Biportal endoscopic discectomy versus tubular microscopic discectomy for treating single-level lumbar disc herniation in obese patients: a multicenter, retrospective analysis.

PURPOSE: In microscopic lumbar discectomy in obese patients, a correlation is found between the operation time and increase in estimated blood loss according to the increase in body mass index; however, no studies have investigated the outcomes of biportal endoscopic lumbar discectomy in obese patients. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of microscopic and endoscopic discectomy in obese patients with lumbar herniated discs. METHODS: In this multicenter, retrospective study, clinical and radiological data were compared and analyzed in 73 obese patients with a body mass index of > 30 kg/m2 who underwent microscopic or biportal endoscopic lumbar discectomy. Clinical data on the visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), and EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) scores were measured, and radiological data were obtained using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). RESULTS: This study enrolled 43 patients who underwent microscopic discectomy and 30 who underwent biportal endoscopic discectomy. The VAS, ODI, and EQ-5D scores in both groups improved after surgery compared with those before surgery, although there was no difference between the two groups. Although there was a difference in the incidence of recurrent disc herniation confirmed by MRI after surgery, no difference was found in the number of patients requiring surgery between the two groups. CONCLUSION: In obese patients with lumbar disc herniation that was not improved with conservative treatment, no significant clinical or radiological differences in outcomes were noted between microscopic and biportal endoscopic surgery methods. In contrast, minor complications were less common in the biportal group.

Conjoined nerve root in a patient with lumbar disc herniation accompanied by a lumbosacral spine anomaly: a case report.

BACKGROUND: A nerve root anomaly, typified by a conjoined nerve root, is a rare finding. Conjoined nerve root anomalies are easily missed even in preoperative advanced imaging modalities, which can be potentially troublesome during and after surgery. In this report, we present a case of conjoined right L5-S1 nerve root in a patient with lumbar disc herniation, accompanied by spina bifida occulta, which was undiagnosed on preoperative imaging studies. CASE REPORT: A 55-year-old Asian (Japanese) woman presented with low back pain and right leg radiating pain due to lumbar disc herniation at the right L5/S1. Physical examination revealed a positive Lasègue sign and the range of the straight leg raising test was 20° on the right side. The right patellar tendon reflex was normal; however, the right ankle jerk reflex disappeared. Although no obvious hypoesthesia was noted, mild muscle weakness (4/5) was observed in the right leg on the manual muscle test. We planned the lumbar discectomy under a microscope. During surgery, the conjoined right L5-S1 nerve root, which was compressed by herniated nucleus pulposus, was encountered. Although it was very thick and less mobile, some pieces of herniated nucleus pulposus could be removed piece by piece from the axillary part. After sequential decompressive procedures, the tightness of the conjoined right L5-S1 nerve root decreased but its mobility did not improve much. The laterality of the thickness and exit angle of the conjoined right L5-S1 nerve root was retrospectively confirmed on T2 coronal magnetic resonance images and magnetic resonance neurography. Postoperatively, right leg pain was immediately alleviated and complete improvement of muscle weakness was achieved 1 week later (5/5). CONCLUSIONS: Magnetic resonance neurography is extremely useful for the accurate diagnosis of anomalous nerve roots because of clear visualization of the neural tissue. Discectomy under a microscope, which enables magnified three-dimensional observation of the surgical field, must provide a valid and safe procedure to achieve not only secure resection of herniated discs but also adequate exposure of anomalous nerve roots.

Comparing the efficacy and safety of minimally invasive biportal endoscopic spine surgery versus conventional microscopic discectomy in single-level lumbar herniated intervertebral disc (ENDO-BH Trial): a multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled equivalence trial study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Biportal endoscopic surgery has recently been performed in lumbar discectomy, with advantages over conventional surgery, such as less skin scarring and muscle damage. However, the clinical results have not been established. Although previous studies reported no difference between the biportal endoscopic and microscopic discectomy clinical results, the evidence was weak. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the biportal endoscopic discectomy versus the microscopic discectomy. METHODS: This prospective multicenter randomized controlled equivalence trial is designed to compare the efficacy and safety outcomes of patients who underwent lumbar discectomy using biportal endoscopy or microscopy. We will include 100 participants (50 per group) with a lumbar herniated disc. The primary outcome will be the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score 12 months after surgery based on a modified intention-to-treat strategy. The secondary outcomes will include the visual analog scale score for low back and lower extremity radiating pain, the ODI score, the Euro-Qol-5-Dimensions score, surgery satisfaction, walking time, postoperative return to daily life period, postoperative surgical scar, and surgery-related variables, such as postoperative drainage, operation time, admission duration, postoperative creatine kinase, and implementation status of conversion to open surgery. Radiographic outcomes will also be analyzed using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or computed tomography (CT) and simple radiographs. Safety will be assessed by evaluating all adverse and severe adverse events and surgery-related effects. The participants will be assessed by a blinded assessor before surgery (baseline) and 2 weeks and 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. DISCUSSION: This trial will be the first prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial to analyze the efficacy and safety of biportal endoscopic discectomy in lumbar herniated disc. This trial is designed for evaluating the equivalence of the results between biportal endoscopic and microscopic discectomy including adequate sample size, blinded analyses, and prospective registration to reduce bias. This trial will provide enough data on the effectiveness and safety of biportal endoscopic surgery and will be an important study that allows clear conclusions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Research Information Service (cris.nih.go.kr.) ( KCT0006191 ). Registered on 27 March 2021.

MRI Radiological Predictors of Requiring Microscopic Lumbar Discectomy After Lumbar Disc Herniation.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To investigate radiological differences in lumbar disc herniations (herniated nucleus pulposus [HNP]) between patients receiving microscopic lumbar discectomy (MLD) and nonoperative patients. METHODS: Patients with primary treatment for an HNP at a single academic institution between November 2012 to March 2017 were divided into MLD and nonoperative treatment groups. Using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), axial HNP area; axial canal area; HNP canal compromise; HNP cephalad/caudal migration and HNP MRI signal (black, gray, or mixed) were measured. T test and chi-square analyses compared differences in the groups, binary logistic regression analysis determined odds ratios (ORs), and decision tree analysis compared the cutoff values for risk factors. RESULTS: A total of 285 patients (78 MLD, 207 nonoperative) were included. Risk factors for MLD treatment included larger axial HNP area (P < .01, OR = 1.01), caudal migration, and migration magnitude (P < .05, OR = 1.90; P < .01, OR = 1.14), and gray HNP MRI signal (P < .01, OR = 5.42). Cutoff values for risks included axial HNP area (70.52 mm2, OR = 2.66, P < .01), HNP canal compromise (20.0%, OR = 3.29, P < .01), and cephalad/caudal migration (6.8 mm, OR = 2.43, P < .01). MLD risk for those with gray HNP MRI signal (67.6% alone) increased when combined with axial HNP area >70.52 mm2 (75.5%, P = .01) and HNP canal compromise >20.0% (71.1%, P = .05) cutoffs. MLD risk in patients with cephalad/caudal migration >6.8 mm (40.5% alone) increased when combined with axial HNP area and HNP canal compromise (52.4%, 50%; P < .01). CONCLUSION: Patients who underwent MLD treatment had significantly different axial HNP area, frequency of caudal migration, magnitude of cephalad/caudal migration, and disc herniation MRI signal compared to patients with nonoperative treatment.