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

Lumbar disc herniation: Prevention and treatment of recurrence: WFNS spine committee recommendations

Objective

This review aims to formulate the most current evidence-based recommendations on the epidemiology, prevention, and treatment of recurrent lumbar disc herniation (LDH).

Methods

We performed a systematic literature search in PubMed, Medline, and Google Scholar databases from 2012 to 2022 using the keywords "lumbar disc recurrence." Screening criteria resulted in 57 papers, which were summarized and presented at two international consensus meetings of the World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies (WFNS) Spine Committee. The 57 papers covered the following topics: (1) Definition and incidence of recurrence after lumbar disc surgery; (2) Prediction of recurrence before primary surgery; (3) Prevention of recurrence by surgical measures; (4) Prevention of recurrence by postoperative measures; (5) Treatment options for recurrent disc herniation; (6) The outcomes of recurrent disc herniation surgery. We utilized the Delphi method and voted on eight final consensus statements.

Results and conclusion

Recurrence after disc herniation surgery may be considered a surgical complication, its incidence is approximately 5% and is different from overall re-operation incidence. There are multiple risk factors predicting LDH recurrence, including smoking, younger age, male gender, obesity, diabetes, disc degeneration, and presence of lumbosacral transitional vertebrae. The level of lumbar discectomy surgery and the amount of disc material removed do not correlate with recurrence rate. Minimally invasive discectomies may have higher recurrence rates, especially during the surgeon's learning period. However, the experience of the surgeon is not related to recurrence. High-quality studies are needed to determine if activity restriction, weight loss, smoking cessation, and muscle-strengthening exercises after primary surgery can help prevent recurrence of LDH.The best treatment option for recurrent disc herniation is still being discussed. While complications of minimally invasive techniques may be lower than open discectomy, outcomes are similar. Fusion should only be considered when spinal instability and/or spinal deformity are present. Clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction after recurrent disc herniation surgery are inferior to those after initial discectomy.

Comparison of Primary Versus Revision Lumbar Discectomy Using a Biportal Endoscopic Technique

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical outcomes of the biportal endoscopic technique for primary lumbar discectomy (BE-LD) and revision lumbar discectomy (BE-RLD).

METHODS

Eighty-one consecutive patients who underwent BE-LD or BE-RLD, and could be followed up for at least 12 months were divided into two groups: Group A (BE-LD; n = 59) and Group B (BE-RLD; n = 22). Clinical outcomes included the visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and modified MacNab's criteria. Perioperative results included operation time (OT), length of hospital stay (LOS), amount of surgical drain, and kinetics of serum creatine phosphokinase (CPK) and C-reactive protein (CRP). Clinical and perioperative outcomes were assessed preoperatively and postoperatively at 2 days and at 3, 6, and 12 months. Postoperative complications were noted.

RESULTS

Both groups showed significant improvement in pain (VAS) and disability (ODI) compared to baseline values at postoperative day 2, which lasted until the final follow-up. There were no significant differences in the improvement of the VAS and ODI scores between the groups. According to the modified MacNab's criteria, 88.1 and 90.9% of the patients were excellent or good in groups A and B, respectively. OT, LOS, amount of surgical drain, and kinetics in serum CRP and CPK levels were comparable. Complications in Group A included incidental durotomy (n = 2), epidural hematoma (n = 1), and local recurrence (n = 1) and in Group B incidental durotomy (n = 1) and epidural hematoma (n = 1).

CONCLUSION

BE-RLD showed favorable clinical outcomes, less postoperative pain, and early laboratory recovery equivalent to BE-LD.

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.

Hyaluronic acid-based interpenetrating network hydrogel as a cell carrier for nucleus pulposus repair

Hyaluronic acid (HA) is a key component of the intervertebral disc (IVD) that is widely investigated as an IVD biomaterial. One persisting challenge is introducing materials capable of supporting cell encapsulation and function, yet with sufficient mechanical stability. In this study, a hybrid interpenetrating polymer network (IPN) was produced as a non-covalent hydrogel, based on a covalently cross-linked HA (HA-BDDE) and HA-poly(N-isopropylacrylamide) (HA-pNIPAM). The hybrid IPN was investigated for its physicochemical properties, with histology and gene expression analysis to determine matrix deposition in vitro and in an ex vivo model. The IPN hydrogel displayed cohesiveness for at least one week and rheological properties resembling native nucleus pulposus (NP) tissue. When implanted in an ex vivo IVD organ culture model, the IPN supported cell viability, phenotype expression of encapsulated NP cells and IVD matrix production over four weeks under physiological loading. Overall, our results indicate the therapeutic potential of this HA-based IPN hydrogel for IVD regeneration.

Retrospective Analysis of Reoperation Rate After Standard Lumbar Discectomy and Microdiscectomy - Single Center Experience

Discectomy is a surgical procedure in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH) if sciatica or neurological deficits occur and still persist after a course of conservative therapy. Standard discectomy (SD) and microdiscectomy (MD) are still equal in curent clinical practice. Many retrospective and prospective studies have shown that there is no clinically significant difference in the functional outcome after two treatment modalities.

The aim of our study was to determine whether there are differences in the incidence of reoperation after performing SD and MD.

The research included 545 patients with average period of postoperative follow-up of approximately 5.75 years. Standard discectomy was performed in 393 patients (72.11%), and micro-discectomy in 152 (27.8%) patients. The total number of reoperated patients was 37/545, or 6.78%. In the SD group, the number of reoperated patients was 33/393 (8.39%) and in the MD group 4/152 or 2.63%. Statistically significant difference (p <0.05) was recorded in favor of the MD group.

Although it has been proven that both SD and MD give good endpoints of treatment and similar functional recovery, the advantage is given to microdiscectomy due to statistically significantly lower rates of recurrent herniation. This result is attributed to better visualization of neural structures and pathological substrates, as well as their mutual relationship.

Incidence and clinical impact of vertebral endplate changes after limited lumbar microdiscectomy and implantation of a bone-anchored annular closure device

BACKGROUND

An annular closure device (ACD) could potentially prevent recurrent herniation by blocking larger annular defects after limited microdiscectomy (LMD). The purpose of this study was to analyze the incidence of endplate changes (EPC) and outcome after LMD with additional implantation of an ACD to prevent reherniation.

METHODS

This analysis includes data from a) RCT study-arm of patients undergoing LMD with ACD implantation and b) additional patients undergoing ACD implantation at our institution. Clinical findings (VAS, ODI), radiological outcome (reherniation, implant integrity, volume of EPC) and risk factors for EPC were assessed.

RESULTS

Seventy-two patients (37 men, 47 ± 11.63yo) underwent LMD and ACD implantation between 2013-2016. A total of 71 (99%) patients presented with some degree of EPC during the follow-up period (14.67 ± 4.77 months). In the multivariate regression analysis, localization of the anchor was the only significant predictor of EPC (p = 0.038). The largest EPC measured 4.2 cm3. Reherniation was documented in 17 (24%) patients (symptomatic: n = 10; asymptomatic: n = 7). Six (8.3%) patients with symptomatic reherniation underwent rediscectomy. Implant failure was documented in 19 (26.4%) patients including anchor head breakage (n = 1, 1.3%), dislocation of the whole device (n = 5, 6.9%), and mesh dislocation into the spinal canal (n = 13, 18%). Mesh subsidence within the EPC was documented in 15 (20.8%) patients. Seven (9.7%) patients underwent explantation of the entire, or parts of the device.

CONCLUSION

Clinical improvement after LMD and ACD implantation was proven in our study. High incidence and volume of EPC did not correlate with clinical outcome. The ACD might prevent disc reherniation despite implant failure rates. Mechanical friction of the polymer mesh with the endplate is most likely the cause of EPC after ACD.

Clinical outcome of biportal endoscopic revisional lumbar discectomy for recurrent lumbar disc herniation

BACKGROUND

Although literature provides evidence regarding the superiority of surgery over conservative treatment in patients with lumbar disc herniation, recurrent lumbar disc herniation (RLDH) was the indication for reoperation in 62% of the cases. The major problem with revisional lumbar discectomy (RLD) is that the epidural scar tissue is not clearly isolated from the boundaries of the dura matter and nerve roots; therefore, unintended durotomy and nerve root injury may occur. The biportal endoscopic (BE) technique is a newly emerging minimally invasive spine surgical modality. However, clinical evidence regarding BE-RLD remains limited. We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes after performing open microscopic (OM)-RLD and BE-RLD to evaluate the feasibility of BE-RLD.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 36 patients who were diagnosed with RLDH and underwent OM-RLD and BE-RLD. RLDH is defined as the presence of herniated disc material at the level previously operated upon in patients who have experienced a pain-free phase for more than 6 months. BE-RLD was performed as follows: two independent surgical ports were made inside the medial pedicular line of the target segment and on the intact upper and lower laminas. Peeling off the soft tissue from the vertebral lamina helps to easily identify the traversing nerve root and the recurrent disc material without dealing with the fibrotic scar tissue. Clinical outcomes were obtained using a visual analog scale (VAS) and the modified Macnab criteria before and at 2 days, 2 and 6 weeks, and 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery.

RESULTS

The data of 20 and 16 patients who underwent OM-RLD and BE-RLD, respectively, were evaluated. The demographic and perioperative data were comparable between the groups. During the year following the surgery, in the BE-RLD group, the VAS scores at each point were significantly improved over the baseline and remained improved up to 2 weeks after surgery (p < 0.05); however, no statistical difference between the two groups was observed after 6 weeks of surgery (p > 0.05). According to the modified Macnab criteria on the follow-up, the excellent or good satisfaction rates reported at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months after surgery were 81.25%, 81.25%, 75%, and 81.25%, respectively, in the BE-RLD group, and 50%, 75%, 75%, and 80%, respectively, in the OM-RLD group.

CONCLUSION

BE-RLD yielded similar outcomes to OM-RLD, including pain improvement, functional improvement, and patient satisfaction, at 1 year after surgery. However, faster pain relief, earlier functional recovery, and better patient satisfaction were observed when applying BE-LRD.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Retrospectively registered.

Comparison of robot-assisted and freehand pedicle screw placement for lumbar revision surgery

BACKGROUND

The accuracy of robot-assisted pedicle screw implantation is a safe and effective method in lumbar surgery, but it still remains controversial in lumbar revision surgery. This study evaluated the clinical safety and accuracy of robot-assisted versus freehand pedicle screw implantation in lumbar revision surgery.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study. From January 2018 to December 2019, 81 patients underwent posterior lumbar revision surgery in our hospital. Among them, 39 patients underwent revision surgery performed with robot-assisted pedicle screw implantation (Renaissance robotic system), whereas the remaining 42 patients underwent traditional freehand pedicle screw implantation. All patients underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT), and X-ray before revision surgery. The sex, age, body mass index, bone mineral density, operative time, blood loss, operative segments, intra-operative fluoroscopy time, and complications were compared between the two groups. The accuracy of pedicle screw implantation was measured on CT scans based on Gertzbein Robbins grading, and the invasion of superior level facet joint was evaluated by Babu's method.

RESULTS

There was no statistical difference about the baseline between the two groups (P > 0.05). Although there were no significant differences in operative time and complications between the two groups (P > 0.05), the robot-assisted group had significantly less intra-operative blood loss and shorter intra-operative fluoroscopy times than the freehand group (P < 0.05). In the robot-assisted group, a total of 267 screws were inserted, which were marked as grade A in 250, grade B in 13, grade C in four, and no grade D or E in any screw. In terms of invasion of superior level facet joint, a total of 78 screws were inserted in the robot-assisted group, which were marked as grade 0 in 73, grade 1 in four, grade 2 in one, and grade 3 in zero. By comparison, 288 screws were placed in total in the freehand group, which were rated as grade A in 251, grade B in 28, grade C in eight, grade D in one, and no grade E in any screw. A total of 82 superior level facet joint screws were inserted in freehand group, which were marked as grade 0 in 62, grade one in 18, grade 2 in two, and grade 3 in zero. The robot-assisted technique was statistically superior to the freehand method in the accuracy of screw placement (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Compared with freehand screw implantation, in lumbar revision surgery, the Renaissance robot had higher accuracy and safety of pedicle screw implantation, fewer superior level facet joint violations, and less intra-operative blood loss and intra-operative fluoroscopy time.

Cost-utility Analysis for Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation: Conservative Treatment Versus Discectomy Versus Discectomy With Fusion

STUDY DESIGN

This study was an ambispective long-term cost-utility analysis with retrospective chart review and included the prospective completion of health questionnaires by patients.

OBJECTIVE

This was a cost-utility analysis, comparing conservative treatment, discectomy, and discectomy with spinal fusion for patients with recurrent lumbar disc herniation after a previous discectomy.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Lumbar disc herniation is an important health problem, with recurrence rates ranging from 5% to 15%. Management of recurrences is controversial due to a lack of high-level evidence. Cost-effectiveness analyses are useful when making clinical decisions. There are economic assessments for first herniations, but not in the context of recurrent lumbar disc herniations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifty patients with disc herniation recurrence underwent conservative treatment (n=11), discectomy (n=20), or discectomy with fusion (n=19), and they completed the Short-Form 36, EuroQol-5D, and Oswestry Disability Index.Baseline case quality-adjusted life year (QALY) values, cost-utility ratios, and incremental cost-utility ratios were calculated on the basis of the SF-36. Direct health costs were calculated by applying the health care system perspective. Both QALY and costs were discounted at a rate of 3%. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted for uncertainty variables, such as other health surveys or 2-year follow-up.

RESULTS

Cost-utility analysis of conservative treatment versus discectomy showed that the former is dominant, mainly because it is significantly more economical (&OV0556;904 vs. &OV0556;6718, P<0.001), while health results were very similar (3.48 vs. 3.18, P=0.887). Cost-utility analysis of discectomy versus discectomy with fusion revealed that discectomy is dominant, showing a trend to be both more economical (&OV0556;6718 vs. &OV0556;9364, P=0.054) and more effective (3.18 vs. 1.92 QALY, P=0.061).

CONCLUSIONS

This cost-utility analysis showed that conservative treatment is more cost-effective than discectomy in patients with lumbar disc herniation recurrence. In cases of recurrence in which conservative treatment is not feasible, and another surgery must be performed for the patient, discectomy is a more cost-effective surgical alternative than discectomy with fusion.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II.

The Association Between Preoperative MRI Findings and Surgical Revision Within Three Years After Surgery for Lumbar Disc Herniation

STUDY DESIGN

This cohort study was an analysis of prospectively collected data in the DaneSpine Database.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to determine whether preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings were associated with the frequency of surgical revision due to recurrent lumbar disc herniation (LDH) within 3 years after first-time, single-level, simple lumbar discectomy.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Because of a risk of poorer outcome in patients receiving revision surgery compared with first-time discectomy, there is a need to identify patients with LDH in risk of surgical revision prior to the primary discectomy. The association between preoperative MRI findings and revision surgery in patients with LDH has not been thoroughly studied.

METHODS

Following an interobserver reliability study preoperative MRIs were evaluated. Potential predictive variables for surgical revision were evaluated using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis. Also, a sum-score of the number of MRI findings at the involved level was assessed.

RESULTS

In a study population of 451 operated patients, those who had surgical revision were significantly younger and were significantly less likely to have vertebral endplate signal changes Type 2 (OR 0.36 (95% CI 0.15-0.88)) or more than five MRI findings (OR 0.45 (95% CI 0.21-0.95)) at the involved level than the patients not undergoing surgical revision. Surgical revision was not significantly associated with any other MRI findings.

CONCLUSIONS

In general, preoperative MRI findings have a limited explanatory value in predicting surgical revision within 3 years after first-time, single-level, simple lumbar discectomy. Both the single variable VESC Type 2 and a sum-score > 5 MRI findings at the operated level were found to be negatively associated with patients undergoing surgical revision.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

[Who benefits from medical technical innovations? : A medical and medical economic analysis using the example of lumbar disc surgery]

Further developments in disease diagnosis and treatment are of immense relevance for advancements in medical care of the population. A detailed cost-benefit analysis of direct and indirect costs is usually unavailable. In the current article, these aspects are investigated using prospectively collected randomized data over two years. Specifically, the surgical treatment of a herniated lumbar disc is addressed, and whether a newly introduced technique (e.g., annular closure device) can lead to a better quality of care and increased patient satisfaction when performed during the standard operation, while also being economically viable.

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.

Trends in Lumbar Fusion Procedure Rates and Associated Hospital Costs for Degenerative Spinal Diseases in the United States, 2004 to 2015

STUDY DESIGN

Analysis of National Inpatient Sample (NIS), 2004 to 2015.

OBJECTIVE

Describe recent trends in US rates of lumbar fusion procedures and associated costs, by surgical indication.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Spinal fusion is appropriate for spinal deformity and instability, but evidence of effectiveness is limited for primary disc herniation and spinal stenosis without instability. It remains controversial for treatment of axial pain secondary to degenerative disc disease. There are potential non-instability, non-deformity indications for fusion surgery, including but not limited to severe foraminal stenosis and third-time disc herniation.

METHODS

Elective lumber fusion trends were reported using Poisson regression, grouped by indication as degenerative scoliosis, degenerative spondylolisthesis, spinal stenosis, disc herniation, and disc degeneration. Generalize linear regression was used to estimate trends in hospital costs, adjusted for age, sex, indication, comorbidity, and inflation.

RESULTS

Volume of elective lumbar fusion increased 62.3% (or 32.1% per 100,000 US adults), from 122,679 cases (60.4 per 100,000) in 2004 to 199,140 (79.8 per 100,000) in 2015. Increases were greatest among age 65 or older, increasing 138.7% by volume (73.2% by rate), from 98.3 per 100,000 (95% confidence interval [CI] 97.2, 99.3) in 2004 to 170.3 (95% CI 169.2, 171.5) in 2015. Although the largest increases were for spondylolisthesis (+47,390 operations, 111%) and scoliosis (+16,129 operations, 186.6%), disc degeneration, herniation, and stenosis combined to accounted for 42.3% of total elective lumbar fusions in 2015. Aggregate hospital costs increased 177% during these 12 years, exceeding $10 billion in 2015, and averaging more than $50,000 per admission.

CONCLUSION

While the prevalence of spinal pathologies is not known, the rate of elective lumbar fusion surgery in the United States increased most for spondylolisthesis and scoliosis, indications with relatively good evidence of effectiveness. The proportion of fusions coded for indications with less evidence of effectiveness has slightly decreased in the most recent years.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Incidence of early postoperative complications requiring surgical revision for recurrent lumbar disc herniation after spinal surgery: a retrospective observational study of 9,310 patients from the German Spine Register

Background

The recurrence rate in lumbar disc herniations (LDH) has been reported between 5 and 25%. There are only few data about this phenomenon that occurs within days of the initial operation. We analyse early recurrent LDH by analysis of data from the German Spine register.

Methods

Data from patients undergoing disc herniation surgery in the lumbar region were extracted from the German Spine Registry between 1st January 2012 and 31st December 2016. Patients with early recurrent LDH within days of initial surgery were separately analysed.

Results

A total of 9310 surgeries for LDH were documented in the German Spine Register. From these patients 115 (1.2%) presented an early recurrent disc surgeries within days of the initial surgery. The mean age was 70 ± 2.50 years. Most affected segment was L4/5 (47 cases, 41%), followed by L3/4 (45 cases, 39%). The most of our patients showed a normal or overweight Body Mass Index. Surgery for early recurrent LDH was associated with a high rate of incidental durotomies (20 cases, 17.6%). In 3 cases (2.6%) therapy with a lumbar drain was necessary.

Conclusions

The rate of early recurrent LDH within days of surgery is 1.2%. Age seems to be an important factor in early recurrent LDH while obesity does not. The data of the German Spine Register seems to have a reliable data collection system that can perform multicentre data analysis. The databases from this Register could be used in the future for various purposes, such as the evaluation of multicentre surgical techniques, results in patients with various surgical procedures and basic research in spine surgery.