Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Endoscopic lumbar discectomy: Experience of first 100 cases

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Indian Journal of Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mixter WJ, Barr JS. Rupture of the intervertebral disc with involvement of the spinal canal. N Engl J Med 1934;211:210–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Chedid KJ, Chedid MK. The tract of history in the treatment of lumbar degenerative disc disease. Neurosurg Focus 2004;16:E7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Smith L, Brown JE. Treatment of lumbar intervertebral disc lesion by direct injection of chymopapain. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1967;49:502–19.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Hijikata S. Percutaneous nucleotomy: A new concept technique and 12 years’ experience. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1989;238:9–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Onik G, Helms CA, Ginsberg L, Hoaglund FT, Morris J. Percutaneous lumbar diskectomy using a new aspiration probe. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1985;144:1137–40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Choy DS, Ascher PW, Ranu HS, Saddekni S, Alkaitis D, Leibler W, et al.. Percutaneous laser disc decompressions: A new therapeutic modality. Spine 1992;17:949–56.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Schreiber A, Suezawa Y. Transdiscoscopic percutaneous nucleotomy in disc hemiation. Orthop Rev 1986;15:75.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Yasargil MG. Microsurgical operation for herniated lumbar disc. In: Wullenweber R, Brock M, Hamer J, Klinger M, Spoerri O, editors. Advances in neurosurgery. Springer-Verlag: Berlin; 1977. p. 81.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Caspar W. A new surgical procedure for lumbar disc herniation causing less tissue damage through microsurgical approach. In: Wullenweber R, Brock M, Hamer J, Klinger M, Spoerri O, editors. Advances in neurosurgery. Springer-Verlag: Berlin; 1977. p. 74–7.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Williams RW. Microlumbar discectomy: A conservative surgical approach to the virgin herniated lumbar disc. Spine 1978;3:175–82.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Foley KT, Smith MM. Microendoscopic discectomy. Tech Neurosurg 1997;3:301–7.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Yorimitsu E, Chiba K, Toyama Y, Hirabayashi K. Long-term outcomes of standard discectomy for lumbar disc herniation: A follow-up study of more than 10 years. Spine 2001;26:652–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Loupasis GA, Stamos K, Katonis PG, Sapkas G, Korres DS, Hartofilakidis G. Seven-to 20-year outcome of lumbar discectomy. Spine 1999;24:2313.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Gibson JN, Waddell G. Surgical interventions for lumbar disc prolapse updated cochrane review. Spine 2007;32:1735–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Mariconda M, Galasso, Beneduce T, Volpicelli R, Della Rotonda G, Secondulfo V, et al.. Minimum 25 yr. outcome of standard discectomy for lumbar disc herniation. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2006;88:Supp I. 152–3

    Google Scholar 

  16. Toyone T, Tanaka T, Kato D, Kaneyama R. Low-back pain following surgery for lumbar disc herniation: A prospective study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004;86:893–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Findlay GF, Hall BI, Musa BS, Oliveira MD, Fear SC. A 10-year follow-up of the outcome of lumbar microdiscectomy. Spine 1998;23:1168–71.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Koebbe CJ, Maroon JC, Abla A, El-Kadi H, Bost J. Lumbar microdiscectomy: A historical perspective and current technical considerations. Neurosurg Focus 2002;13:E3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Maroon JC. Current concepts in minimally invasive discectomy. Neurosurgery 2002;51:S137–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Katayama Y, Matsuyama Y, Yoshihara H, Sakai Y, Nakamura H, Nakashima S, et al.. Comparison of surgical outcomes between macro discectomy and micro discectomy for lumbar disc herniation: A prospective randomized study with surgery performed by the same spine surgeon. J Spinal Disord Tech 2006;19:344–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Perez-Cruet MJ, Foley KT, Isaacs RE, Rice-Wyllie L, Wellington R, Smith MM, et al.. Microendoscopic lumbar discectomy: Technical note. Neurosurgery 2002;51:S129–36.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Palmer S. Use of a tubular retractor system in microscopic lumbar discectomy: 1 year prospective results in 135 patients. Neurosurg Focus 2002;13:E5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Brayda-Bruno M, Cinnella P. Posterior endoscopic discectomy (and other procedures). Eur Spine J 2000;9:S24–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ranjan A, Lath R. Microendoscopic discectomy for prolapsed lumbar intervertebral disc. Neurol India 2006;54:190–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Wu X, Zhuang S, Mao Z, Chen H. Microendoscopic discectomy for lumbar disc herniation: Surgical technique and outcome in 873 consecutive cases. Spine 2006;31:2689–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Schizas C, Tsiridis E, Saksena J. Microendoscopic discectomy compared with standard microsurgical discectomy for treatment of uncontained or large contained disc herniations. Neurosurgery 2005;57:357–60.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Muramatsu K, Hachiya Y, Morita C. Postoperative magnetic resonance imaging of lumbar disc herniation: Comparison of microendoscopic discectomy and Love’s method. Spine 2001;26:1599–605.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Schick U, Dohnert J, Richter A, Konig A, Vitzthum HE. Microendoscopic lumbar discectomy versus open surgery: An intraoperative EMG study. Eur Spine J 2002;11:20–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Sasaoka R, Nakamura H, Konishi S, Nagayama R, Suzuki E, Terai H, et al.. Objective assessment of reduced invasiveness in MED: Compared with conventional one-level laminotomy. Eur Spine J 2006;15:577–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Foley KT, Smith MM, Rampersaud YR. Microendoscopic approach to far lateral lumbar disc herniation. Neurosurg Focus 1999;7:5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Isaacs RE, Podichetty V, Fessler RG. Microendoscopic discectomy for recurrent disc herniations. Neurosurg Focus 2003;15:11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Khoo LT, Fessler RG. Microendoscopic decompressive laminotomy for the treatment of lumbar stenosis. Neurosurgery 2002;51:S146–54.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Isaacs RE, Podichetty VK, Santiago P, Sandhu FA, Spears J, Kelly K, et al.. Minimally invasive microendoscopy-assisted transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with instrumentation. J Neurosurg Spine 2005;3:98–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Ikuta K, Tono O, Tanaka T, Arima J, Nakano S, Sasaki K, et al.. Surgical complications of microendoscopic procedures for lumbar spinal stenosis. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 2007;50:145–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Nowitzke, Adrian M. Assessment of the learning curve for lumbar microendoscopic discectomy. Neurosurgery 2005;56:755–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Spine Surgery, Chirayu Hospital, Ahmedabad, India

    Amit Jhala & Manish Mistry

Authors
  1. Amit Jhala
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Manish Mistry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amit Jhala.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jhala, A., Mistry, M. Endoscopic lumbar discectomy: Experience of first 100 cases. IJOO 44, 184–190 (2010). https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5413.62051

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5413.62051

Key words

Search

Navigation