Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Higher risk of dural tears and recurrent herniation with lumbar micro-endoscopic discectomy

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

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

Access this article

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. Apolone G, Mosconi P, Ware JE (1997) Questionario sullo stato di salute SF-36: manuale d’uso e guida all’interpretazione dei risultati. Guerini e Associati, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  2. Brayda-Bruno M, Cinnella P (2000) Posterior endoscopic discectomy (and other procedures). Eur Spine J 9:S24–S29

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Carragee EJ, Kim DH (1997) A prospective analysis of magnetic resonance imaging findings in patients with sciatica and lumbar disk herniation. Correlation of outcomes with disc fragment and canal morphology. Spine 22:1650–1660

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Caspar W (1977) A new surgical procedure for lumbar disc herniation causing less tissue damage through a microsurgical approach. In: Wullenweber R, Brock M, Hamer J (eds) Advances in neurosurgery. Springer, Berlin, pp 74–77

    Google Scholar 

  5. Choy DS (1993) Percutaneous laser disc decompression (PLDD) update: focus on device and procedure advances. J Clin Laser Med Surg 11(4):181–183

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gibson JNA, Waddell G (2007) Surgical interventions for lumbar disc prolapse: updated Cochrane review. Spine 32(16):1735–1747

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Glantz SA (1994) Statistics for biomedical disciplines. McGraw-Hill, Italy

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hansson E, Hansson T (2007) The cost–utility of lumbar disc herniation surgery. Eur Spine J 16(3):329–337

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hollis S, Campbell F (1999) What is meant by intention to treat analysis? Survey of published randomised controlled trials. BMJ 319:670–674

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Love JG (1939) Removal of protruded intervertebral discs without laminectomy. Proc Mayo Clin 14:800–805

    Google Scholar 

  11. Katayama Y, Matsuyama Y, Yoshihara H et al (2006) Comparison of surgical outcomes between macro discectomy and micro discectomy for lumbar disc herniation: a prospective randomised study with surgery performed by the same spinal surgeon. J Spinal Disorder Tech 19(5):344–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Mannion AF, Denzler R, Dvorak J et al (2007) A randomised controlled trial of post-operative rehabilitation after surgical decompression of the lumbar spine. Eur Spine J 16:1101–1117

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Mochida J, Arima T (1993) Percutaneous nucleotomy in lumbar disc herniation. A prospective study. Spine 18:2063–2068

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Nakagawa H, Kamimura M, Uchiyama S et al (2003) Micro endoscopic discectomy (MED) for lumbar disc prolapse. J Clin Neurosci 10(2):231–235

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Onik G, Mooney V, Maroon JC et al (1990) Automated percutaneous discectomy: a prospective multi-institutional study. Neurosurgery 2:228–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ostelo RW, Deyo RA, Stratford P et al (2008) Interpreting change scores for pain and functional status in low back pain: towards International consensus regarding minimal important change. Spine 1(33):90–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Perez-Cruet MJ, Foley KT, Isaacs RE (2002) Micro endoscopic lumbar discectomy: technical note. Neurosurgery 51(5):S129–S136

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Postacchini F (1999) Management of herniation of the lumbar disc. J Bone Joint Surg 81-B(4):567–576

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Rigamonti M, Gemma M, Rocca A et al (2005) Prone versus knee-chest position for microdiscectomy: prospective randomized study of intra-abdominal pressure and intraoperative bleeding. Spine 30(17):1918–1923

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Righesso O, Falavigna A, Avanzi O (2007) Comparison of open discectomy with micro endoscopic discectomy in lumbar disc herniations: results of a randomized controlled trial. Neurosurgery 61(3):545–549

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Schizas C, Tsiridos E, Saksena J (2005) Microendoscopic discectomy compared with standard microsurgical discectomy for treatment of uncontained or large contained disc herniations. Neurosurgery 57(Suppl 4):357–360

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Smith L (1964) Enzyme dissolution of the nucleus pulposus in humans. JAMA 265:137–140

    Google Scholar 

  23. Weinstein JN, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD et al (2006) Surgical versus non-operative treatment for lumbar disc herniation: the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT): a randomized trial. JAMA 296(20):2441–2450

    Google Scholar 

  24. Zanoli G (2005) Outcome assessment in lumbar spine surgery. Acta Orthop Suppl 76(318):5–47

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Dr. M. Del Fabbro, PhD, for his invaluable work in statistical design, analysis and review of data.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marco Teli.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Teli, M., Lovi, A., Brayda-Bruno, M. et al. Higher risk of dural tears and recurrent herniation with lumbar micro-endoscopic discectomy. Eur Spine J 19, 443–450 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-010-1290-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-010-1290-4

Keywords

Navigation