Usefulness of Carbon Dioxide Laser for Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation

Devices for minimally-invasive microdiscectomy: current status and future prospects

Introduction: The current gold standard technique for lumbar disc herniation (LDH) is open lumbar microdiscectomy. The use of a tubular retractor system in the microdiscectomy technique can minimize tissue trauma by muscle-splitting sequential dilation during the surgical approach. This review aimed to describe the devices and surgical procedure of this minimally invasive microdiscectomy (MI-MD) and to discuss the pros and cons of the use of tubular retractors.Areas covered: Published medical literatures were extensively reviewed to summarize the practical devices and techniques related to the MI-MD for LDH. The placement of the tubular retractor by gradual muscle-splitting dilation technique may reduce muscle damage and postoperative wound pain. The use of flexible arm may easily change the tube direction and create a wide surgical field.Expert opinion: With reference to published literature, the MI-MD provides comparable clinical outcomes with less tissue trauma and early recovery. Development of devices for MI-MD is still ongoing. Extensive studies, including high-quality randomized trials, are required to establish a more practical and relevant MI-MD technique.

Lasers in Spine Surgery

Laser spine surgery has been a focus of intense interest in the lay press and among patients. On the Internet, a host of purported benefits to laser surgery exists. Lasers have long been used in pain management procedures such as percutaneous diskectomy. However, a few published articles are available on lasers in conventional spine surgery. From our review of the literature, the purported advantages of lasers, such as reduced inflammation and degeneration, are not been supported by preclinical research. The available clinical studies do not show a notable advantage for laser surgery. Moreover, the low enrollment, nonblinded, retrospective studies that are available are heavily subject to bias. The documented advantages of laser spine surgery described in the research studies are not consistent with the public's impression of its purported benefits. Furthermore, laser-specific complications are present about which patients should be informed. On the basis of the current research, we conclude that lasers add distinct potential complications without any corresponding clinical benefit. Because of the public interest, we feel that this is an important topic for the general orthopaedic community.

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.