The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-019-06194-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Recurrent lumbar disc herniation is the most common complication after discectomy. Due to the altered anatomy with the presence of scar tissue, the surgical revision of already operated patients could be a surgical challenge.
We describe the microsurgical revision technique step by step with the evaluation of our own clinical results in comparison with primary lumbar disc surgeries. The clinical data are based on a clinical register with 2576 recorded primary surgeries (PD) and 592 cases of revisions (RD) with 12- and 24-month follow-up (FU). The intraoperative dura lesion rates of the surgeries between 2016 and 2018 were recorded retrospectively. Data from 894 primary disc surgeries and 117 revisions were evaluated.
The ODI and the VAS for leg and back pain improved in both groups significantly with slightly inferior outcome of the revision group. The ODI improved from 46.3 (PD) and 45.9 (RD), respectively, to 12.6 (PD) and 22.9 (RD) at the 24-month FU. The VAS dropped down as well in both group [VAS back: 47.8 (PD) and 43.9 (RD) to 19.9 and 32.2 at the 24-month FU; VAS leg: 62.9 (PD) and 65.5 (RD) to 15.6 and 26.8 at the 24-month FU]. During the primary interventions, we observed 1.5% (11/894) and during revisions 7.7% (9/117) of dura lesions.
There is no clear guideline for the surgical treatment of recurrent disc herniations. In most cases, a pure re-discectomy is sufficient and can be performed safely and effectively with the help of a microscope.
These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
Supplementary material 1 (PPTX 225 kb)586_2019_6194_MOESM1_ESM.pptx
Wang Y, Liang Z, Wu J et al (2019) Comparative clinical effectiveness of tubular microdiscectomy and conventional microdiscectomy for lumbar disc herniation: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000003001 CrossRef
Overdevest GM, Peul WC, Brand R et al (2017) Tubular discectomy versus conventional microdiscectomy for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation: long-term results of a randomised controlled trial. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 88:1008–1016. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp-2016-315306 CrossRefPubMed
Lebow RL, Adogwa O, Parker SL et al (2011) Asymptomatic same-site recurrent disc herniation after lumbar discectomy: results of a prospective longitudinal study with 2-year serial imaging. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36:2147–2151. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0b013e3182054595 CrossRef
Ruetten S, Komp M, Merk H, Godolias G (2008) Full-endoscopic interlaminar and transforaminal lumbar discectomy versus conventional microsurgical technique: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:931–939. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0b013e31816c8af7 CrossRef
Ruetten S, Komp M, Merk H, Godolias G (2009) Recurrent lumbar disc herniation after conventional discectomy: a prospective, randomized study comparing full-endoscopic interlaminar and transforaminal versus microsurgical revision. J Spinal Disord Tech 22:122–129. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0b013e318175ddb4 CrossRefPubMed
Thome C, Barth M, Scharf J, Schmiedek P (2005) Outcome after lumbar sequestrectomy compared with microdiscectomy: a prospective randomized study. J Neurosurg Spine 2:271–278. https://doi.org/10.3171/spi.2005.2.3.0271 CrossRefPubMed
Barth M, Diepers M, Weiss C, Thome C (2008) Two-year outcome after lumbar microdiscectomy versus microscopic sequestrectomy: part 2: radiographic evaluation and correlation with clinical outcome. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:273–279. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0b013e31816201a6 CrossRef
Arts M, Brand R, van der Kallen B et al (2011) Does minimally invasive lumbar disc surgery result in less muscle injury than conventional surgery? A randomized controlled trial. Eur spine J Off Publ Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deform Soc Eur Sect Cerv Spine Res Soc 20:51–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-010-1482-y CrossRef
Ambrossi GL, McGirt MJ, Sciubba DM et al (2009) Recurrent lumbar disc herniation after single-level lumbar discectomy: incidence and health care cost analysis. Neurosurgery 65:574–578. https://doi.org/10.1227/01.neu.0000350224.36213.f9 (discussion 578) CrossRefPubMed
Miwa S, Yokogawa A, Kobayashi T et al (2013) Risk factors of recurrent lumbar disc herniation: a single center study and review of the literature. J Spinal Disord Tech. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0b013e31828215b3 CrossRefPubMed
Kim KT, Park SW, Kim YB (2009) Disc height and segmental motion as risk factors for recurrent lumbar disc herniation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:2674–2678. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0b013e3181b4aaac CrossRef
Carragee EJ, Han MY, Suen PW, Kim D (2003) Clinical outcomes after lumbar discectomy for sciatica: the effects of fragment type and anular competence. J Bone Jt Surg Am 85-A:102–108 CrossRef
McGirt MJ, Ambrossi GL, Datoo G et al (2009) Recurrent disc herniation and long-term back pain after primary lumbar discectomy: review of outcomes reported for limited versus aggressive disc removal. Neurosurgery 64:335–338. https://doi.org/10.1227/01.neu.0000337574.58662.e2 CrossRef
Onyia CU, Menon SK (2017) The debate on most ideal technique for managing recurrent lumbar disc herniation: a short review. Br J Neurosurg 31:701–708. https://doi.org/10.1080/02688697.2017.1368451 CrossRefPubMed
Dower A, Chatterji R, Swart A, Winder MJ (2016) Surgical management of recurrent lumbar disc herniation and the role of fusion. J Clin Neurosci Off J Neurosurg Soc Australas 23:44–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2015.04.024 CrossRef
- Revision after failed discectomy
- Springer Berlin Heidelberg
European Spine Journal
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-0932
Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie
Mail Icon II