PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-25 (730833)

Clipboard (0)
None

Related Articles

1.  Revisional Percutaneous Full Endoscopic Disc Surgery for Recurrent Herniation of Previous Open Lumbar Discectomy 
Asian Spine Journal  2011;5(1):1-9.
Study Design
A retrospective study.
Purpose
To determine the feasibility and effectiveness of revisional percutaneous full endoscopic discectomy for recurrent herniation after conventional open disc surgery.
Overview of the Literature
Repeated open discectomy with or without fusion has been the most common procedure for recurrent lumbar disc herniation. Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for recurrent herniation has been thought of as an impossible procedure. Despite good results with open revisional surgery, major problems may be caused by injuries to the posterior stabilized structures. Our team did revisional full endoscopic lumbar disc surgery on the basis of our experience doing primary full endoscopic disc surgery.
Methods
Between February 2004 and August 2009 a total of 41 patients in our hospital underwent revisional percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy using a YESS endoscopic system and a micro-osteotome (designed by the authors). Indications for surgery were recurrent disc herniation following conventional open discectomy; with compression of the nerve root revealed by Gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging; corresponding radiating pain which was not alleviated after conservative management over 6 weeks. Patients with severe neurologic deficits and isolated back pain were excluded.
Results
The mean follow-up period was 16 months (range, 13 to 42 months). The visual analog scale for pain in the leg and back showed significant post-treatment improvement (p < 0.001). Based on a modified version of MacNab's criteria, 90.2% showed excellent or good outcomes. There was no measurable blood loss. There were two cases of recurrence of and four cases with complications.
Conclusions
Percutaneous full-endoscopic revisional disc surgery without additional structural damage is feasible and effective in terms of there being less chance of fusion and bleeding. This technique can be an alternative to conventional repeated discectomy.
doi:10.4184/asj.2011.5.1.1
PMCID: PMC3047892  PMID: 21386940
Endoscopic discectomy; Interlaminar discectomy; Transforaminal discectomy; Percutaneous discectomy; Recurrent disc herniation; Lumbar spine
2.  Minimally invasive surgical procedures for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation 
Introduction
In up to 30% of patients undergoing lumbar disc surgery for herniated or protruded discs outcomes are judged unfavourable. Over the last decades this problem has stimulated the development of a number of minimally-invasive operative procedures. The aim is to relieve pressure from compromised nerve roots by mechanically removing, dissolving or evaporating disc material while leaving bony structures and surrounding tissues as intact as possible. In Germany, there is hardly any utilisation data for these new procedures – data files from the statutory health insurances demonstrate that about 5% of all lumbar disc surgeries are performed using minimally-invasive techniques. Their real proportion is thought to be much higher because many procedures are offered by private hospitals and surgeries and are paid by private health insurers or patients themselves. So far no comprehensive assessment comparing efficacy, safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of minimally-invasive lumbar disc surgery to standard procedures (microdiscectomy, open discectomy) which could serve as a basis for coverage decisions, has been published in Germany.
Objective
Against this background the aim of the following assessment is:
Based on published scientific literature assess safety, efficacy and effectiveness of minimally-invasive lumbar disc surgery compared to standard procedures. To identify and critically appraise studies comparing costs and cost-effectiveness of minimally-invasive procedures to that of standard procedures. If necessary identify research and evaluation needs and point out regulative needs within the German health care system. The assessment focusses on procedures that are used in elective lumbar disc surgery as alternative treatment options to microdiscectomy or open discectomy. Chemonucleolysis, percutaneous manual discectomy, automated percutaneous lumbar discectomy, laserdiscectomy and endoscopic procedures accessing the disc by a posterolateral or posterior approach are included.
Methods
In order to assess safety, efficacy and effectiveness of minimally-invasive procedures as well as their economic implications systematic reviews of the literature are performed. A comprehensive search strategy is composed to search 23 electronic databases, among them MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library. Methodological quality of systematic reviews, HTA reports and primary research is assessed using checklists of the German Scientific Working Group for Health Technology Assessment. Quality and transparency of cost analyses are documented using the quality and transparency catalogues of the working group. Study results are summarised in a qualitative manner. Due to the limited number and the low methodological quality of the studies it is not possible to conduct metaanalyses. In addition to the results of controlled trials results of recent case series are introduced and discussed.
Results
The evidence-base to assess safety, efficacy and effectiveness of minimally-invasive lumbar disc surgery procedures is rather limited:
Percutaneous manual discectomy: Six case series (four after 1998)Automated percutaneous lumbar discectomy: Two RCT (one discontinued), twelve case series (one after 1998)Chemonucleolysis: Five RCT, five non-randomised controlled trials, eleven case seriesPercutaneous laserdiscectomy: One non-randomised controlled trial, 13 case series (eight after 1998)Endoscopic procedures: Three RCT, 21 case series (17 after 1998)
There are two economic analyses each retrieved for chemonucleolysis and automated percutaneous discectomy as well as one cost-minimisation analysis comparing costs of an endoscopic procedure to costs for open discectomy.
Among all minimally-invasive procedures chemonucleolysis is the only of which efficacy may be judged on the basis of results from high quality randomised controlled trials (RCT). Study results suggest that the procedure maybe (cost)effectively used as an intermediate therapeutical option between conservative and operative management of small lumbar disc herniations or protrusions causing sciatica. Two RCT comparing transforaminal endoscopic procedures with microdiscectomy in patients with sciatica and small non-sequestered disc herniations show comparable short and medium term overall success rates. Concerning speed of recovery and return to work a trend towards more favourable results for the endoscopic procedures is noted. It is doubtful though, whether these results from the eleven and five years old studies are still valid for the more advanced procedures used today. The only RCT comparing the results of automated percutaneous lumbar discectomy to those of microdiscectomy showed clearly superior results of microdiscectomy. Furthermore, success rates of automated percutaneous lumbar discectomy reported in the RCT (29%) differ extremely from success rates reported in case series (between 56% and 92%).
The literature search retrieves no controlled trials to assess efficacy and/or effectiveness of laser-discectomy, percutaneous manual discectomy or endoscopic procedures using a posterior approach in comparison to the standard procedures. Results from recent case series permit no assessment of efficacy, especially not in comparison to standard procedures. Due to highly selected patients, modi-fications of operative procedures, highly specialised surgical units and poorly standardised outcome assessment results of case series are highly variable, their generalisability is low.
The results of the five economical analyses are, due to conceptual and methodological problems, of no value for decision-making in the context of the German health care system.
Discussion
Aside from low methodological study quality three conceptual problems complicate the interpretation of results.
Continuous further development of technologies leads to a diversity of procedures in use which prohibits generalisation of study results. However, diversity is noted not only for minimally-invasive procedures but also for the standard techniques against which the new developments are to be compared. The second problem refers to the heterogeneity of study populations. For most studies one common inclusion criterion was "persisting sciatica after a course of conservative treatment of variable duration". Differences among study populations are noted concerning results of imaging studies. Even within every group of minimally-invasive procedure, studies define their own in- and exclusion criteria which differ concerning degree of dislocation and sequestration of disc material. There is the non-standardised assessment of outcomes which are performed postoperatively after variable periods of time. Most studies report results in a dichotomous way as success or failure while the classification of a result is performed using a variety of different assessment instruments or procedures. Very often the global subjective judgement of results by patients or surgeons is reported. There are no scientific discussions whether these judgements are generalisable or comparable, especially among studies that are conducted under differing socio-cultural conditions. Taking into account the weak evidence-base for efficacy and effectiveness of minimally-invasive procedures it is not surprising that so far there are no dependable economic analyses.
Conclusions
Conclusions that can be drawn from the results of the present assessment refer in detail to the specified minimally-invasive procedures of lumbar disc surgery but they may also be considered exemplary for other fields where optimisation of results is attempted by technological development and widening of indications (e.g. total hip replacement).
Compared to standard technologies (open discectomy, microdiscectomy) and with the exception of chemonucleolysis, the developmental status of all other minimally-invasive procedures assessed must be termed experimental. To date there is no dependable evidence-base to recommend their use in routine clinical practice. To create such a dependable evidence-base further research in two directions is needed: a) The studies need to include adequate patient populations, use realistic controls (e.g. standard operative procedures or continued conservative care) and use standardised measurements of meaningful outcomes after adequate periods of time. b) Studies that are able to report effectiveness of the procedures under everyday practice conditions and furthermore have the potential to detect rare adverse effects are needed. In Sweden this type of data is yielded by national quality registries. On the one hand their data are used for quality improvement measures and on the other hand they allow comprehensive scientific evaluations. Since the year of 2000 a continuous rise in utilisation of minimally-invasive lumbar disc surgery is observed among statutory health insurers. Examples from other areas of innovative surgical technologies (e.g. robot assisted total hip replacement) indicate that the rise will probably continue - especially because there are no legal barriers to hinder introduction of innovative treatments into routine hospital care. Upon request by payers or providers the "Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss" may assess a treatments benefit, its necessity and cost-effectiveness as a prerequisite for coverage by the statutory health insurance. In the case of minimally-invasive disc surgery it would be advisable to examine the legal framework for covering procedures only if they are provided under evaluation conditions. While in Germany coverage under evaluation conditions is established practice in ambulatory health care only (“Modellvorhaben") examples from other European countries (Great Britain, Switzerland) demonstrate that it is also feasible for hospital based interventions. In order to assure patient protection and at the same time not hinder the further development of new and promising technologies provision under evaluation conditions could also be realised in the private health care market - although in this sector coverage is not by law linked to benefit, necessity and cost-effectiveness of an intervention.
PMCID: PMC3011322  PMID: 21289928
3.  Herniated lumbar disc 
Clinical Evidence  2009;2009:1118.
Introduction
Herniated lumbar disc is a displacement of disc material (nucleus pulposus or annulus fibrosis) beyond the intervertebral disc space. The highest prevalence is among people aged 30-50 years, with a male to female ratio of 2:1. There is little evidence to suggest that drug treatments are effective in treating herniated disc.
Methods and outcomes
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of drug treatments, non-drug treatments, and surgery for herniated lumbar disc? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to July 2008 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
Results
We found 49 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
Conclusions
In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: acupuncture, advice to stay active, analgesics, antidepressants, bed rest, corticosteroids (epidural injections), cytokine inhibitors (infliximab), discectomy (automated percutaneous, laser, microdisectomy, standard), exercise therapy, heat, ice, massage, muscle relaxants, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), percutaneous disc decompression, spinal manipulation, and traction.
Key Points
Herniated lumbar disc is a displacement of disc material (nucleus pulposus or annulus fibrosis) beyond the intervertebral disc space. The highest prevalence is among people aged 30-50 years, with a male to female ratio of 2:1.
There is little evidence to suggest that drug treatments are effective in treating herniated disc. NSAIDs and cytokine inhibitors don’t seem to improve symptoms of sciatica caused by disc herniation.We found no evidence examining the effectiveness of analgesics, antidepressants, or muscle relaxants in people with herniated disc.We found no evidence of sufficient quality to judge the effectiveness of epidural injections of corticosteroids.
With regard to non-drug treatments, spinal manipulation seems to be more effective at relieving local or radiating pain in people with acute back pain and sciatica with disc protrusion compared with sham manipulation, although concerns exist regarding possible further herniation from spinal manipulation in people who are surgical candidates. Neither bed rest nor traction seem effective in treating people with sciatica caused by disc herniation.We found insufficient evidence about advice to stay active, acupuncture, massage, exercise, heat, or ice to judge their efficacy in treating people with herniated disc.
About 10% of people have sufficient pain after 6 weeks for surgery to become a consideration. Both standard discectomy and microdiscectomy seem to increase self-reported improvement to a similar extent.We found insufficient evidence judging the effectiveness of automated percutaneous discectomy, laser discectomy, or percutaneous disc decompression.
PMCID: PMC2907819  PMID: 19445754
4.  Herniated lumbar disc 
Clinical Evidence  2011;2011:1118.
Introduction
Herniated lumbar disc is a displacement of disc material (nucleus pulposus or annulus fibrosis) beyond the intervertebral disc space. The highest prevalence is among people aged 30 to 50 years, with a male to female ratio of 2:1. There is little evidence to suggest that drug treatments are effective in treating herniated disc.
Methods and outcomes
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of drug treatments, non-drug treatments, and surgery for herniated lumbar disc? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to June 2010 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
Results
We found 37 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
Conclusions
In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: acupuncture, advice to stay active, analgesics, antidepressants, bed rest, corticosteroids (epidural injections), cytokine inhibitors (infliximab), discectomy (automated percutaneous, laser, microdiscectomy, standard), exercise therapy, heat, ice, massage, muscle relaxants, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), percutaneous disc decompression, spinal manipulation, and traction.
Key Points
Herniated lumbar disc is a displacement of disc material (nucleus pulposus or annulus fibrosis) beyond the intervertebral disc space. The highest prevalence is among people aged 30 to 50 years, with a male to female ratio of 2:1.
There is little high-quality evidence to suggest that drug treatments are effective in treating herniated disc. NSAIDs and cytokine inhibitors do not seem to improve symptoms of sciatica caused by disc herniation.We found no RCT evidence examining the effects of analgesics, antidepressants, or muscle relaxants in people with herniated disc. We found several RCTs that assessed a range of different measures of symptom improvement and found inconsistent results, so we are unable to draw conclusions on effects of epidural injections of corticosteroids.
With regard to non-drug treatments, spinal manipulation seems more effective at relieving local or radiating pain in people with acute back pain and sciatica with disc protrusion compared with sham manipulation, although concerns exist regarding possible further herniation from spinal manipulation in people who are surgical candidates. Neither bed rest nor traction seem effective in treating people with sciatica caused by disc herniation.We found insufficient RCT evidence about advice to stay active, acupuncture, massage, exercise, heat, or ice to judge their efficacy in treating people with herniated disc.
About 10% of people have sufficient pain after 6 weeks for surgery to become a consideration. Standard discectomy and microdiscectomy seem to increase self-reported improvement to a similar extent.We found insufficient evidence judging the effects of automated percutaneous discectomy, laser discectomy, or percutaneous disc decompression.
PMCID: PMC3275148  PMID: 21711958
5.  Endoscopic discectomy of L5-S1 disc herniation via an interlaminar approach: Prospective controlled study under local and general anesthesia 
Background:
Open discectomy remains the standard method for treatment of lumbar disc herniation, but can traumatize spinal structure and leaves symptomatic epidural scarring in more than 10% of cases. The usual transforaminal approach may be associated with difficulty reaching the epidural space due to anatomical peculiarities at the L5–S1 level. The endoscopic interlaminar approach can provide a direct pathway for decompression of disc herniation at the L5–S1 level. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical results of endoscopic interlaminar lumbar discectomy at the L5–S1 level and compare the technique feasibility, safety, and efficacy under local and general anesthesia (LA and GA, respectively).
Methods:
One hundred twenty-three patients with L5–S1 disc herniation underwent endoscopic interlaminar lumbar discectomy from October 2006 to June 2009 by two spine surgeons using different anesthesia preferences in two medical centers. Visual analog scale (VAS) scores for back pain and leg pain and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) sores were recorded preoperatively, and at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Results were compared to evaluate the technique feasibility, safety, and efficacy under LA and GA.
Results:
VAS scores for back pain and leg pain and ODI revealed statistically significant improvement when they were compared with preoperative values. Mean hospital stay was statistically shorter in the LA group. Complications included one case of dural tear with rootlet injury and three cases of recurrence within 1 month who subsequently required open surgery or endoscopic interlaminar lumbar discectomy. There were no medical or infectious complications in either group.
Conclusion:
Disc herniation at the L5–S1 level can be adequately treated endoscopically with an interlaminar approach. GA and LA are both effective for this procedure. However, LA is better than GA in our opinion.
doi:10.4103/2152-7806.82570
PMCID: PMC3130490  PMID: 21748045
General anesthesia; interlaminar approach; local anesthesia; lumbar disc herniation; percutaneous endoscopic discectomy
6.  Endoscopic Foraminal Decompression for Failed Back Surgery Syndrome under local Anesthesia 
Background
The most common causes of failed back surgery are residual or recurrent herniation, foraminal fibrosis and foraminal stenosis that is ignored, untreated, or undertreated. Residual back ache may also be from facetal causes or denervation and scarring of the paraspinal muscles.1–6 The original surgeon may advise his patient that nothing more can be done on the basis of his opinion that the nerve was visually decompressed by the original surgery, supported by improved post-op imaging and follow-up studies such as EMG and conduction velocity studies. Post-op imaging or electrophysiological assessment may be inadequate to explain all the reasons for residual or recurrent symptoms. Treatment of Failed back surgery by repeat traditional open revision surgery usually incorporates more extensive decompression causing increased instability and back pain, therefore necessitating fusion. The authors, having limited their practice to endoscopic MIS surgery over the last 15-20 years, report on their experience gained during that period to relieve pain by endoscopically visualizing and treating unrecognized causative patho-anatomy in FBSS.7
Methods
Thirty consecutive patients with FBSS presenting with back and leg pain that had supporting imaging diagnosis of lateral stenosis and /or residual / recurrent disc herniation, or whose pain complaint was supported by relief from diagnostic and therapeutic injections (Figure 1), were offered percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy and foraminoplasty over a repeat open procedure. Each patient sought consultation following a transient successful, partially successful or unsuccessful open translaminar surgical treatment for disc herniation or spinal stenosis. Endoscopic foraminoplasty was also performed to either decompress the bony foramen for foraminal stenosis, or foraminoplasty to allow for endoscopic visual examination of the affected traversing and exiting nerve roots in the axilla, also known as the “hidden zone” of Macnab (Figure 2).8, 9 The average follow up time was, average 40 months, minimum 12 months. Outcome data at each visit included Macnab, VAS and ODI.
A diagnostic and therapeutic epidural gram may help identify unrecognized lateral recess stenosis underestimated by MRI. An excellent result from a therapeutic block lends excellent prognosis for a more lasting and “permanent” result from transforaminal endoscopic lateral recess decompression.
Kambin's Triangle provides access to the “hidden zone” of Macnab by foraminoplasty. The foramen and lateral recess is decompressed by removing the ventral aspect and tip of the superior articular process to gain access to the axilla between the traversing and exiting nerve. FBSS contains patho-anatomy in the axilla between the traversing and exiting nerve that hides the pain generators of FBSS.
Results
The average pre-operative VAS improved from 7.2 to 4.0, and ODI 48% to 31%. While temporary dysesthesia occurred in 4 patients in the early post-operative period, all were happy, as all received additional relief of their pre-op symptoms. They were also relieved to be able to avoid “open” decompression or fusion surgery.
Conclusions / Level of Evidence 3
The transforaminal endoscopic approach is effective for FBSS due to residual/recurrent HNP and lateral stenosis. Failed initial index surgery may involve failure to recognize patho-anatomy in the axilla of the foramen housing the traversing and the exiting nerve, including the DRG, which is located cephalad and near the tip of SAP.10 The transforaminal endoscopic approach effectively decompresses the foramen and does not further destabilize the spine needing stabilization.11 It also avoids going through the previous surgical site.
Clinical Relevance
Disc narrowing as a consequence of translaminar discectomy and progressive degenerative narrowing and spondylolisthesis (Figure 3) as a natural history of degenerative disc disease can lead to central and lateral stenosis. The MRI may underestimate the degree of stenosis from a bulging or a foraminal disc protrusion and residual lateral recess stenosis. Pain can be diagnosed and confirmed by evocative discography and by clinical response to transforaminal diagnostic and therapeutic steroid injections.12 Foraminal endoscopic decompression of the lateral recess is a MIS technique that does not “burn bridges” for a more conventional approach and it adds to the surgical armamentarium of FBSS.
Cadaver Illustration of Foraminal Stenosis (courtesy of Wolfgang Rauschning). As the disc narrows, the superior articular process impinges on the exiting nerve and DRG, creating lateral recess stenosis, lumbar spondylosis, and facet arthrosis.
doi:10.14444/1022
PMCID: PMC4325507
Failed Back Surgery Syndrome(FBSS); Hidden zone; Foraminal decompression; Recurrent herniation; Lateral stenosis; Foraminal osteophyte
7.  Clinical results of XMR-assisted percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy 
Background
Although percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) has shown favorable outcomes in the majority of lumbar discectomy cases, there were also some failures. The most common cause of failure is the incomplete removal of disc fragments. The skin entry point for the guide-needle trajectory and the optimal placement of the working sleeve are largely blind, which might lead to the inadequate removal of disc fragments. The objective of this study was to present our early experiences with image-guided PELD using a specially designed fluoroscope with magnetic resonance imaging-equipped operative suite (XMR) for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation.
Methods
This prospective study included 89 patients who had undergone PELD via the transforaminal approach using an XMR protocol. Pre- and postoperative examinations (at 12 weeks) included a detailed clinical history, visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), and radiological workups. The results were categorized as excellent, good, fair, and poor according to MacNab's criteria. At the final follow-up, the minimum follow-up time for the subjects was 2 years. The need for revision surgeries and postoperative complications were noted on follow-up.
Results
Postoperative mean ODI decreased from 67.4% to 5.61%. Mean VAS score for back and leg pain improved significantly from 4 to 2.3 and from 7.99 to 1.04, respectively. Four (4.49%) patients underwent a second-stage PELD after intraoperative XMR had shown remnant fragments after the first stage. As per MacNab's criteria, 76 patients (85.4%) showed excellent, 8 (8.89%) good, 3 (3.37%) fair, and 2 (2.25) poor results. Four (4.49%) patients had remnant disc fragments on XMR, which were removed during the same procedure. All of these patients had either highly migrated or sequestrated disc fragments preoperatively. Four (4.49%) other patients needed a second, open surgery due to symptomatic postoperative hematoma (n = 2) and recurrent disc herniation (n = 2).
Conclusions
This prospective analysis indicates that XMR-assisted PELD provides a precise skin entry point. It also confirms that decompression occurs intraoperatively, which negates the need for a separate surgery and thus increases the success rate of PELD, particularly in highly migrated or sequestrated discs. However, further extensive experience is required to confirm the advantages and feasibility of PELD in terms of cost effectiveness.
doi:10.1186/1749-799X-8-14
PMCID: PMC3668223  PMID: 23705685
Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy; Incomplete disc removal; XMR-guided procedure; High success rate
8.  Irrigation endoscopic discectomy: a novel percutaneous approach for lumbar disc prolapse 
European Spine Journal  2013;22(5):1037-1044.
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to present a new endoscopic procedure, aiming to achieve the success rate equivalent to microsurgical discectomy, while addressing the drawbacks and limitations of other percutaneous techniques.
Methods
A series of 43 patients with uncontained lumbar disc herniation underwent surgery with irrigation endoscopic discectomy (IED). The endoscope and instruments are placed directly over the surface of the lamina through two posterior skin portals 5 mm each without any muscle retraction or dilatation. Pump irrigation is used for the opening of a potential working space. The rest of the procedure is performed endoscopically like the standard microsurgical discectomy.
Results
Outcome according to modified Macnab criteria was excellent in 78 %, good in 17 %, and poor in 5 % of patients. VAS for leg pain dropped from 78 preoperatively to 7, and the Oswestry Low-Back Pain Disability Questionnaire dropped from 76 to 19. The mean time for postoperative ambulation was 4 h, hospital stay was 8 h, and for return to work was 7 days.
Conclusions
Preliminary clinical experience with IED shows it to be as effective as microsurgical discectomy, and in comparison to other percutaneous procedures addressing noncontained herniations, a reduction in the cost, technical difficulty and surgical invasiveness has been demonstrated.
doi:10.1007/s00586-013-2701-0
PMCID: PMC3657046  PMID: 23392557
Irrigation endoscopic discectomy; Endoscopic discectomy; Minimally invasive spine surgery; Lumbar discectomy; Percutaneous discectomy
9.  Endoscopic lumbar discectomy: Experience of first 100 cases 
Indian Journal of Orthopaedics  2010;44(2):184-190.
Background:
Various modalities of treatment from standard discectomy, microdiscectomy, percutaneous discectomy, and transforaminal endoscopic discectomy have been in use for lumbar intervertebral disc prolapse. The access to spine is kept to a minimum without stripping paraspinal muscles minimizing muscle damage by posterior interlaminar endoscopic approach. The aim of this study was to evaluate technical problems, complications, and overall initial results of microendoscopic discectomy.
Materials and Methods:
First 100 consecutive cases aged 19-65 years operated by microendoscopic dissectomy between August 2002 – December 2005 are reported. All patients with single nerve root lesions including sequestrated or migrated and selected central disc at L4-5 and L5-S1 were included. The patients with bilateral radiculopathy were excluded. All patients had preoperative MRI and first 11 patients had postoperative MRI to check the adequacy of decompression. Diagnostic selective nerve root blocks were done in selective cases to isolate the single root lesion when MRI was inconclusive (n=7). All patients were operated by a single surgeon with the Metrx system (Medtronics). 97 were operated by 18-mm ports, and only three patients were operated by 16-mm ports. Postoperatively, all patients were mobilized as soon as the pain subsided and discharged within 24–48 h postsurgery. Patients were evaluated for technical problems, complications, and overall results by modified Macnab criteria. Patients were followed up at 2, 6, and 12 weeks.
Results:
The mean follow up was 12 months (range 3 months – 4 years). Open conversion was required in one patient with suspected root damage. Peroperatively single facet removal was done in 5 initial cases. Minor dural punctures occurred in seven cases and root damage in one case. The average surgical time was 70 min (range 25-210 min). Average blood loss was 20-30 ml. Technical difficulties encountered in initial 25 cases were insertion of guide pin, image orientation, peroperative dissection and bleeding problems, and reaching wrong levels suggestive of a definitive learning curve. Postoperative MRI (n=11) showed complete decompression. Overall 91% of patients had good-to-excellent results, with four patients having recurrence of whom three were reoperated. Four patients had postoperative discitis. One of the patients required fusion for discitis and rest were managed conservatively. One patient had root damage to L5 root that had paresthesia in L5 region even on 4 years of follow-up.
Conclusion:
Microendoscopic discectomy is minimally invasive procedure for discectomy with early encouraging results. Once definite learning curve was over and expertise is acquired, the results of this procedure are acceptable safe and effective.
doi:10.4103/0019-5413.62051
PMCID: PMC2856394  PMID: 20419006
Lumbar discectomy; microendo system; endoscopic lumbar discectomy
10.  Effectiveness of percutaneous laser disc decompression versus conventional open discectomy in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation; design of a prospective randomized controlled trial 
Background
The usual surgical treatment of refractory sciatica caused by lumbar disc herniation, is open discectomy. Minimally invasive procedures, including percutaneous therapies under local anesthesia, are increasingly gaining attention. One of these treatments is Percutaneous Laser Disc Decompression (PLDD). This treatment can be carried out in an outpatient setting and swift recovery and return to daily routine are suggested. Thus far, no randomized trial into cost-effectiveness of PLDD versus standard surgical procedure has been performed. We present the design of a randomized controlled trial, studying the cost-effectiveness of PLDD versus conventional open discectomy in patients with sciatica from lumbar disc herniation.
Methods/design
The study is a randomized prospective multi-center trial, in which two treatment strategies are compared in a parallel group design. Patients (age 18–70 years) visiting the neurosurgery department of the participating hospitals, are considered for inclusion in the trial when sciatica due to lumbar disc herniation has lasted more than 8 weeks. Patients with disc herniation smaller than 1/3 of the spinal canal diameter, without concomitant lateral recess stenosis or sequestration, are eligible for participation, and are randomized into one of two treatment arms; either Percutaneous Laser Disc Decompression or conventional discectomy. The functional outcome of the patient, as assessed by the Roland Disability Questionnaire for Sciatica at 8 weeks and 1 year after treatment, is the primary outcome measure. The secondary outcome parameters are recovery as perceived by the patient, leg and back pain, incidence of re-intervention, complications, quality of life, medical consumption, absence of work and secondary costs.
Discussion
Open discectomy is still considered to be the golden standard in the surgical treatment of lumbar disc herniation. Whether Percutaneous Laser Disc Decompression has at least as much efficacy as the standard surgical procedure, and is more cost-effective, will be determined by this trial.
Trial registration
Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN25884790.
doi:10.1186/1471-2474-10-49
PMCID: PMC2697136  PMID: 19439098
11.  Cost-effectiveness of microendoscopic discectomy versus conventional open discectomy in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation: a prospective randomised controlled trial [ISRCTN51857546] 
Background
Open discectomy is the standard surgical procedure in the treatment of patients with long-lasting sciatica caused by lumbar disc herniation. Minimally invasive approaches such as microendoscopic discectomy have gained attention in recent years. Reduced tissue trauma allows early ambulation, short hospital stay and quick resumption of daily activities. A comparative cost-effectiveness study has not been performed yet. We present the design of a randomised controlled trial on cost-effectiveness of microendoscopic discectomy versus conventional open discectomy in patients with lumbar disc herniation.
Methods/Design
Patients (age 18–70 years) presenting with sciatica due to lumbar disc herniation lasting more than 6–8 weeks are included. Patients with disc herniation larger than 1/3 of the spinal canal diameter, or disc herniation less than 1/3 of the spinal canal diameter with concomitant lateral recess stenosis or sequestration, are eliglible for participation. Randomisation into microendoscopic discectomy or conventional unilateral transflaval discectomy will take place in the operating room after induction of anesthesia. The length of skin incision is equal in both groups. The primary outcome measure is the functional assessment of the patient, measured by the Roland Disability Questionnaire for Sciatica, at 8 weeks and 1 year after surgery. We will also evaluate several other outcome parameters, including perceived recovery, leg and back pain, incidence of re-operations, complications, serum creatine kinase, quality of life, medical consumption, absenteeism and costs. The study is a randomised prospective multi-institutional trial, in which two surgical techniques are compared in a parallel group design. Patients and research nurses are kept blinded of the allocated treatment during the follow-up period of 2 years.
Discussion
Currently, open discectomy is the golden standard in the surgical treatment of lumbar disc herniation. Whether microendoscopic discectomy is more cost-effective than unilateral transflaval discectomy has to be determined by this trial.
doi:10.1186/1471-2474-7-42
PMCID: PMC1475863  PMID: 16696861
12.  Higher risk of dural tears and recurrent herniation with lumbar micro-endoscopic discectomy 
European Spine Journal  2010;19(3):443-450.
Existing studies on micro-endoscopic lumbar discectomy report similar outcomes to those of open and microdiscectomy and conflicting results on complications. We designed a randomised controlled trial to investigate the hypothesis of different outcomes and complications obtainable with the three techniques. 240 patients aged 18–65 years affected by posterior lumbar disc herniation and symptoms lasting over 6 weeks of conservative management were randomised to micro-endoscopic (group 1), micro (group 2) or open (group 3) discectomy. Exclusion criteria were less than 6 weeks of pain duration, cauda equina compromise, foraminal or extra-foraminal herniations, spinal stenosis, malignancy, previous spinal surgery, spinal deformity, concurrent infection and rheumatic disease. Surgery and follow-up were made at a single Institution. A biomedical researcher independently collected and reviewed the data. ODI, back and leg VAS and SF-36 were the outcome measures used preoperatively, postoperatively and at 6-, 12- and 24-month follow-up. 212/240 (91%) patients completed the 24-month follow-up period. VAS back and leg, ODI and SF36 scores showed clinically and statistically significant improvements within groups without significant difference among groups throughout follow-up. Dural tears, root injuries and recurrent herniations were significantly more common in group 1. Wound infections were similar in group 2 and 3, but did not affect patients in group 1. Overall costs were significantly higher in group 1 and lower in group 3. In conclusion, outcome measures are equivalent 2 years following lumbar discectomy with micro-endoscopy, microscopy or open technique, but severe complications are more likely and costs higher with micro-endoscopy.
doi:10.1007/s00586-010-1290-4
PMCID: PMC2899770  PMID: 20127495
Lumbar disc herniation; Discectomy; Microdiscectomy; Micro-endoscopic discectomy
13.  Comparison of Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy and Open Lumbar Microdiscectomy for Recurrent Disc Herniation 
Objective
The purpose of this study was to compare clinical and radiological outcomes of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) and open lumbar microdiscectomy (OLM) for recurrent disc herniation.
Methods
Fifty-four patients, who underwent surgery, either PELD (25 patients) or repeated OLM (29 patients), due to recurrent disc herniation at L4-5 level, were divided into two groups according to the surgical methods. Excluded were patients with sequestrated disc, calcified disc, severe neurological deficit, or instability. Clinical outcomes were assessed using Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Radiological variables were assessed using plain radiography and/or magnetic resonance imaging.
Results
Mean operating time and hospital stay were significantly shorter in PELD group (45.8 minutes and 0.9 day, respectively) than OLM group (73.8 minutes and 3.8 days, respectively) (p < 0.001). Complications occurred in 4% in PELD group and 10.3% in OLM group in the perioperative period. At a mean follow-up duration of 34.2 months, the mean improvements of back pain, leg pain, and functional improvement were 4.0, 5.5, and 40.9% for PELD group and 2.3, 5.1, and 45.0% for OLM group, respectively. Second recurrence occurred in 4% after PELD and 10.3% after OLM. Disc height did not change after PELD, but significantly decreased after OLM (p = 0.0001). Neither sagittal rotation angle nor volume of multifidus muscle changed significantly in both groups.
Conclusion
Both PELD and repeated OLM showed favorable outcomes for recurrent disc herniation, but PELD had advantages in terms of shorter operating time, hospital stay, and disc height preservation.
doi:10.3340/jkns.2009.46.6.515
PMCID: PMC2803265  PMID: 20062565
Reherniation; Discectomy; Lumbar spine
14.  Endoscopic transforaminal decompression, interbody fusion, and percutaneous pedicle screw implantation of the lumbar spine: A case series report 
Background
On the basis of the experiences gained from conventional open spinal procedures, a long list of desirable objectives have emerged with the evolution of the lesser invasive spinal procedures. At the top of that list is the desire to minimize the trauma of surgery. The rest of the objectives, which include reductions of operating time, surgical blood loss, hospital stay, postoperative narcotic medication, convalescence, complication rates, and escalating health care costs, as well as the desire of elderly patients to continue rigorous physical activities, largely depend on the ability to minimize the trauma of surgery. The purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility of the least invasive lumbar decompression, interbody fusion and percutaneous pedicle screw implantation, to minimize surgical trauma without compromising the quality of the treatment outcome, as well as to minimize risk of complications.
Methods
In this case series, 60 patients with diagnoses of degenerative disc disease, degenerative motion segments with stenosis, and spondylolisthesis, in whom nonoperative treatments failed, were treated with endoscopic transforaminal decompression and interbody fusion by 1 surgeon in 2 centers. The outcome measures were as follows: operating time, intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain, scores on the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, and postoperative imaging studies. A consecutive series of patients who met the treatment criteria completed VAS forms and Roland-Morris questionnaires preoperatively. Surgical procedures included arthroscopic decompression of the foramina and the discs; endplate preparation and implantation of allograft bone chips and bone morphogenetic protein 2 on absorbable collagen sponge into the disc space; and percutaneous implantation of pedicle screws. Postoperatively, the patients again completed the VAS forms and Roland-Morris questionnaires. Their charts were reviewed for office notes, operative notes, hospital stay, medications, and imaging studies. The latest X-ray and computed tomography scan films were reviewed and analyzed. Patients were followed up for a minimum of 6 months. The literature was reviewed for comparison of outcomes.
Results
Sixty patients met the inclusion criteria. The mean age was 52.8 years. The duration of illness averaged 5 years. Follow-up ranged from 6 to 25 months, with a mean of 12 months. Preoperative diagnoses included degenerative disc disease, degenerative motion segments with stenosis, and spondylolisthesis. The mean time in the operating room was 2 hours 54 minutes. Estimated blood loss averaged 57.6 mL. The duration of the hospital stay averaged 2.6 days. Preoperative back pain and leg pain were significantly reduced (P < .005). Forty-seven imaging studies obtained at the last visit, including X-ray and computed tomography scans, showed solid fusion in 28 patients (59.6%), stable fixation in 17 (36.2%), and osteolysis around the pedicle screws in 2 (4.2%). All patients had improvement of motor function, whereas 2 patients complained of residual numbness. In addition, 8 patients (13%) complained of residual discomfort on extension of the lumbar spine. Two patients had pedicle screw–related complications requiring surgery. A review of the literature showed that endoscopic transforaminal decompression and interbody fusion performed better than open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion/posterior lumbar interbody fusion, minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, and extreme lateral lumbar interbody fusion, with regard to most parameters studied.
Conclusions
The endoscopic transforaminal lumbar decompression, interbody fusion, and percutaneous pedicle screw instrumentation consistently produced satisfactory results in all demographics. It performed better than the alternative procedures for most parameters studied.
doi:10.1016/j.ijsp.2012.04.001
PMCID: PMC4300894
ETDIF; Arthroscopic; Posterolateral; Interbody; Percutaneous; BMP-2
15.  Microendoscopic lumbar discectomy: Technique and results of 188 cases 
Indian Journal of Orthopaedics  2014;48(1):81-87.
Background:
Discectomy performed open or with an operating microscope remains the standard surgical management. Tubular retractor system is being increasingly used. Potential benefits include less muscle and local damage, better cosmesis, decreased pain and operative time and faster recovery after surgery. We have evaluated the outcome of micro endoscopic discectomy (MED) utilizing tubular retractors in terms of safety and efficacy of the technique.
Materials and Methods:
188 consecutive patients who underwent surgery for herniated disc using the tubular retractors between April 2007 and April 2012 are reported. All patients had a preoperative MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) and were operated by a single surgeon with the METRx system (Medtronic, Sofamor-Danek, Memphis, TN) using 18 and 16 mm ports. All patients were mobilized as soon as pain subsided and discharged within 24-48 hours post surgery. The results were evaluated by using VAS (Visual Analog Scale 0-5) for back and leg pain and ODI (Oswestry Disability Index). Patients were followed up at intervals of 1 week, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months and 2 years.
Results:
The mean age of patients was 46 years (range 16-78 years) and the sex ratio was 1.5 males to 1 female. The mean followup was 22 months (range 8-69 months). The mean VAS scale for leg pain improved from 4.14 to 0.76 (P < 0.05) and the mean VAS scale for back pain improved from 4.1 to 0.9 (P < 0.05). The mean ODI changed from 59.5 to 22.6 (P < 0.05). The mean operative time per level was about 50 minutes (range 20-90 minutes). Dural punctures occurred in 11 (5%) cases. Average blood loss was 30 ml (range 10-500 ml). A wrong level was identified and later corrected in a case of revision discectomy. Four patients with residual disc-herniation had revision MED and three patients with recurrent disc herniation later underwent fusion. One patient had wound infection which needed a debridement.
Conclusion:
MED for herniated discs effectively achieves the goals of surgery with minimal access. The advantages of the procedure are cosmesis, early postoperative recovery and minimal postoperative morbidity.
doi:10.4103/0019-5413.125511
PMCID: PMC3931158  PMID: 24600068
Herniated nucleus pulposus (HNP); micro endoscopic discectomy; minimal invasive spine surgery
16.  Recurrent lumbar disc herniation: A prospective comparative study of three surgical management procedures 
Asian Journal of Neurosurgery  2013;8(3):139-146.
Context:
The optimal surgical treatment of recurrent lumbar disc herniation is controversial.
Aim:
To compare prospectively the clinical outcomes of surgical treatment of recurrent lumbar disc herniation by three different methods; discectomy alone, discectomy with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), and diecectomy with posterolateral fusion (PLF), regardless of the postoperative radiological findings.
Study Design:
This is a prospective, randomized, comparative study.
Materials and Methods:
This is a prospective, randomized, comparative study on 45 patients with first time recurrent lumbar disc herniation. Patients were evaluated clinically by using the criteria of the Japanese Orthopedic Association's evaluation system for low back pain syndrome (JOA score). The patients were classified into three groups: Group A; patients who had revision discectomy alone, group B; patients who had revision discectomy with TLIF, and group C; patients who had revision discectomy with PLF. The mean follow-up period was 37 (±7.85 STD) months.
Results:
The mean overall recovery rate was 87.2% (±19.26 STD) and the satisfactory rate was 88.9%. Comparison between the three groups showed no significant difference with regard to the mean total postoperative JOA score, recovery rate, and satisfactory rate. However, the postoperative low back pain was significantly higher in group A than that of group B and C. Two patients in group A required further revision surgery. The incidences of dural tear and postoperative neurological deficit were higher in group A. The intraoperative blood loss and length of operation were significantly less in group A. The total cost of the procedure was significantly different between the three groups, being least in group A and highest in group B. There was no significant difference between the three groups with regard to the length of postoperative hospital stay.
Conclusion:
Revision discectomy is effective in patients with recurrent lumbar disc herniation. Fusion with revision discectomy improves the postoperative low back pain, decreases the intraoperative risk of dural tear or neural damage and decreases the postoperative incidence of mechanical instability or re-recurrence. TLIF and PLF have comparable results when used with revision discectomy, but PLF has significantly less total cost than TLIF.
doi:10.4103/1793-5482.121685
PMCID: PMC3877500  PMID: 24403956
Anterior lumbar interbody fusion; posterior lumbar interbody fusion; posterolateral fusion; recurrent lumbar disc herniation; transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
17.  Case report: The operation for the lumbar disk herniation just after cesarean delivery in the third trimester of pregnancy 
Highlights
•We suggest treatment strategy for a pregnant woman with lumber disk herniation.•The discectomy was performed just after cesarean delivery in the third trimester.•There were not any complications with mother and baby after operation.•It is necessary to cooperate with a pediatrician, an obstetrician, and an anesthesiologist.•It is important to discuss in advance to be able to respond quickly for changeable situation.
INTRODUCTION
Low back pain is common during pregnancy. However, the incidence of symptomatic lumbar disc herniation during pregnancy is very rare. We report a case of lumbar disc herniation underwent discectomy just after cesarean delivery in the third trimester of pregnancy.
PRESENTATION OF CASE
A 33-year-old woman presented at 32 weeks gestation. She had a low back pain and the left-sided leg pain below the knee. At 34 weeks gestation, she had severe weakness of the left extension halluces longus, left ankle dorsiflexion. MRI showed a large disc herniation at L4/5 expanded to the spinal canal more. The cesarean delivery was performed in the supine position. The patient was then turned to a prone position, and a left L4/5 discectomy was performed. But the day after surgery, she had a severe low back pain and the right leg pain below the knee. MRI showed a disc herniation at L4/5 on the right side of the spinal canal. At 6 days after the first surgery, a right L4/5 discectomy was performed. In the immediate postoperative period, the patient experienced complete relief of the right leg pain.
DISCUSSION
It is necessary to cooperate with a pediatrician, an obstetrician, and an anethesiologists. For obtaining the best outcome on mother and child, it is important to discuss in advance to be able to respond quickly for changeable situation.
CONCLUSION
It is necessary to conduct the operation under pregnancy in consideration of the great influence on mother and child.
doi:10.1016/j.ijscr.2014.10.055
PMCID: PMC4275852  PMID: 25437670
Lumbar disk herniation; Cesarean delivery; Trimester of pregnancy; Discectomy; Supine position; Prone position
18.  Clinical Outcomes of Percutaneous Endoscopic Surgery for Lumbar Discal Cyst 
Objective
Discal cyst is rare and causes indistinguishable symptoms from lumbar disc herniation. The clinical manifestations and pathological features of discal cyst have not yet been completely known. Discal cyst has been treated with surgery or with direct intervention such as computed tomography (CT) guided aspiration and steroid injection. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the percutaneous endoscopic surgery for lumbar discal cyst over at least 6 months follow-up.
Methods
All 8 cases of discal cyst with radiculopathy were treated by percutaneous endoscopic surgery by transforaminal approach. The involved levels include L5-S1 in 1 patient, L3-4 in 2, and L4-5 in 5. The preoperative magnetic resonance imaging and 3-dimensional CT with discogram images in all cases showed a connection between the cyst and the involved intervertebral disc. Over a 6-months period, self-reported measures were assessed using an outcome questionaire that incorporated total back-related medical resource utilization and improvement of leg pain [visual analogue scale (VAS) and Macnab's criteria].
Results
All 8 patients underwent endoscopic excision of the cyst with additional partial discectomy. Seven patients obtained immediate relief of symptoms after removal of the cyst by endoscopic approach. There were no recurrent lesions during follow-up period. The mean preoperative VAS for leg pain was 8.25±0.5. At the last examination followed longer than 6 month, the mean VAS for leg pain was 2.25±2.21. According to MacNab' criteria, 4 patients (50%) had excellent results, 3 patients (37.5%) had good results; thus, satisfactory results were achieved in 7 patients (87.5%). However, one case had unsatisfactory result with persistent leg pain and another paresthesia.
Conclusion
The radicular symptoms were remarkably improved in most patients immediately after percutaneous endoscopic cystectomy by transforaminal approach.
doi:10.3340/jkns.2012.51.4.208
PMCID: PMC3377877  PMID: 22737300
Lumbar discal cyst; Percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal cystectomy
19.  Retrolisthesis and Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Pre-operative Assessment of Patient Function 
BACKGROUND CONTEXT
Retrolisthesis is relatively rare but when present has been associated with increased back pain and impaired back function. Neither the prevalence of this condition in individuals with lumbar disc herniations nor its possible relation to pre-operative back pain and dysfunction has been well studied.
PURPOSE
The purposes of this study were as follows: 1) to determine the prevalence of retrolisthesis (alone or in combination with other degenerative conditions) in individuals with confirmed L5 – S1 disc herniation who later underwent lumbar discectomy; 2) to determine if there is any association between retrolisthesis and degenerative changes within the same vertebral motion segment; and 3) to determine the relation between retrolisthesis (alone or in combination with other degenerative conditions) and pre-operative low back pain, physical function, and quality of life.
STUDY DESIGN/SETTING
Cross-sectional study.
PATIENT SAMPLE
A total of 125 individuals were identified for incorporation into this study. All patients had confirmed L5-S1 disc herniation on MRI and later underwent L5-S1 discectomy. All patients were enrolled in the SPORT (Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial) study; data was obtained from the multi-institutional database comprised of SPORT patients from across the United States.
OUTCOME MEASURES
Retrolisthesis, Degenerative change on MRI, Modic Changes.
METHODS
MRI scans of the lumbar spine were assessed at spinal level L5–S1 for all 125 patients. Retrolisthesis was defined as posterior subluxation of 8% or more. Disc degeneration was defined as any loss of disc signal on T2 imaging. Modic changes were graded 1 – 3 and collectively classified as vertebral endplate degenerative changes. The presence of facet arthropathy and ligamentum flavum hypertrophy were classified jointly as posterior degenerative changes.
RESULTS
The overall incidence of retrolisthesis at L5-S1 in our study was 23.2%. Retrolisthesis combined with posterior degenerative changes, degenerative disc disease, or vertebral endplate changes had incidences of 4.8%, 16%, and 4.8% respectively. The prevalence of retrolisthesis did not vary by sex, age, race, smoking status, or education level when compared to individuals with normal sagittal alignment. However, individuals with retrolisthesis were more likely to be receiving worker compensation than those without retrolisthesis. Increased age was found to be associated with individuals having vertebral endplate degenerative changes (both alone and in conjunction with retrolisthesis) and degenerative disc disease. Individuals who had retrolisthesis with concomitant vertebral endplate degenerative changes were more often smokers and had no insurance. The presence of retrolisthesis was not associated with an increased incidence of having degenerative disc disease, posterior degenerative changes, or vertebral endplate changes. No statistical significance was found between the presence of retrolisthesis on the degree of patient pre-operative low back pain and physical function. Patients with degenerative disc disease were found to have increased leg pain compared to those patients without degenerative disc changes.
CONCLUSIONS
We found no significant relationship between retrolisthesis in patients with L5-S1 disc herniation and worse baseline pain or function. It is possible that the contribution of pain or dysfunction related to retrolisthesis was far overshadowed by the presence of symptoms due to the concomitant disc herniation. It remains to be seen whether retrolisthesis will affect outcome following discectomy in these patients.
doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2006.08.011
PMCID: PMC2278018  PMID: 17630138
Retrolisthesis; Pre-operative; Lumbar Discectomy; Lumbar Disc Herniation; Back pain; Physical function; Degenerative Lumbar Disease
20.  Full-endoscopic interlaminar removal of chronic lumbar epidural hematoma after spinal manipulation 
Background:
Spinal manipulation is widely used for low back pain treatments. Complications associated with spinal manipulation are seen. Lumbar epidural hematoma (EDH) is one of the complications reported in the literature. If lumbar chronic EDH symptoms are present, which are similar to those of a herniated nucleus pulposus, surgery may be considered if medical treatment fails. Percutaneous endoscopic discectomy utilizing an interlaminar approach can be successfully applied to those with herniated nucleus pulposus. We use the same technique to remove the lumbar chronic EDH, which is the first documented report in the related literature.
Methods:
We present a case with chronic lumbar EDH associated with spinal manipulation. Neurologic deficits were noted on physical examination. We arranged for a full-endoscopic interlaminar approach to remove the hematoma for the patient with the rigid endoscopy (Vertebris system; Richard Wolf, Knittlingen, Germany).
Results:
After surgery, the patient's radiculopathy immediately began to disappear. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) follow-up 10 days after the surgery revealed no residual hematoma. No complications were noted during the outpatient department follow up.
Conclusions:
Lumbar EDH is a possible complication of spinal manipulation. Patient experiencing rapidly progressive neurologic deficit require early surgical evacuation, while conservative treatment may only be applied to those with mild symptoms. A percutaneous full-endoscopic interlaminar approach may be a viable alternative for the treatment of those with chronic EDH with progressive neurologic deficits.
doi:10.4103/2152-7806.131106
PMCID: PMC4033759  PMID: 24872917
Chronic epidural hematoma; endoscopic; interlaminar; lumbar; spinal manipulation
21.  Computed tomographic analysis of the quality of trunk muscles in asymptomatic and symptomatic lumbar discectomy patients 
Background
No consensus exists on how rehabilitation programs for lumbar discectomy patients with persistent complaints after surgery should be composed. A better understanding of normal and abnormal postoperative trunk muscle condition might help direct the treatment goals.
Methods
A three-dimensional CT scan of the lumbar spine was obtained in 18 symptomatic and 18 asymptomatic patients who had undergone a lumbar discectomy 42 months to 83 months (median 63 months) previously. The psoas muscle (PS), the paraspinal muscle mass (PA) and the multifidus muscle (MF) were outlined at the L3, L4 and L5 level. Of these muscles, fat free Cross Sectional Area (CSA) and fat CSA were determined. CSA of the lumbar erector spinae (LES = longissimus thoracis + iliocostalis lumborum) was calculated by subtracting MF CSA from PA CSA. Mean muscle CSA of the left and right sides was calculated at each level. To normalize the data for interpersonal comparison, the mean CSA was divided by the CSA of the L3 vertebral body (mCSA = normalized fat-free muscle CSA; fCSA = normalized fat CSA). Differences in CSA between the pain group and the pain free group were examined using a General Linear Model (GLM). Three levels were examined to investigate the possible role of the level of operation.
Results
In lumbar discectomy patients with pain, the mCSA of the MF was significantly smaller than in pain-free subjects (p = 0.009) independently of the level. The mCSA of the LES was significantly smaller in pain patients, but only on the L3 slice (p = 0.018). No significant difference in mCSA of the PS was found between pain patients and pain-free patients (p = 0.462). The fCSA of the MF (p = 0.186) and of the LES (p = 0.256) were not significantly different between both populations. However, the fCSA of the PS was significantly larger in pain patients than in pain-free patients. (p = 0.012).
The level of operation was never a significant factor.
Conclusions
CT comparison of MF, LES and PS muscle condition between lumbar discectomy patients without pain and patients with protracted postoperative pain showed a smaller fat-free muscle CSA of the MF at all levels examined, a smaller fat- free muscle CSA of the LES at the L3 level, and more fat in the PS in patients with pain. The level of operation was not found to be of importance. The present results suggest a general lumbar muscle dysfunction in the pain group, in particular of the deep stabilizing muscle system.
doi:10.1186/1471-2474-12-65
PMCID: PMC3079706  PMID: 21453531
22.  Treatment outcomes of 130 patients underwent an endoscopic discectomy 
Journal of Injury and Violence Research  2012;4(3 Suppl 1): Paper No. 34.
Abstract:
Background:
Endoscopic discectomy method is a novel technique that is increasingly used in spine surgery. Previous studies have reported that some common complications like dural adhesions are lower in this technique compared with the other techniques. Furthermore, treatment outcomes are reportedly higher because of minimal invasion. Thepresent study aims to determine the outcome of percutaneous endoscopic discectomy.
Methods:
A total of 130 patients underwent the lumbar disc prolapse operations during 2008 to 2012 in all of them the entire procedure was performed endoscopically. All procedures were carried out from a posterior approach using a 4-mm Hopkins 0 degrees-telescope placed in the working insert equipped with channels for suction tube, operative instruments and nerve root retractor (ENDOSPINE instrumentation (Karl STORZ GmbH and Co. KG). The pre- and post-operation pain was assessed using a Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Furthermore, the treatment outcome was assessed using modified MacNab criteria before operation, 24 hours, one month, 2 months, 6 months, one year, and two years after operation .
Results:
Good to excellent outcome was achieved in 89% of patients, which is comparable with the results of classic microdiscectomy. The mean age of patients was 35.6 years old and the mean length of follow-up was 3.4 years. There was significant reduction in the severity of back pain and lower limb symptoms at 6 months and 2 years post-operation. There was significant improvement in all aspects of the Quality of Life scores at 6 months and 2 years post-operation. In 3 patients the dural sac was lacerated but none of the tears was exceed a few mm in length with not association with neural injury.
Conclusions:
Findings of this study showed that percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy is associated with improvement in back pain and lower limb symptoms. It has the advantage that it can be performed on a day case basis with short length of hospitalization and early return to work thus improving quality of life earlier.
Keywords:
Endoscopic discectomy, Spine surgery, Lumbar disc prolapse operation, Outcome
PMCID: PMC3571560
23.  A systematic review of randomised clinical trials using posterior discectomy to treat lumbar disc herniations 
International Orthopaedics  2008;33(1):11-17.
The focus of this study was to examine the safety and effectiveness of three different discectomy techniques using a posterior approach for the treatment of herniated lumbar discs. There are only a small number of prospective randomised studies comparing posterior lumbar discectomy techniques, and no recent systematic review has been published on this matter. Using the Cochrane Collaboration guidelines, all randomised or “quasi-randomised” clinical trials, comparing classic, microsurgical, and endoscopic lumbar discectomies using a posterior approach were systematically reviewed. No statistically significant differences were found between these techniques regarding improvement in pain, sensory deficits, motor strength, reflexes, and patient satisfaction. Current data suggest that the microsurgical and endoscopic techniques are superior to the classic technique for the treatment of single level lumbar disc herniations with respect to volume of blood loss, systemic repercussions, and duration of hospital stay. All three surgical techniques were found to be effective for the treatment of single level lumbar disc herniations in patients without degenerative vertebral deformities. No conclusions could be drawn from the clinical randomised studies reviewed regarding the safety of the three techniques studied due to insufficient data on postoperative complications.
doi:10.1007/s00264-008-0559-2
PMCID: PMC2899205  PMID: 18500517
24.  Persian Discectomy Successful Score (PDSS): a new evaluation measure for scoring successful surgery in lumbar disc herniation 
Journal of Injury and Violence Research  2012;4(3 Suppl 1): Paper No. 24.
Abstract:
Background:
Lumbar disc herniation (LDH) is a common cause of low back and radicular leg pains. This study aimed to evaluate the Persian Discectomy Successful Score (PDSS) in patients diagnosed with lumbar disc herniation undergoing discectomy. The PDSS first was developed based on the JOA score. It is a linear transformation of patients’ pre-operative JOA score that can predict the successful rate of surgery outcome in advance (PDSS= -1.036 × preoperative JOA + 23.635).
Methods:
A total of 103 patients with lumbar disc herniation submitted for discectomy operation were entered into the study during two years of study. A sensitivity analysis was carried out to examine the accuracy of the PDSS. For the analysis of the results, patients’ pre- and post-operative JOA score was used as gold standard to calculate the actual difference observed (JOA pre-operation minus JOA post-operation = DJOA) and to compare this measure (difference) with estimation derived from the PDSS.
Results:
The mean age of patients was 47.4 ± 9.7 (ranging from 17 to 79) years and were followed for at least three months. The difference between pre and postoperative JOA score (15.4 ± 3.7) was statistically significant (P less than 0.0001). The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of the PDSS was 93.87%, 80%, and 93.2%, respectively. The PDSS had a positive predictive value of 98.9% and a negative predictive value of 40%.
Conclusions:
It seems that the preoperative JOA is able to predict discectomy results in patients with lumbar disc herniation. To confirm the findings of this study, a longitudinal study is recommended.
Keywords:
Discectomy Successful, lumbar disc herniation, Evaluation measure
PMCID: PMC3571550
25.  Comparison of postural control in unilateral stance between healthy controls and lumbar discectomy patients with and without pain 
European Spine Journal  2005;15(4):423-432.
Main problem: Previous studies have demonstrated that sciatica patients have poorer postural control than healthy controls and that postural control remains unchanged 3 months after lumbar discectomy in sciatica patients. The aims of the current study were to investigate whether static balance control recovers in pain-free discectomy patients long-term after lumbar discectomy. Next is to determine whether static balance responses of asymptomatic and symptomatic lumbar discectomy patients differed from each other and from healthy controls. In addition, the influence of the extent of disc resection (unilateral/bilateral removal) and the side of operation on static balance control were investigated. Methods: Fifteen pain-free lumbar discectomy patients, 23 lumbar discectomy patients with residual pain and 72 controls performed unilateral stance tasks with eyes open and eyes closed on a force plate were taken up for the investigation. Three repetitions of a 10 s unilateral stance test were performed on each leg. Postural sway was determined. Patients were divided into three age groups. Results: In the eyes open condition, there was no significant difference between postural sway of pain-free lumbar discectomy patients and controls (P=0.68), whereas balance of patients with pain was significantly worse than in controls (P=0.003). In the eyes closed condition, the sway in both groups of lumbar discectomy patients was significantly worse than in controls (pain-free P=0.009/painful P<0.001). No significant differences were found in postural sway between patients with unilateral and bilateral disc resection. In unilateral stance on the leg of the operated side, centre of gravity sway was not significantly different in the eyes open condition compared to the eyes closed condition, whereas in stance on the leg of the non-operated side, postural sway was significantly lower in the eyes open condition compared to the eyes closed condition. In both conditions, postural sway in the age group of 50–65 years was significantly higher than in the age groups of 30–39 years (eyes open P=0.005; eyes closed P<0.001) and 40–49 years (eyes open P=0.002; eyes closed P=0.006). There was no significant difference between the age group of 30–39 years and the age group of 40–49 years (P=0.51). Conclusion: As for long-term following lumbar discectomy, there is no complete recovery of postural control. Patients seem to develop visual compensation mechanisms for underlying sensory–motor deficits, which are, however, sufficient in case of pain relief only. Further study is needed to determine the cause of the balance disturbances in lumbar discectomy patients.
doi:10.1007/s00586-005-1013-4
PMCID: PMC3489320  PMID: 16133081
Postural control; Unilateral stance; Lumbar discectomy; Visual compensation

Results 1-25 (730833)