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

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.

Radiologic Analysis of Causes of Early Recurrence After Percutaneous Endoscopic Transforaminal Discectomy

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the causes of and factors influencing early recurrence after TELD performed in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation.

METHODS

We included 285 patients with single-segment lumbar disc herniation treated using transforaminal endoscopy lumbar discectomy TELD from January 2017 to December 2019 at the First Affiliated Hospital of the University of South China. Patients were classified into early recurrence and non-early recurrence groups based on clinical symptoms and MRI reexamination. Imaging data (eg, disc height index (DHI), Pfirrman grades, base width, postoperative annulus-fibrosus tear size, cross-sectional area of the foramen (CSAF), etc.)were analyzed, and multivariate, binomial logistic regression was utilized to determine which factors were associated with early recurrence after TELD.

RESULTS

A total of 285 patients completed surgery and clinical follow-up, during which 19 patients relapsed within 6 months postsurgery, for an early recurrence rate of 6.7%. There were statistically significant differences between DHI, Pfirrman grades, base width, postoperative annulus-fibrosus tear size, herniation sites, CSAF and Modic changes between the early recurrence and non-early recurrence groups (P < .05). On multivariate logistic regression,the degree of disc degeneration (OR = .747, P = .037), CSAF (OR = 5.255, P = .006), degree of Modic change (OR = 1.831, P = .018) and base width of the herniation (OR = 4.942, P = .003) were significantly correlated with early recurrence after TELD.

CONCLUSIONS

Postoperative annulus-fibrosus tear size, DHI, and location of the disc herniation were associated with early recurrence after TELD. Increased base width of the herniation, severe disc degeneration, decreased CSAF and Modic change were risk factors for early recurrence after TELD.

Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Interbody Fusion Versus Microdiscectomy Without Fusion for Recurrent Lumbar Disk Herniation: A Prospective Comparative Study

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to compare the clinical outcome of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) versus standard revision diskectomy for recurrent lumbar disk herniation (RLDH).

BACKGROUND

RLDH is the most common cause of redo surgery after a microdiscectomy. Commonly, in patients without evidence of spinal instability, many surgeons would simply redo microdiscectomy, while others proceed to a redo microdiscectomy with arthrodesis. According to the literature, there is no evidence of what the best management of an RLDH would be.

METHODS

This study involved 90 patients who underwent lumbar microdiscectomy in the past and were now experiencing a new lumbar disk herniation for the first time. The patients were divided into two groups, each with 45 patients: group A received standard revision microdiscectomy, whereas group B received revision microdiscectomy with MIS TLIF.The Japanese Orthopaedic Association score, operating time, blood loss, duration of hospital stay, costs, and complications were all prospectively recorded in a database and examined. Back and leg discomfort were measured using the visual analog scale.

RESULTS

The mean total postoperative Japanese Orthopaedic Association score across the groups exhibited no statistically significant difference, nor did the preoperative clinical and epidemiological data. Although postoperative leg pain was comparable in both groups, postoperative lower back pain in group A was much worse than that in group B. Additional revision surgery was necessary for six individuals in group A. Group A had higher rates of dural rupture and postoperative neurological impairment. Group A experienced much less intraoperative blood loss, longer operation times, and postoperative hospital stays.

CONCLUSION

In patients with RLDH, revision microdiscectomy is effective. In comparison with conventional microdiscectomy, MIS TLIF reduces intraoperative risk of dural rupture or neural injury, postoperative incidence of mechanical instability or recurrence, and postoperative lower back pain.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, multicenter, comparative study.

Clinicians' perceptions around discectomy surgery for lumbar disc herniation: a survey of orthopaedic and neuro-surgeons in Australia and New Zealand

INTRODUCTION

Understanding practice-based differences in treatment of lumbar disc herniations (LDHs) is vital for reducing unwarranted variation in the delivery of spine surgical health care. Identifying factors that influence surgeons' decision-making will offer useful insights for developing the most cost-effective and safest surgical strategy as well as developing surgeon education materials for common lumbar pathologies. This study was to capture any variation in techniques used by surgeons in Australia and New Zealand (ANZ) region, and perceived complications of different surgical procedures for primary and recurrent LDH (rLDH).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Web-based survey study was emailed to orthopaedic and neurosurgeons who routinely performed spinal surgery in ANZ from Decmber 20, 2018 to February 20, 2020. The response data were analyzed to assess for differences based on geography, practice setting, speciality, practice experience, practice length, and operative volume.

RESULTS

Invitations were sent to 150 surgeons; 96 (64%) responded. Most surgeons reported microdiscectomy as their surgical technique of choice for primary LDH (73%) and the first rLDH (72%). For the second rLDH, the preferred choice for most surgeons was fusion surgery (82%). A surgeon's practice setting (academic/private/hybrid) was a statistically significant factor in what surgical procedure was chosen for the first rLDH (P = 0.014). When stratifying based on surgeon experience, there were statisfically significant differences based on the annual volume of spine surgeries performed (perceived reherniation rates following primary discectomy, P = 0.013; perceived reherniation rates following revision surgeries, P = 0.017; perceived intraoperative complications rates following revision surgeries, P = 0.016) and based on the annual volume of lumbar discectomies performed (perceived reherniation rates following revision surgeries, P = 0.022; perceived intraoperative complications rates following revision surgeries, P = 0.036; perceived durotomy rates following primary discectomy, P = 0.023).

CONCLUSIONS

Surgeons' annual practice volume and practice setting have significant influences in the selection of surgical procedures and the perception of surgical complications when treating LDHs.

Revision lumbar fusions have higher rates of reoperation and result in worse clinical outcomes compared to primary lumbar fusions

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Indications for revision lumbar fusion are variable, but include recurrent stenosis (RS), adjacent segment disease (ASD), and pseudarthrosis. The efficacy of revision lumbar fusion has been well established, but their outcomes compared to primary procedures is not well documented.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compares surgical and clinical outcomes between (1) revision and primary lumbar fusion, (2) revision lumbar fusion based on indication (ASD, pseudarthrosis, or RS), and (3) revision lumbar fusion based on whether the index procedure included an isolated decompression or decompression with fusion.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Retrospective single-institution cohort study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Four thousand six hundred seventy-one consecutive lumbar fusions from 2011 to 2021, of which 892 (23.6%) were revision procedures. The indication for revision procedures included 502 (56.3%) for ASD, 153 (17.2%) for pseudarthrosis, and 237 (26.6%) for RS. Of the 892 revision procedures, 694 (77.8%) underwent an index fusion while 198 (22.2%) underwent an index decompression without fusion.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Hospital readmissions, all-cause reoperation, need for subsequent revision and patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) at baseline, 3-months postoperatively, and 1-year postoperatively, including the Mental Health Component score (MCS-12) and Physical Health Component score (PCS-12) of the Short Form 12 survey, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for Back and Leg pain.

METHODS

Patient demographics, comorbidities, surgical characteristics, and outcomes were collected from electronic medical records. Twenty-eight percent of patients had preoperative and postoperative PROMs. A delta PROM score was calculated for the 3-month and 1-year postoperative timepoints, which was the change from the preoperative to postoperative value. Univariate comparisons were performed to compare revision fusions to primary fusions. Multivariate logistic regression was performed for all-cause reoperation and subsequent revision surgery, while multivariate linear regression was performed for ∆PROMs at 3-months and 1-year. Revision procedures were then separately regrouped based on indication for revision fusion and whether they underwent a fusion for their index procedure. Univariate comparisons and multivariate linear regressions for ∆PROMs were then repeated based on the new groupings.

RESULTS

There was no difference in hospital readmission rate (5.38% vs. 4.60%, p=.372) or length of stay (4.10 days vs. 3.94 days, p=.129) between revision and primary lumbar fusion, but revision fusions had a higher rate of all-cause reoperation (16.1% vs. 11.2%, p<.001) and subsequent revision (13.7% vs. 9.71%, p=.001), which was confirmed on multivariate logistic regression (Odds Ratio (OR): 1.42, p=.001 and OR: 1.37, p=.007, respectively). On multivariate analysis, a revision procedure was an independent risk factor for worse improvement ∆ODI, ∆VAS Back, ∆VAS Leg, and ∆PCS-12 and 1-year postoperatively. Regardless of the indication for revision lumbar fusion, patients significantly improved in the 3-month and 1-year postoperative PCS-12, ODI, VAS Back, and VAS Leg, with the exception of the 3-month PCS-12 for pseudarthrosis (p=.620). Patients undergoing revision for ASD had significantly worse 1-year postoperative PCS-12 (32.3 vs. Pseudarthrosis: 35.6 and RS: 37.0, p=.026), but there were no differences in ∆PROMs. There was no difference in hospital readmission, all-cause reoperation, or subsequent revision based on whether a patient had an index lumbar fusion or isolated decompression. Multivariate linear regression analysis found that a surgical indication of pseudarthrosis was a significant predictor of decreased improvement in 3-month ∆VAS Leg (ref: ASD, β=2.26, p=.036), but having an index fusion did not significantly predict worse improvement in ∆PROMs when compared to isolated decompressions.

CONCLUSIONS

Revision lumbar fusions had a higher rate of reoperation and subsequent revision surgery when compared to primary lumbar fusions, but there were no difference in hospital readmission rates. Patients undergoing revision lumbar fusion experience improvements in all patient reported outcome measures, but their baseline, postoperative, and magnitude of improvement are worse than primary procedures. Regardless of whether the lumbar fusion is a primary or revision procedure, all patients have significant improvements in pain, disability and physical function. Further, the indication for the revision procedure is not correlated with the expected magnitude of improvement in patient reported outcomes. Finally, no differences in baseline, postoperative, and ∆PROMs for revision fusions were identified when stratifying by whether the patient had an index decompression or fusion.

Risk Factors and Surgical Management of Recurrent Herniation after Full-Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy Using Interlaminar Approach

Full-endoscopic lumbar discectomy (FED) is one of the least invasive procedures for lumbar disc herniation. Patients who receive FED for lumbar disc herniation may develop recurrent herniation at a frequency similar to conventional procedures. Reoperation and risk factors of recurrent lumbar disc herniation were investigated among 909 patients who received FED using an interlaminar approach (FED-IL). Sixty-five of the 909 patients received reoperation for recurrent herniation. Disc height, smoking, diabetes mellitus (DM), subligamentous extrusion (SE) type, and Modic change were identified as the risk factors for recurrence. Other indicators such as LL, Cobb angle, disc migration, age, sex, and body mass index (BMI) did not reach significance. Among 65 patients, reoperation was performed within 14 days following FED-IL (very early) in 7 patients, from 15 days to 3 months (early) in 14 patients, from 3 months to 1 year (midterm) in 17 patients, and after more than 1 year (late) in 27 patients. The very early group included a greater number of males, and the mean age was significantly lower in comparison to other groups. All patients in the very early group received FED-IL for reoperation. Reoperation within 2 weeks allows FED-IL to be performed without adhesion. Fusion surgery was performed on three cases in the early and midterm groups and on 10 cases in the late group, which increased over time as degenerative change and adhesion progressed. The procedure selected to treat recurrent herniation mostly depends on the surgeon’s preference. Revision FED-IL is the first choice for recurrent herniation in terms of minimizing surgical burden, whereas fusion surgery offers the advantage that discectomy can be performed through unscarred tissues. FED-IL is recommended for recurrent herniation within 2 weeks before adhesion progresses.

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.

Intraoperative findings, complications, and short-term results after lumbar microdiscectomy with or without implantation of annular closure device

BACKGROUND

Standard microscopic lumbar discectomy (MLD) is a short operation with minimal blood loss, and a low rate of peri- and intraoperative complications. The objective of this study was to evaluate intraoperative findings, complications, and early postoperative neurological outcome (< 105 days) in patients undergoing MLD with or without implantation of an annular closure device (ACD).

METHODS

This study is based on data analysis of a post-marketing, prospective, multicenter RCT in Europe including patients undergoing standard MLD with or without implantation of an ACD (Barricaid®, Intrinsic Therapeutics, Inc., Woburn, MA). Enrollment of 554 patients in 21 centers in Europe (Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Belgium, The Netherlands, and France) started in 2010 and was completed in October 2014, with 276 patients randomized to the ACD group and 278 to the control group.

RESULTS

Mean operation time was 70 min in the ACD group and 52 min in the control group (p < 0.0001). Intraoperative fluoroscopy time was 24 s in the ACD group and 7 s in the control group (p < 0.0001). Average blood loss was 94.2 ml in the ACD group and 64.7 ml in the control group (p = 0.0001). Serious device- or procedure-related adverse events occurred in 3.7% (10/272) of the ACD group and 7.9% (22/278) of the control group. Dural injuries occurred in 13 (4.8%) patients in the ACD group and 7 (2.5%) in the control group. There was one device-related nerve root injury resulting in a nerve root amputation. Surgical complications included 3 hematomas in the ACD group and 4 in the control group; 3 infections occurred in both groups. Device migrations were documented in 3 patients in the ACD group. Patients in the ACD group (n = 7, 2.6%) underwent fewer reoperations compared with that in the control group (n = 16, 5.8%, OR = 2.3 (0.9-5.7)). Mean VAS leg pain at 3 months was 11.9 in the ACD and 15.1 in the control group, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Short-term outcome after MLD with or without implantation of ACD was similar in both groups. Patients included in the ACD group underwent fewer reoperations in the first 3 months after surgery. Nevertheless, longer operation time, higher amount of blood loss, and risk of nerve root lesion during device implantation should be considered additional risks in patients undergoing ACD implantation after MLD.

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.

Comparison of Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy with Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion as a Revision Surgery for Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation after Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy

Objective

The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes between percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) for the revision surgery for recurrent lumbar disc herniation (rLDH) after PELD surgery.

Patients and Methods

A total of 46 patients with rLDH were retrospectively assessed in this study. All the patients had received a PELD in Peking University First Hospital between January 2015 and June 2019, before they underwent a revision surgery by either PELD (n=24) or MIS-TLIF (n=22). The preoperative data, perioperative conditions, complications, recurrence condition, and clinical outcomes of the patients were compared between the two groups.

Results

Compared to the MIS-TLIF group, the PELD group had significantly shorter operative time, less intraoperative hemorrhage, and shorter postoperative hospitalization, but higher recurrence rate (P<0.05). Complication rates were comparable between the two groups. Both groups had satisfactory clinical outcomes at a 12-month follow-up after the revision surgery. The PELD group also showed significantly lower visual analog scale (VAS) scores of back pain and Oswestry disability index (ODI) in one month after the revision surgery, whereas the difference was not detectable at six- and 12-month follow-ups.

Conclusion

Both PELD and MIS-TLIF are effective as a revision surgery for rLDH after primary PELD. PELD is superior to MIS-TLIF in terms of operative time amount of intraoperative hemorrhage and postoperative hospitalization. However, its higher postoperative recurrence rate must be considered and patients should be well informed, when making a decision between the two surgical approaches.

Predictive Scoring and Risk Factors of Early Recurrence after Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy

Purpose

To predict the early recurrence after full endoscopic lumbar discectomy, we analyzed factors related to demographic factor anatomical factors, operative method, and postoperative management, and predicted the possibility of recurrence according to the scoring system.

Materials and Methods

In this prospective study, we enrolled 300 patients who underwent 1 out of 3 surgical procedures. The patients were randomized into one of the following groups: group A (n = 100), transforaminal inside-out approach; group B (n = 100), transforaminal outside-in approach; and group C (n = 100), interlaminar approach. The clinical results were evaluated by a visual analogue scale (VAS). Related factors evaluated with points of (A) demographic factors: (1) age, (2) gender, (3) BMI, (B) anatomical factors: (4) disc degeneration scale, (5) modic change, (6) number of involved disc herniation, (7) history of discectomy (first, recurred), (8) herniated disc level, (9) disc height, (10) segmental dynamic motion, (11) disc location, (C) operation factors: (12) annulus preservation along the disc protrusion, (13) approach method (transforaminal inside-out, transforaminal outside-in, interlaminar); (D) postoperative care factors: (14) early ambulation, (15) spinal orthosis (corset) application. Among these, we analyzed statistically significant recurrence risk factors after PELD in all patients and early recurrence predicting score ratio was obtained.

Results

The overall recurrence rate was 9.33%. The recurrence rate was 11%, 10%, and 7% for groups A, B, and C, respectively. Average early recurrence time was 3.26 months. The change in preoperative and postoperative VAS score was from 8.07 to 1.39, 8.34 to 1.34, and 8.14 to 1.86 in groups A, B, and C, respectively. The recurrence rate based on the (1) age was <40 years: 5.22% (6/115), 41–60 years: 16.1% (20/124), and >61 years: 3.07% (2/65); (2) gender was male: 13/139 (9.35%), female: 15/161 (9.32%); (3) BMI was obese: 17.57% (13/74), overweight: 11.6% (9/77), underweight: 6.35% (4/63), and normal weight: 2.33% (2/86); (4) degeneration scale was grades 1–2: 2% (1/50), grade 3: 7.4% (10/135), and grades 4–5: 14.8% (17/115); (5) modic change was type I: 25% (3/12), type II: 14.3% (1/7), type III: 33% (1/3), and no modic change: 8.27% (23/278); (6) number of involved disc herniation was 1 level: 3.9% (5/128), 2 level: 10.4% (13/125), 3 levels: 18.9% (7/37), and 4 levels: 30% (3/10); (7) history of discectomy was first: 8.83% (25/283) and repeated: 17.65% (3/17); (8) herniated disc level was L1–L2/L2–L3/L3–L4: 3.95% (3/76) and L4–L5: 14.6% (18/123); (9) disc height was <80%: 17.14% (6/35), 81%–100%: 8.16% (12/147), and >101%: 8.5% (10/118); (10) segmental dynamic motion was 1–10°: 8.58% (20/233) and 11–20° : 11.9% (8/67); (11) disc location was central: 7.41% (2/27), foraminal: 3.03% (2/66), and inferior/superior/paracentral: 11.59% (24/207); (12) radical annulotomy was 8.05% (7/87) vs. 9.86% (21/213); (13) approach method was transforaminal (inside-out): 11% (11/100), transforaminal (outside-in): 10% (10/100), and interlaminar: 7% (7/100); (14) early ambulation was 16.42% (23/140) vs. 3.13% (5/160); and (15) spinal orthosis application was 7.35% (10/136) vs. 10.98% (18/164). According to the above results, after summation of all scores, the early recurrence predicting score: recurrence rate ratio was 1–4: 0% (0/23), 5–8: 7.1% (13/183), 9–12: 8% (6/75) and 13–16 100% (10/10).

Conclusions

Early recurrence after PELD is associated with several risk factors such as BMI, degeneration scale, combined HNP, and early ambulation. If we use the predicting score, we can postulate the occurrence of early recurrence after PELD. Knowing the predictive factors prior to surgical intervention will allow us to decrease the early recurrence rate after PELD.

Patients Undergoing Revision Microdiskectomy for Recurrent Lumbar Disk Herniation Experience Worse Clinical Outcomes and More Revision Surgeries Compared With Patients Undergoing a Primary Microdiskectomy

INTRODUCTION

Recurrent disk herniation treatment aims to optimize outcomes. This study compares the demographics and patient-reported outcomes of patients who underwent primary or revision lumbar microdiskectomy surgery for recurrent disk herniation.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort analysis was performed of consecutive patients who underwent primary or revision lumbar microdiskectomies between January 2008 and December 2015. Patients were divided into two groups: primary (primary) and revision (recurrent). Herniated disks were confirmed preoperatively using MRI. Patient-reported outcomes included Visual Analog Scales (VAS) scores for the back and leg, Oswestry Disability Index scores, 12-Item Short Form Mental and Physical Survey scores, and the Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Mental and Physical Survey scores.

RESULTS

One hundred ten patients met inclusion criteria: 72 from primary cohort and 38 from recurrent cohort. Recurrent patients experienced presurgical symptoms for significantly less time. On bivariate analysis, recurrent patients reported significantly worse preoperative VAS-back and VAS-leg scores. On multivariate analysis, recurrent patients reported significantly worse postoperative VAS-back, VAS-leg, and Oswestry Disability Index scores. Recurrent patients were less likely to be satisfied with surgical outcomes and to feel that surgery had met or exceeded their expectations.

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing revision microdiskectomy are likely to experience worse postoperative symptoms and disability relative to patients undergoing primary microdiskectomy.

Laser-assisted endoscopic lumbar foraminotomy for failed back surgery syndrome in elderly patients

Elderly patients with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) or post-laminectomy foraminal stenosis have a higher risk of perioperative morbidity with extensive revision surgery. Thus, there is a need for safer and less invasive surgical options, such as laser-assisted endoscopic lumbar foraminotomy (ELF). A pin-point laser beam can allow precise tissue ablation and dissection in fibrotic adhesion tissues while preventing normal tissue injury. The present study aimed to describe the surgical technique of laser-assisted ELF and to evaluate the clinical outcomes of elderly patients with FBSS. Two-year follow-up data were collected from 26 consecutive patients aged 65 years or older who were treated with laser-assisted ELF for FBSS. Full-endoscopic foraminal decompression was performed using a side-firing laser and mechanical instruments. The average age of the patients was 70.2 years (range, 65-83 years). The mean visual analog pain score for leg pain improved from 8.58 at baseline to 3.35 at 6 weeks, 2.19 at 1 year, and 2.35 at 2 years after ELF (P < 0.001). The mean Oswestry disability index improved from 65.93 at baseline to 31.41 at 6 weeks, 21.77 at 1 year, and 20.64 at 2 years after ELF (P < 0.001). Based on the modified Macnab criteria, excellent or good results were obtained in 84.6% patients and symptomatic improvements were obtained in 92.3%. Extensive revision surgery in elderly patients might cause significant surgical morbidities. Laser-assisted ELF under local anesthesia could be a safe and effective surgical alternative for such patients at risk.

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.

Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Review

STUDY DESIGN

Narrative review.

OBJECTIVES

To identify the risk factors and surgical management for recurrent lumbar disc herniation using a systematic review of available evidence.

METHODS

We conducted a review of PubMed, MEDLINE, OVID, and Cochrane Library databases using search terms identifying recurrent lumbar disc herniation and risk factors or surgical management. Abstracts of all identified articles were reviewed. Detailed information from articles with levels I to IV evidence was extracted and synthesized.

RESULTS

There is intermediate levels III to IV evidence detailing perioperative risk factors and the optimal surgical technique for recurrent lumbar disc herniations.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple risk factors including smoking, diabetes mellitus, obesity, intraoperative technique, and biomechanical factors may contribute to the development of recurrent disc disease. There is widespread variation regarding optimal surgical management for recurrent herniation, which often include revision discectomies with or without fusion via open and minimally invasive techniques.

Recurrent lumbar disc herniation recurrence after percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy: A case report

RATIONALE

Lumbar disc herniation (LDH) is a degenerative disease and affects human health. Although percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) can redeem the living quality of patient with LDH rapidly, it appears weak to limit the recurrence rate of LDH.

PATIENT CONCERNS

A 52-year-old male suffered lower back pain and lower limb paralysis for 20 years. However, conservative treatment could not relieve above-mentioned symptoms after doing heavy labor.

DIAGNOSES

Computed tomography (CT) revealed a disc fragment had migrated to the inferior edge of the L5 pedicle. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) demonstrated a type 2 Modic change (MC) at L5 and spinal canal stenosis at L4-L5. Based on these findings, the patient was diagnosed with L4-L5 disc herniation and secondary lumbar stenosis.

INTERVENTIONS

The patient underwent surgery twice for PELD at L4-L5 in 1 month. Symptoms were not improved effectively until the conventional posterior discectomy with fusion was performed.

OUTCOMES

No signs of recurrence have been detected in 6 months of follow-up, except for mild lower back pain meeting the temperature change.

LESSONS

Rapid decompression and instant therapeutic effect do not mean extending the indications of PELD. It is unreasonable to revise the recurrent LDH or treat the primary LDH with PELD under inadequate preoperative assessment.

Reoperation for Recurrent Intervertebral Disc Herniation in the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial: Analysis of Rate, Risk Factors, and Outcome

STUDY DESIGN

This study was a post-hoc subgroup analysis of prospectively collected data in the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT).

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine the risk factors for and to compare the outcomes of patients undergoing revision disc excision surgery in SPORT.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Risk factors for reherniation and outcomes after revision surgery have not been well-studied. This information is critical for proper patient counseling and decision-making.

METHODS

Patients who underwent primary discectomy in the SPORT intervertebral disc herniation cohort were analyzed to determine risk factors for undergoing revision surgery. Risk factors for undergoing revision surgery for reherniation were evaluated using univariate and multivariate analysis. Primary outcome measures consisted of Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), the Sciatica Bothersomeness index (SBI), and the Short Form 36 (SF-36) at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and yearly to 4 years.

RESULTS

Of 810 surgical patients, 74 (9.1%) received revision surgery for reherniation. Risk factors for reherniation included: younger age (hazard ratio [HR] 0.96 [0.94-0.99]), lack of a sensory deficit (HR 0.61 [0.37-0.99]) lack of motor deficit (HR 0.54 [0.32-0.91]), and higher baseline ODI score (HR 1.02 [1.01-1.03]). The time-adjusted mean improvement from baseline to 4 years was less for the reherniation group on all outcome measures (Bodily Pain Index [BP] 39.5 vs. 44.9, P = 0.001; Physical Function Index [PF] 37.1 vs. 44.5, P < 0.001; ODI 33.9 vs. 38.3, P < 0.001; SBI 8.7 vs. 10.5, P < 0.001). At 4 years, only SBI (-9 vs. -11.4, P = 0.002) was significantly lower in the reherniation group.

CONCLUSION

Younger patients with higher baseline disability without neurological deficit are at increased risk of undergoing revision surgery for reherniation. Those considering revision surgery for reherniation will likely improve significantly following surgery, but possibly not as much as with primary discectomy.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Decision analysis to identify the ideal treatment for adult spinal deformity: What is the impact of complications on treatment outcomes?

Objective

The aim of this study was to analyze the impact of treatment complications on outcomes in adult spinal deformity (ASD) using a decision analysis (DA) model.

Methods

The study included 535 ASD patients (371 with non-surgical (NS) and 164 with surgical (S) treatment) from an international multicentre database of ASD patients. DA was structured in two main steps; 1) Baseline analysis (Assessing the probabilities of outcomes, Assessing the values of preference -utilities-, Combining information on probability and utility and assigning the quality adjusted life expectancy (QALE) for each treatment) and 2) Sensitivity analysis. Complications were analyzed as life threatening (LT) and nonlife threatening (NLT) and their probabilities were calculated from the database as well as a thorough literature review. Outcomes were analyzed as improvement, no change and deterioration. Death/complete paralysis was considered as a separate category.

Results

All 535 patients were analyzed in regard to complications. Overall, there were 78 NLT and 12 LT complications and 3 death/paralysis. Surgical treatment offered significantly higher chances of clinical improvement but also was significantly more prone to complications (31.7% vs. 11.1%, p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Surgical treatment of ASD is more likely to cause complications compared to NS treatment. On the other hand, surgery has been shown to provide a higher likelihood of improvement in HRQoL scores. So, the decision on the type of treatment in ASD needs to take both chances of improvement and burden associated with S or NS treatments and better be arrived by the active participation of patients and physicians equipped with the present information.

Level of evidence

Level II, Decision analysis.

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.

Surgical management of recurrent disc herniations with microdiscectomy and long-term results on life quality: Detailed analysis of 70 cases

Background:

Aim of this paper is to recall the surgical technique used in the recurrent lumbar disc herniations (LDHs) and to share our experiences.

Materials and Methods:

Out of series of 1115 patients who underwent operations for LDH between 2006 and 2013, 70 patients underwent re-operations, which were included in this study. During surgery, lateral decompression performed over the medial facet joint to the superior facet joint border was seen after widening the laminectomy defect, and microdiscectomy was performed. The demographic findings of the patients, their complaints in admission to hospital, the level of operation, the condition of dural injury, the first admission in the prospective analysis, and their quality of life were evaluated through the Oswestry scoring during their postoperative 1^st, 3^rd, 6^th-month and 1^st, 3^rd, 5^th and 7^th-year follow-up. In the statical analysis, Friedman test was performed for the comparison of the Oswestry scores and Siegel Castellan test was used for the paired nonparametrical data. A P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results:

Considering the Oswestry Index during the follow-ups, the values in the postoperative early period and follow-ups were seen to be significantly lower than those at the time of admission to hospital (P < 0.05). None of the patients, who re-operated by microdiscectomy, presented with iatrogenic instability in 7 years follow-up period.

Conclusion:

Microdiscectomy performed through a proper technique in the re-operation of recurrent disc herniations eases complaints and improves the quality of life. Long-term follow-ups are required for more accurate results.

Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation: Results of Revision Surgery and Assessment of Factors that May Affect the Outcome. A Non-Concurrent Prospective Study

STUDY DESIGN

Non-concurrent prospective study.

PURPOSE

To determine the functional outcome after open 'fragment' discectomy for recurrent lumbar disc herniation, and to analyze the factors that may affect the outcome.

OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE

Literature search revealed only four studies where the factors affecting the outcome of a revision surgery for recurrent disc herniation have been evaluated. None of these studies analyzed for diabetes, disc degeneration and facet arthropathy. We have analyzed these features, in addition to the demographic and clinical factors.

METHODS

Thirty-four patients who underwent the procedure were followed up for an average period of 27.1 months. The Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score and Oswestry disability index (ODI) were used to assess the functional outcome. Age, gender, smoking, diabetic status, duration of recurrent symptoms, the side of leg pain, level and type of disc herniation, degree of disc degeneration on magnetic resonance imaging, and facet joint arthritis before first and second surgeries, were analyzed as factors affecting the outcome.

RESULTS

The average Hirabayashi improvement in JOA was 56.4%. The mean preoperative ODI was 74.5% and the mean ODI at final follow-up was 32.2%, the difference being statistically significant (p<0.01). Patients with diabetes, all of whom had poor long term glycemic control, were found to have a poor outcome in terms of ODI improvement (p=0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Open fragment discectomy is a safe and effective surgical technique for the treatment of recurrent disc herniation. However, patients with uncontrolled diabetes may have a less favorable outcome.

Recurrent Versus Primary Lumbar Disc Herniation Surgery: Patient-reported Outcomes in the Swedish Spine Register Swespine

BACKGROUND

Lumbar disc herniation (LDH) is a common indication for lumbar spine surgery. The proportion of patients having a second surgery within 2 years varies in the literature between 0.5% and 24%, with recurrent herniation being the most common cause. Several studies have not found any relevant outcome differences between patients undergoing surgery for primary LDH and patients undergoing reoperation for a recurrent LDH, but these studies have limitations, including small sample size and retrospective design.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We (1) compared patient-reported outcomes between patients operated on for primary LDH and patients reoperated on for recurrent LDH within 1 year after index surgery and (2) determined risk factors for worse outcomes.

METHODS

We obtained data from the Swedish National Spine Register, Swespine, where patient-reported outcomes are collected using mailed protocols at 1, 2, 5, and 10 years after surgery. Of the 13,562 patients identified who underwent LDH between January 2000 and May 2011, 13,305 (98%) underwent primary surgery for LDH and 257 (2%) underwent reoperation for a recurrent LDH within the first year. Patient-reported outcomes at 1 to 2 years were available for 8497 patients (63%), 8350 of 13,305 (63%) in the primary LDH group and 147 of 257 (57%) in the recurrent LDH group (p = 0.068). We compared leg and back pain (VAS: 0-100), function (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]: 0-100), quality of life (EQ-5D: -0.59 to 1.0), patient satisfaction, and global assessment of leg pain between groups. We also analyzed rsik factors for worse global assessment and satisfaction.

RESULTS

Mean (95% CI) differences in improvement between groups favoring patients with primary LDH were VAS leg pain 9 (4-14), ODI 6 (3-9), and EQ-5D 0.09 (0.04-0.15). While statistically significant, these effect sizes may be lower than the minimal clinically important differences often referred to. Percentage of satisfied patients was 79% and 58% in the primary and recurrent LDH groups, respectively (p < 0.001), and percentage of patients with no or better leg pain (global assessment) was 74% and 65%, respectively (p = 0.008). Reoperation for recurrent LDH represented the largest independent risk for dissatisfaction; this factor and smoking represented similar risks for less improvement in leg pain.

CONCLUSIONS

Repeat surgery for a recurrent LDH was performed with good probability for improvement, although not as good as for primary LDH surgery, and patients undergoing repeated surgery were less satisfied. Studies on risk factors for recurrence are warranted.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, therapeutic study. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Application of the polystyrene model made by 3-D printing rapid prototyping technology for operation planning in revision lumbar discectomy

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of 3-D rapid prototyping technology in revision lumbar discectomy. 3-D rapid prototyping technology has not been reported in the treatment of revision lumbar discectomy.

METHODS

Patients with recurrent lumbar disc herniation who were preparing to undergo revision lumbar discectomy from a single center between January 2011 and 2013 were included in this analysis. Patients were divided into two groups. In group A, 3-D printing technology was used to create subject-specific lumbar vertebral models in the preoperative planning process. Group B underwent lumbar revision as usual. Preoperative and postoperative clinical outcomes were compared between groups included operation time, perioperative blood loss, postoperative complications, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Japan Orthopaedics Association (JOA) scores, and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for back pain and leg pain.

RESULTS

A total of 37 patients were included in this study (Group A = 15, Group B = 22). Group A had a significantly shorter operation time (106.53 ± 11.91 vs. 131.92 ± 10.81 min, P < 0.001) and significantly less blood loss (341.67 ± 49.45 vs. 466.77 ± 71.46 ml, P < 0.001). There was no difference between groups for complication rate. There were also no differences between groups for any clinical metric.

CONCLUSION

Using the 3-D printing technology before revision lumbar discectomy may reduce the operation time and the perioperative blood loss. There does not appear to be a benefit to using the technology with respect to clinical outcomes. Future prospective studies are needed to further elucidate the efficacy of this emerging technology.