidelines to assist surgeons in determining which approach is most appropriate to treat rDH. A recent survey showed significant heterogeneity among surgeons regarding treatment options for rDH. It remains unclear which methods lead to better outcomes, as there are no comparative studies with a sufficient level of evidence. In this study, we aimed to perform a systematic review to compare treatment options for rDH and determine if one intervention provides better outcomes than the other; more specifically, whether outcome differences exist between discectomy alone and discectomy with fusion. We applied the PICOS (participants, intervention, comparison, outcome, study design) format to develop this systematic review through PubMed. Twenty-seven papers from 1978-2014 met our inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. Nine papers reported outcomes after discectomy and seven of them showed good or excellent outcomes (70.60%-89%). Ten papers reported on minimally invasive discectomy. The percent change in visual analog scale (VAS) ranged from -50.77% to -86.57%, indicating an overall pain reduction. Four studies out of the ten reported good or excellent outcomes (81% to 90.2%). Three studies looked at posterolateral fusion. Three studies analyzed posterior lumbar interbody fusion. For one study, we found the VAS percentage change to be -46.02%. All reported good to excellent outcomes. Six studies evaluated the transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. All reported improvement in pain. Four used VAS, and we found the percent change to be -54% to -86.5%. The other two used the Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score, and we found the percent change to be 68.3% to 93.3%. We did not find enough evidence to support any significant difference in outcomes between discectomy alone and discectomy with fusion. The limitation of our study includes the lack of standardized outcomes reporting in the literature. However, reviewing the selected articles shows that fusion may have a greater improvement in pain compared to reoperation without fusion. Nonetheless, our study shows that further and more in-depth investigation is needed on the of treatment of rDH.

Revision Surgery for "Real" Recurrent Lumbar Disk Herniation: A Systematic Review

STUDY DESIGN

A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the previous literature regarding revision surgery for real recurrent lumbar disk herniation.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

"Real" recurrent lumbar disk herniation means the presence of herniated disk material at the same level and side as the primary disk herniation. If conservative treatment fails, revision surgery, a major concern, is indicated. It is important for both patients and spine surgeons to understand epidemiology trends and outcomes of revision surgery for real recurrent lumbar disk herniation (real-RLDH).

METHODS

The electronic databases PubMed, the Cochrane library, and EMBASE were queried for English articles regarding revision surgery for real-RLDH, published between January 1980 and May 2014. The incidence, interval between primary and revision surgery, risk factors, surgery type, complications, and clinical outcomes of revision surgery for real-RLDH were summarized.

RESULTS

The reported incidence of revision surgery, specifically for real-RLDH, lies between 1.4% and 11.4%. The complication rate is reported between 0% and 34.6%, with dural tear being the most common complication. Previous studies revealed that satisfactory or successful clinical outcome was achieved in 60%-100% of patients after revision surgery for real-RLDH. Several studies reported similar clinical outcomes between primary and revision surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of revision surgery for real-RLDH is relatively low. It is essential to pay careful attention to prevent a dural tear. Patients may expect clinical outcomes similar to those following primary discectomy.

The Effect of Smoking on the Risk of Sciatica: A Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The role of smoking in sciatica is unknown. This study aimed to estimate the effect of smoking on lumbar radicular pain and clinically verified sciatica.

METHODS

Comprehensive literature searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, and ResearchGate databases from 1964 through March 2015. We used a random-effects meta-analysis, assessed heterogeneity and publication bias, and performed sensitivity analyses with regard to study design, methodological quality of included studies, and publication bias.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight (7 cross-sectional [n = 20,111 participants], 8 case control [n = 10,815], and 13 cohort [n = 443,199]) studies qualified for a meta-analysis. Current smokers had an increased risk of lumbar radicular pain or clinically verified sciatica (pooled adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.30-1.64, n = 459,023). Former smokers had only slightly elevated risk compared with never smokers (pooled adjusted OR 1.15; 95% CI, 1.02-1.30, n = 387,196). For current smoking the pooled adjusted OR was 1.64 (95% CI, 1.24-2.16, n = 10,853) for lumbar radicular pain, 1.35 (95% CI, 1.09-1.68, n = 110,374) for clinically verified sciatica, and 1.45 (95% CI, 1.16-1.80, n = 337,796) for hospitalization or surgery due to a herniated lumbar disc or sciatica. The corresponding estimates for past smoking were 1.57 (95% CI, 0.98-2.52), 1.09 (95% CI, 1.00-1.19), and 1.10 (95% CI, 0.96-1.26). The associations did not differ between men and women, and they were independent of study design. Moreover, there was no evidence of publication bias, and the observed associations were not due to selection or detection bias, or confounding factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Smoking is a modest risk factor for lumbar radicular pain and clinically verified sciatica. Smoking cessation appears to reduce, but not entirely eliminate, the excess risk.

Posterior lumbar interbody fusion with stand-alone Trabecular Metal cages for repeatedly recurrent lumbar disc herniation and back pain

OBJECT

Patients with recurrent sciatica due to repeated reherniation of the intervertebral disc carry a poor prognosis for recovery and create a large burden on society. There is no consensus about the best treatment for this patient group. The goal of this study was to evaluate the 12-month results of the placement of stand-alone Trabecular Metal cages in these patients.

METHODS

The authors performed a retrospective analysis of 26 patients with recurrent disc herniations treated with stand-alone posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) with Trabecular Metal cages. At 1 year patients were evaluated using the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and a visual analog scale (VAS) for back and leg pain. Furthermore, Likert scores of perceived recovery and satisfaction with the treatment were recorded. Lumbar spine radiographs after 1 year were compared with postoperative radiographs to measure subsidence. Stability of the operated segment was assessed using dynamic radiography.

RESULTS

The patient group consisted of 26 patients (62% male) with a mean age of 45.7 ± 11.4 years (± SD). Patients had a history of 1 (31%), 2 (42%), or more (27%) discectomies at the same level. The mean follow-up period was 15.3 ± 7.3 months. At follow-up the mean VAS score for pain in the affected leg was 36.7 ± 27.9. The mean VAS score for back pain was 42.5 ± 30.2. The mean RMDQ score at follow-up was 9.8 ± 6.2. Twelve (46%) of the 26 patients had a global perceived good recovery. With respect to treatment satisfaction, 18 patients (69%) were content or very content with the operation and would recommend it. Disc height was increased immediately postoperatively, and at the 1-year follow-up it was still significantly higher compared with the preoperative height (mean 41% ± 38.7%, range -25.7 to 126.8, paired t-test, both p < 0.001), although a mean of 7.52% ± 11.6% subsidence occurred (median 2.0% [interquartile range 0.0%-10.9%], p < 0.003). No significant correlation between subsidence and postoperative back pain was found (Spearman's rho -0.2, p = 0.459). Flexion-extension radiographs showed instability in 1 patient.

CONCLUSIONS

Although only 46% of patients reported a good recovery with significant reductions in back and leg pain, 85% of patients reported at least some benefit from the operation, and a marked improvement in working status at follow-up was noted. In view of previously published poor results of instrumented lumbar fusion for patients with failed back surgery syndrome, the present data indicate that Trabecular Metal interbody fusion cages can be used in a stand-alone fashion and should not always need supplemental posterior fixation in patients with recurrent disc herniation without spinal instability, although a long-term follow-up study is warranted.

Risk factors of recurrent lumbar disk herniation

Background:

Recurrent lumbar disc herniation (LDH) is a common cause of poor outcomes after lumbar discectomy surgery. Studies focused on risk factors of true recurrent disk herniation at the same level and side, are few. The aim of current study is to evaluate risk factors of recurrent disc herniation in Iranian population.

Materials and Methods:

We retrospectively reviewed 40 patients with recurrent disc herniation and 120 patients without recurrence to evaluate possible risk factors for herniation recurrence. A clinically significant recurrent herniation was defined as a disc herniation causing leg pain with radiographic (MRI) evidence of disc material at the same side and level of the index surgery causing impingement, compression, or deviation of nerve tissue. A series of patients without recurrence was used for comparison to identify possible risk factors for recurrent LDH.

Results:

There was significant difference between groups with and without LDH in sex (P = 0.003), smoking habit (P = 0.004), height (P = 0.04), weight (P = 0.006) and occupational characteristic (P < 0.001). By putting these differences in logistic regression analysis, it showed that gender (male), taller height, heavy works and being smoker could predict lumbar disc herniation recurrence.

Conclusion:

Considering sex, smoking and heavy works as predictors of recurrent LDH, surgeons should advice their patients to limit hard work and put away smoking especially in tall and male ones to prevent LDH recurrence.

A comparative study of the outcomes of primary and revision lumbar discectomy surgery

The outcome of surgery for recurrent lumbar disc herniation is debatable. Some studies show results that are comparable with those of primary discectomy, whereas others report worse outcomes. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcome of revision lumbar discectomy with that of primary discectomy in the same cohort of patients who had both the primary and the recurrent herniation at the same level and side.

A retrospective analysis of prospectively gathered data was undertaken in 30 patients who had undergone both primary and revision surgery for late recurrent lumbar disc herniation. The outcome measures used were visual analogue scales for lower limb (VAL) and back (VAB) pain and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI).

There was a significant improvement in the mean VAL and ODI scores (both p < 0.001) after primary discectomy. Revision surgery also resulted in improvements in the mean VAL (p < 0.001), VAB (p = 0.030) and ODI scores (p < 0.001). The changes were similar in the two groups (all p > 0.05).

Revision discectomy can give results that are as good as those seen after primary surgery.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:90–4.