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.

Repeat Discectomy for the Management of Same-Level Recurrent Disc Herniation: A Study of 50 Patients.

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.

Repeat discectomy for recurrent same level disc herniation: A literature review of the past 5 years.

Background: Recurrent disc herniations remain a challenge in spinal surgery. Although some authors recommend a repeat discectomy, others offer more invasive secondary fusions. Here, we reviewed the literature (2017-2022) regarding the safety/efficacy of treating recurrent disc herniations with repeated discectomy alone. Methods: Our literature search of recurrent lumbar disc herniations included; Medline, PubMed, Google scholar, and the Cochrane database. We focused on the types of discectomy performed, perioperative morbidity, costs, length of surgery, pain scores, and incidence of secondary dural tears. Results: We identified 769 cases that included 126 microdiscectomies, and 643 endoscopic discectomies. Rates of disc recurrence ranged from 1% to 25% with accompanying secondary durotomy varying from 2% to 15%. In addition, operative times were relatively short, ranging from 29.2 min to 125 min, with a relatively small average estimated blood loss (i.e., minimal to maximally 150 mls). Conclusion: Repeated discectomy was the most commonly performed treatment for same-level recurrent disc herniations. Despite minimal intraoperative blood loss and short operating times, there was a significant risk of durotomy. Notably, patients must be informed that more extensive bone removal for treating recurrent disc increases the risk for instability warranting subsequent fusion.

Measuring spinal canal size in lumbar spinal stenosis: description of method and preliminary results.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar spinal stenosis is a pathological condition of the spinal channel with its concentric narrowing with presence of specific clinical syndrome. Absence of the clear unified radiological signs is the one of the basic problems of the lumbar spinal stenosis. PURPOSE: The authors seek to create method of assessment of the spinal canal narrowing degree, based on anatomical aspects of lumbar spinal stenosis. STUDY DESIGN: Development of diagnostic criteria based on analysis of a consecutive patients group and a control group. METHODS: Thirty seven patients (73 stenotic segments) with mean age 62,4 years old were involved in the study. Severity of clinical symptoms has been estimated by the measuring scales: Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Swiss Spinal Stenosis Questionnaire (SSQ). Mean number of the stenotic segments was 1.97. For all patients 8 radiological criteria have been measured. In the control group have been included 37 randomly selected patients (volunteers) in mean age of 53,4 years old without stenosis signs and narrowing of the spinal canal on the MRI imaging (73 segments total). Measurements were performed at the middle of intervertebral disc and facet joints level. RESULTS: For description of the state of spinal canal we offer the coefficient: ratio of the lateral canals total area to the cross-sectional area of the dural sac ("coefficient of stenosis"). Comparison of mean values of "coefficient of stenosis" for main and control groups showed statistically significant differences (t = -12,5; p < 0.0001). Strong statistically significant correlation with the ODI and SSS scales was revealed for the obtained coefficient (p <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In our study new method of assessment of the spinal canal narrowing degree has been applied. Promising results have been obtained in a small group of patients. It is necessary to check the data on a large sample of recommendations for its clinical application.

Quantitative evaluation of the lumbosacral sagittal alignment in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.

GOAL OF THE STUDY: This study intends to develop a method of quantitative sagittal balance parameters assessment, based on a geometrical model of lumbar spine and sacrum. METHODS: One hundred eight patients were divided into 2 groups. In the experimental group have been included 59 patients with lumbar spinal stenosis on L1-5 level. Forty-nine healthy volunteers without history of any lumbar spine pathlogy were included in the control group. All patients have been examined with supine MRI. Lumbar lordosis has been adopted as circular arc and described either anatomical (lumbar lordosis angle), or geometrical (chord length, circle segment height, the central angle, circle radius) parameters. Moreover, 2 sacral parameters have been assessed for all patients: sacral slope and sacral deviation angle. Both parameters characterize sacrum disposition in horizontal and vertical axis respectively. RESULTS: Significant correlation was observed between anatomical and geometrical lumbo-sacral parameters. Significant differences between stenosis group and control group were observed in the value of the "central angle" and "sacral deviation" parameters. We propose additional parameters: lumbar coefficient, as ratio of the lordosis angle to the segmental angle (Kl); sacral coefficient, as ratio of the sacral tilt (ST) to the sacral deviation (SD) angle (Ks); and assessment modulus of the mathematical difference between sacral and lumbar coefficients has been used for determining lumbosacral balance (LSB). Statistically significant differences between main and control group have been obtained for all described coefficients (p = 0.006, p = 0.0001, p = 0.0001, accordingly). Median of LSB value of was 0.18 and 0.34 for stenosis and control groups, accordingly. CONCLUSION: Based on these results we believe that that spinal stenosis is associated with an acquired deformity that is measureable by the described parameters. It's possible that spinal stenosis occurs in patients with an LSB of 0.2 or less, so this value can be predictable for its development. It may suggest that spinal stenosis is more likely to occur in patients with the spinal curvature of this type because of abnormal distribution of the spine loads. This fact may have prognostic significance for develop vertebral column disease and evaluation of treatment results.