Management of recurrent unilateral lumbar disc herniation in a single level: unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screws fixation with interbody fusion

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.

Safety and efficacy of unilateral and bilateral pedicle screw fixation for lumbar degenerative diseases by transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The purpose of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of unilateral vs. bilateral pedicle screw fixation (BPSF) for lumbar degenerative diseases.

Methods

Electronic databases including PubMed, Web of science, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBSCO were searched by computer. The deadline was set for June 1, 2022. This study included all high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective clinical controlled studies (PRO), and retrospective studies (Retro) that compared unilateral and bilateral pedicle screw fixation in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases. Revman5.3 software was used for meta-analysis after two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias in the study.

Results

Fourteen studies with a total of 1,086 patients were included. Compared with BPSF, unilateral pedicle screw fixation (UPSF) has shorter operation time and hospital time, and less blood loss and operation cost, operation time [SMD = −1.75, 95% CI (−2.46 to −1.03), P < 0.00001], hospital time [SMD = −1.10, 95% CI (−1.97 to −0.22), P = 0.01], Blood loss [SMD = −1.62, 95% CI (−2.42 to −0.82), P < 0.0001], operation cost [SMD = −14.03, 95% CI (−20.08 to −7.98), P < 0.00001], the ODI after bilateral pedicle screw fixation was lower, and the degree of lumbar dysfunction was lighter, [SMD = 0.19, 95% CI (0.05–0.33), P = 0.007], better fusion effect, fusion rate [RR=0.95, 95% CI (0.91–1.00), P = 0.04]. VAS-Low back pain [SMD = 0.07, 95% CI (−0.07–0.20), P = 0.35], VAS-Leg pain [SMD = 0.18, 95% CI (−0.00–0.36), P = 0.05], SF-36 [SMD = 0.00, 95% CI (−0.30–0.30), P = 1.00], complications rate [RR = 0.94, 95% CI (0.9154–1.63), P = 0.82], the overall difference was not statistically significant.

Conclusions

Currently limited evidence suggests that UPSF significantly reduces blood loss, significantly shortens the operative time and hospital stay, and reduces blood loss and costs. After BPSF, the ODI was lower, the degree of lumbar spine dysfunction was lower, and the fusion rate was significantly higher. The VAS, SF-36, and complications scores of the two groups were comparable, and there was no significant clinical difference.