Dispositivos interespinosos en discectomías lumbares primarias: ¿Favorecen la recurrencia de la hernia de discos? / Use of interspinous process devices in primary lumbar discectomy. Does it promote recurrent disc herniation?

RESUMEN

Objetivo: Evaluar si la colocación de los dispositivos interespinosos siliconados tipo DIAM favorecen una tasa más alta de recidiva de la hernia discal homolateral clínica y por imágenes comparada con la discectomía pura. Materiales y Métodos: Se realizó un estudio prospectivo, observacional, aleatorizado desde mayo de 2009 hasta mayo de 2013, en nuestro Centro. Se evaluó a 123 pacientes, 3 se perdieron en el seguimiento; la muestra incluyó 120 sujetos. Todos fueron operados por el mismo equipo quirúrgico. Se formaron dos grupos grupo A discectomía más colocación de dispositivo interespinoso siliconado, 30 pacientes (16 mujeres y 14 hombres), con mayor frecuencia L4-L5 (27 pacientes, 90%) y grupo B discectomías puras, 90 pacientes (53 mujeres y 37 hombres) con más frecuencia L4 y L5 (72 pacientes, 80%). Resultados: Seis de los pacientes del grupo A (20%) tuvieron una recidiva clínica y por imágenes, y 3 (10%) fueron operados nuevamente; en el grupo B, hubo 4 recidivas discales (4,4%), uno fue operado nuevamente (1,1%). Se hallaron diferencias significativas en las tasas de recidiva y reintervención entre los grupos (p = 0,0073 y p = 0,0188, respectivamente). Conclusiones: Los beneficios de los dispositivos interespinosos para tratar el canal estrecho lumbar secundario a hernia de disco son controvertidos, pero en nuestro estudio, se halló una diferencia significativa según el grupo. Al mantener el movimiento del segmento y cambiar ligeramente las cargas fisiológicas aumentarían la tasa de recidiva discal; no obstante, son necesarios estudios con mayor evidencia científica para corroborar estas tendencias. Nivel de Evidencia III

ABSTRACT

Objective: The objective of this study was to determine if discectomy with placement of an interspinous DIAM silicon spacer is associated with a different rate of clinical and radiological recurrent ipsilateral disc herniation compared to discectomy alone. Methods: A prospective, observational, randomized study was performed from May 2009 to May 2013 at our center. Of the 123 patients included in the study, 3 were lost to follow-up, leaving 120 patients for data analysis. All patients were operated on by the same surgical team. Patients received one of two types of treatment. Group A consisted of 30 patients (16 women and 14 ment) who underwent discectomy with placement of an interspinous DIAM silicone spacer. Group B was comprised of 90 patients (53 women and 37 men) treated by discectomy alone. Results: Discectomy at L4-L5 level was the most common approach, being performed in 90% (27) of Group A patients and 80% (72) of Group B patients. Group A demonstrated clinical and radiological recurrent disc herniation in 6/30 (20%) patients. Recurrent disc herniation developed in 4/90 (4.4%) of Group B patients. One patient underwent surgical revision (1.1%). Both recurrence and surgical revision were significantly higher in Group A (p = 0.007 and p = 0.019, respectively). Conclusions: The benefits of interspinous devices for the treatment of the lumbar spinal stenosis secondary to disc herniation are controversial, and this study showed a significant intergroup difference. In this study, patients that underwent discectomy and interspinous spacer placement had higher revision and recurrence rates than discectomy patients that did not receive an interspinous spacer. Interspinous spacers may increase the rate of disc herniation by preserving movement at the level of the original disc herniation and changing the physiologic load. Further studies are needed to corroborate and evaluate these trends. Level of Evidence III