Lumbar disc herniation surgery: Is it worth adding interspinous spacer or instrumented fusion with regard to disc excision alone?

BACKGROUND: Discectomy is sometimes associated with recurrence of disc herniation and pain after surgery. The evidence to use an interspinous dynamic stabilization system or instrumented fusion in association with disc excision to prevent pain and re-operation remains controversial. In this study, we analyzed if adding interspinous spacer or fusion, offers advantages in relation to microdiscetomy alone. METHODS: Patients with lumbar disc herniation were divided in 3 groups; microdiscectomy alone (MD), microdiscectomy plus interspinous spacer (IS) and open discectomy plus posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). The clinical efficacy was measured using the Owestry Disability Index (ODI). Other outcome parameters including visual analogue scale for pain (VAS) back and legs, length of stay, direct in-hospital cost, 90-day complication rate, and 1-year re-operation rate were also evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 103 patients whose mean age was 39.1 (±8.5) years were included. A significant improvement of the ODI and VAS back and legs pain baseline score was detected in the 3 groups. After 1 year, no significant differences in ODI, VAS back and legs pain were found between the 3 groups. There was an increase of 169% of the total direct in- hospital cost in IS group and 287% in PLIF group, in relation to MD (p < 0.001). Length of stay was 86% higher in the IS group and 384% longer in the PLIF group compared to MD (p < 0.001). The 1 year re-operation rates were 5.6%, 10% and 16.2% (p = 0.33). Discectomy seems to be the main responsible for the clinical improvement, without the interspinous spacer or fusion adding any benefit. The addition of interspinous spacer or fusion increased direct in-hospital cost, length of stay, and did not protect against re-operation.

Lumbar disc herniation surgery with microdiscectomy plus interspinous stabilization: Good clinical results, but failure to lower the incidence of re-operation.

BACKGROUND: Discectomy is sometimes associated with recurrence of disc herniation and pain after surgery. The evidence to use an interspinous dynamic stabilization system (IDSS) in association with disc excision to prevent pain and re-operation, remains controversial. METHODS: Patients (age 18-50 years) presenting with lumbago/sciatica (ICD-10-CM M54.3, M54.4) due to voluminous lumbar disc herniation were eligible for participation. Patients underwent microdiscectomy plus IDSS. The primary outcome measure was the clinical efficacy using Owestry disability index(ODI) and visual analogue pain scale (VAS). We also evaluated several other outcome parameters including: length of stay and costs during hospital admission, 90-day complication rate, and 1-year re-operation rate. This prospective observational study was carried out from January 2015 to August 2016. RESULTS: A total of 30 patients whose mean age was 38.6(±9.2) years were included. ODI score dropped from 62.93(±16.45) to 13.50(±16.67), representing 78.54% (95% C.I 68.07-88.66%) improvement of the baseline score after one year (p < 0.001). Patients had 90 day re-admission and 1 year re-operation rates of 4/30(13.3%) and 3/30(10%) respectively. Length of stay was 2.1 ±â€¯1.2 days. In-Hospital cost was 1069.8 ±â€¯288.4 € (not including 1500€ of the implant). Implant related complications were common 12/30(40%), although they did not have any clinical consequences. CONCLUSION: Our short-term experience indicates that microdiscectomy plus interspinous device is safe and it shows good clinical results, although the clinical improvement seems to be due to microdiscectomy, without the implant adding any extra benefit. The addition of IDSS did not protect against re-operation, and it increased the surgical expenses.

Length of stay, costs, and complications in lumbar disc herniation surgery by standard PLIF versus a new dynamic interspinous stabilization technique.

BACKGROUND: The number of lumbar spine surgeries has been increasing during the last 20 years, which also leads to an increase in hospital costs and complications related to surgery. Therefore, there is a greater concern about the costs and safety of the techniques and implants used. METHODS: Patients (aged from 18 to 50 years) presenting with lumbago /sciatica (ICD-10-CM M54.3, M54.4) due to lumbar disc herniation lasting more than 12 weeks, were included. Patients with disc herniation larger than size-2 or size-3 according to the MSU Classification were eligible for participation. Intervention was divided in two groups. In Group 1, patients underwent microdiscectomy and Interspinous Dynamic Stabilization System (IDSS). Meanwhile, in Group 2, patients received discectomy and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). The primary outcome measure was the length of stay and costs during hospital admission. We also evaluated several other outcome parameters, including 90- day readmission rate, 90-day complication rate, and re-operations rate. The study was an observational prospective cohort study carried out from January 2015 to August 2016 in which two surgical techniques were compared. Our hypothesis was that a less aggressive procedure, such as discectomy and DSS, will decrease the length of stay and costs, and that it will also reduce the rate of complications with respect to PLIF. RESULTS: A total of 67 patients (mean age 39.8 ± 8.4 years) were included. Patients in the PLIF group had a length of stay increase of 109% (4.52 ± 1.76 days vs 2.16 ± 1.18 days p < 0.001) and an in-hospital cost increase of 71% (1821.97 ± 460.41€ vs. 1066.20 ± 284.34€ p < 0.001). The reduction of one day of stay is equivalent to a reduction of total in-hospital costs of 12.5%. Patients in the IDSS cohort had no significant differences regarding PLIF cohort in the 90-day readmission rate (12.9% vs 11.1% € p > 0.999, respectively), 90-day re-operation rate (12.9% vs 11.1% € p > 0.999) and 90-day complication rates (35.5% vs 52.8% € p > 0.156). Dural tear and urinary tract infection rates were higher in the PLIF cohort (13.9% vs 3.2%. p = 0.205 and 11.1% vs 0% p = 0.118, respectively). Implant related complications were the most frequent in both IDSS and PLIF groups (32.3% vs 38.9% p = 0.572). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who underwent IDSS had a significant decrease of the length of stay and costs in relation to PLIF group. No significant differences were found in 90-day readmission and reintervention rates for both groups. Although differences were not significant, dural tear and urinary tract infection rates were lower in the interspinous group. IDSS or PLIF after discectomy, did not protect against subsequent 90-day re-operation or readmission compared to discectomy alone.

Primary Sacral Hydatid Cyst Mimicking a Neurogenic Tumor in Chronic Low Back Pain: Case Report and Review of the Literature.

Hydatid disease is caused by infection of Echinococcus granulosus. Bone hydatid cyst presentation without hepatic affectation is infrequent and occurs in 0,5-2% of cases. This rare condition makes clinicians not always aware of the disease, and as a result, misdiagnosis of spinal echinococcosis is common. We present a case of a 48-year-old female patient with primary sacral hydatidosis. Chronic low back pain radiating to the left buttock was the only symptom. The magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) suggested a neurogenic tumor versus giant cell tumor. Biopsy and pathological study revealed a hydatid cyst. Anthelmintic and surgical treatment was performed. At 12 months after surgery, the patient is free of recurrence. In patients with chronic low back pain and a MR suggestive of neurogenic tumor, spinal hydatid cyst should be considered in the differential diagnosis. It is recommended the assistance of an anesthesiologist during biopsy to avoid an anaphylactic shock.