RESUMO
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.
RESUMO
Background Same-level recurrent disc herniation remains a challenge in spine surgery. Although most surgeons agree on discectomy as the treatment of choice for primary lumbar disc herniation, the management of recurrent disc herniation remains ambiguous and largely depends on the operating surgeon. Many surgeons recommend repeat discectomy over fusion because it is cheaper and less invasive. In this study, we analyzed 50 patients who underwent a repeat discectomy. Materials and methods The patients in the study had previously been managed for lumbar disc herniation and then presented with either recurrent same-level herniation or symptoms attributed to the same level. The patients were then managed with a repeat discectomy without fusion. We analyzed the preoperative and postoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), duration of surgery, blood loss, duration of hospitalization, and complications. Results Fifty patients were included: 27 females (54%), and 23 males (46%). They were followed up for an average of 2.81 years (range: 1-4). The mean duration of hospitalization was 4.06 ± 1.5 days (range: 2-8). The operative time was 104.60 minutes (range: 50-195), with an intraoperative blood loss of 85.40 mL (range: 50-150 mL). Durotomy occurred as a complication in eight (16%) patients. The recurrence rate was 26%, with 36% progressing to fusion. The change in preoperative ODI and postoperative ODI was 20.94 ± 7.24 (6-37), with a p-value of 0.04. There were no long-term complications recorded. Conclusion Repeat discectomy is a good management option for same-level recurrent disc herniation. The procedure is associated with low intraoperative blood loss and a short operating time, but there is a significant risk of durotomy. The risk of recurrence remains a concern due to the progression of degenerative changes, especially in the presence of Modic-2 changes. These advantages and disadvantages should be discussed with patients.
RESUMO
Purpose: This paper compares anterior lumbar intercorporeal fusion (ALIF) and lateral lumbar intercorporeal fusion (LLIF). LLIF is an approach through the lateral retroperitoneal corridor, transpsoas. ALIF is a described alternative to interbody fusion with approach variations described as retroperitoneal, transperitoneal, open, and laparoscopic. Our objective is to compare complications can occur in both approaches the ALIF and the LLIF, to see what the advantages and disadvantages are during the perioperative and postoperative. Method: This is a literature review article. A MEDLINE search was conducted through PubMed, google scholar, science direct, and Cochrane to identify articles that reported the differences between ALIF, LLIF and other lumbar interbody fusion approaches focusing the complications, cost and length of surgery, length of hospitalization, narcotic use, sagittal balance and surgical technique. Result: There was no overall significant difference in the postoperative narcotic use, fusion rate, and disc height. However, ALIF was seen to have better postoperative sagittal balance. Although long-term complication rates between ALIF and LLIF are not statistically even though the procedures have procedure-specific complications. Intraoperative blood loss and operative time were relatively higher in ALIF than in LLIF. The risk of injury to the lumbar plexus and iliac vessels is relatively higher than ALIF. Conclusion: ALIF and LLIF they are considered safe, effective and non-invasive. Both procedures present their pearls and pitfalls, but LLIF is associated with more complications than ALIF, although they do not present great differences of clinical outcomes. There is a need more extensive research to determine the best approach.
Propósito: Este trabajo compara la fusión intercorpórea lumbar anterior (ALIF, por sus siglas en inglés) y la fusión intercorpórea lumbar lateral (LLIF, por sus siglas en inglés). LLIF es una aproximación a través del corredor retroperitoneal lateral, con transpsoas. La ALIF es una alternativa a la fusión intercorporal con variaciones de abordaje descritas como retroperitoneal, transperitoneal, abierta y laparoscópica. Nuestro objetivo es comparar las complicaciones que pueden ocurrir en ambos abordajes de la ALIF y la LLIF, para ver cuáles son las ventajas y desventajas durante los procesos perioperatorio y postoperatorio. Método: Este es un artículo de revisión de literatura. Se realizó una búsqueda MEDLINE a través de PubMed, Google Scholar, Science Direct y Cochrane para identificar artículos que reportaron las diferencias entre ALIF, LLIF y otros enfoques de fusión intercorporal lumbar enfocándose en las complicaciones, el costo y la duración de la cirugía, duración de la hospitalización, uso de estupefacientes, equilibrio sagital y técnica quirúrgica. Resultado: No hubo diferencia significativa general en el uso posoperatorio de narcóticos, la tasa de fusión y la altura del disco. Sin embargo, se observó que la ALIF tenía un mejor equilibrio sagital postoperatorio. Aunque las tasas de complicaciones a largo plazo entre ALIF y LLIF no son estadísticamente significativas a pesar de que los procedimientos tienen complicaciones específicas del procedimiento. La pérdida de sangre intraoperatoria y el tiempo operativo fueron relativamente más altos en ALIF que en LLIF. El riesgo de lesión en el plexo lumbar y los vasos ilíacos es relativamente mayor que la ALIF. Conclusiones: ALIF y LLIF se consideran métodos seguros, eficaces y no invasivos. Ambos procedimientos presentan aciertos y desaciertos, pero el LLIF se asocia a más complicaciones que el ALIF, aunque no presentan grandes diferencias en los resultados clínicos. Se necesita una investigación más amplia para determinar el mejor enfoque.