An assessment of the variation in the practice of lumbar discectomy and its role in axial back pain

Management of recurrent lumbar disc herniation: a comparative analysis of posterior lumbar interbody fusion and repeat discectomy

Background

For recurrent lumbar disc herniation, many experts suggest a repeat discectomy without stabilization due to its minimal tissue manipulation, lower blood loss, shorter hospital stay, and lower cost, recent research on the role of instability in disc herniation has made fusion techniques popular among spinal surgeons. The authors compare the postoperative outcomes of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and repeat discectomy for same-level recurrent disc herniation.

Methods

The patients included had previously undergone discectomy and presented with a same-level recurrent lumbar disc herniation. The patients were placed into two groups: 1) discectomy only, 2) PLIF based on the absence or presence of segmental instability. Preoperative and postoperative Oswestry disability index scores, duration of surgery, blood loss, duration of hospitalization, and complications were analyzed.

Results

The repeat discectomy and fusion groups had 40 and 34 patients, respectively. The patients were followed up for 2.68 (1-4) years. There was no difference in the duration of hospitalization (3.73 vs. 3.29 days P=0.581) and operative time (101.25 vs. 108.82 mins, P=0.48). Repeat discectomy had lower intraoperative blood loss, 88.75 ml (50-150) versus 111.47 ml (30-250) in PLIF (P=0.289). PLIF had better ODI pain score 4.21 (0-10) versus 9.27 (0-20) (P-value of 0.018). Recurrence was 22.5% in repeat discectomy versus 0 in PLIF.

Conclusion

PLIF and repeat discectomy for recurrent lumbar disc herniation have comparable intraoperative blood loss, duration of surgery, and hospital stay. PLIF is associated with lower durotomy rates and better long-term pain control than discectomy. This is due to recurrence and progression of degenerative process in discectomy patients, which are eliminated and slowed, respectively, by PLIF.

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.