Skip to main content

The Use of Minimal Invasive Techniques for Lumbar Herniated Disc in Comparison to More Classical Approaches

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
  • 423 Accesses

Abstract

Sciatica due to lumbar disc herniation refractory to conservative treatment is effectively treated by surgery. The primary goal of surgery is retrieval of herniated disc fragments and decompression of the nerve root. After the historical publication of Mixter and Barr [1], who performed extensive laminectomy with transdural excision of the herniated disc, lumbar disc surgery became one of the most frequently performed surgical procedures worldwide. With the introduction of the microscope in the late 1960s, Yasargil and Caspar launched the unilateral microdiscectomy [2]. Presently, unilateral transflaval microdiscectomy by using the microscope or headlight with loupe magnification, is regarded as the golden standard. However, a shift towards minimally invasive approaches to the spine has started. The rationale behind minimally invasive spine surgery is less tissue damage, shorter hospitalisation, and faster recovery while achieving a good clinical outcome comparable with that of open conventional surgery. Minimally invasive spine surgery has adopted several techniques from other fields and has been influenced by endoscopy, biochemical advances, lasers, and image guidance systems. Intradiscal chymopapaine has been used more than 30 years but has been abandoned since it is less effective than surgical nerve root decompression [3]. Hijikata and Kambin are credited for their first report of percutaneous nucleotomy by inserting a 7 mm diameter tube under local anaesthesia with partial resection of disc material [4]. Choi and Ascher reviewed the first results of percutaneous laser disc decompression aiming at decreasing intradiscal pressure and subsequent nerve root relief [5]. The concept of posterolateral endoscopic discectomy changed from central nucleotomy to transforaminal nerve root decompression, which was launched by Hoogland [6] A few years later, Foley and Smith introduced the transmuscular approach of microendoscopic tubular discectomy with advanced optics and instruments applicated in laparoscopic surgery [7], which was later modified with the operative microscope.

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

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Mixter WJ, Barr JS. Rupture of the intervertebral disc with involvement of the spinal canal. N Engl J Med. 1934;21:210–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Yasargil MG. Microsurgical operation for herniated disc. Adv Neurosurg. 1977;4:81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Gibson JN, Waddell G. Surgical interventions for lumbar disc prolapse: updated Cochrane review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(16):1735–47.

    Article  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. Choy DS, Ascher PW, Ranu HS, Saddekni S, Alkaitis D, Liebler W, et al. Percutaneous laser disc decompression. A new therapeutic modality. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1992;17(8):949–56.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Hoogland T. Percutaneous endoscopic discectomy. J Neurosurg. 1993;79(6):967–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  8. 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(5):344–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Teli M, Lovi A, Brayda-Bruno M, Zagra A, Corriero A, Giudici F, et al. Higher risk of dural tears and recurrent herniation with lumbar micro-endoscopic discectomy. Eur Spine J. 2010;19(3):443–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Tureyen K. One-level one-sided lumbar disc surgery with and without microscopic assistance: 1-year outcome in 114 consecutive patients. J Neurosurg. 2003;99(3 Suppl):247–50.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Arts M, Brand R, van der Kallen B, Lycklama a Nijeholt G, Peul W. Does minimally invasive lumbar disc surgery result in less muscle injury than conventional surgery? A randomized controlled trial. Eur Spine J. 2011;20(1):51–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Arts MP, Brand R, van den Akker ME, Koes BW, Bartels RH, Peul WC, et al. Tubular diskectomy vs conventional microdiskectomy for sciatica: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2009;302(2):149–58.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Arts MP, Brand R, van den Akker ME, Koes BW, Bartels RH, Tan WF, et al. Tubular diskectomy vs conventional microdiskectomy for the treatment of lumbar disk herniation: 2-year results of a double-blind randomized controlled trial. Neurosurgery. 2011;69(1):135–44; discussion 44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Belykh E, Giers MB, Preul MC, Theodore N, Byvaltsev V. Prospective comparison of microsurgical, tubular-based endoscopic, and endoscopically assisted diskectomies: clinical effectiveness and complications in railway workers. World Neurosurg. 2016;90:273–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Brock M, Kunkel P, Papavero L. Lumbar microdiscectomy: subperiosteal versus transmuscular approach and influence on the early postoperative analgesic consumption. Eur Spine J. 2008;17(4):518–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Garg B, Nagraja UB, Jayaswal A. Microendoscopic versus open discectomy for lumbar disc herniation: a prospective randomised study. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2011;19(1):30–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Huang TJ, Hsu RW, Li YY, Cheng CC. Less systemic cytokine response in patients following microendoscopic versus open lumbar discectomy. J Orthop Res. 2005;23(2):406–11.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Hussein M. Minimal incision, multifidus-sparing microendoscopic diskectomy versus conventional microdiskectomy for highly migrated Intracanal lumbar disk Herniations. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2016;24(11):805–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Righesso O, Falavigna A, Avanzi O. Comparison of open discectomy with microendoscopic discectomy in lumbar disc herniations: results of a randomized controlled trial. Neurosurgery. 2007;61(3):545–9; discussion 9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ryang YM, Oertel MF, Mayfrank L, Gilsbach JM, Rohde V. Standard open microdiscectomy versus minimal access trocar microdiscectomy: results of a prospective randomized study. Neurosurgery. 2008;62(1):174–81; discussion 81-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Shin DA, Kim KN, Shin HC, Yoon DH. The efficacy of microendoscopic discectomy in reducing iatrogenic muscle injury. J Neurosurg Spine. 2008;8(1):39–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Chen Z, Zhang L, Dong J, Xie P, Liu B, Wang Q, et al. Percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy compared with microendoscopic discectomy for lumbar disc herniation: 1-year results of an ongoing randomized controlled trial. J Neurosurg Spine. 2018;28(3):300–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Franke J, Greiner-Perth R, Boehm H, Mahlfeld K, Grasshoff H, Allam Y, et al. Comparison of a minimally invasive procedure versus standard microscopic discotomy: a prospective randomised controlled clinical trial. Eur Spine J. 2009;18(7):992–1000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Gibson JNA, Subramanian AS, Scott CEH. A randomised controlled trial of transforaminal endoscopic discectomy vs microdiscectomy. Eur Spine J. 2017;26(3):847–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lee SH, Bae JS. Comparison of clinical and radiological outcomes after automated open lumbar discectomy and conventional microdiscectomy: a prospective randomized trial. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015;8(8):12135–48.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Nie H, Zeng J, Song Y, Chen G, Wang X, Li Z, et al. Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for L5-S1 disc herniation via an interlaminar approach versus a transforaminal approach: a prospective randomized controlled study with 2-year follow up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016;41(Suppl 19):B30–B7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Abrishamkar S, Kouchakzadeh M, Mirhosseini A, Tabesh H, Rezvani M, Moayednia A, et al. Comparison of open surgical discectomy versus plasma-laser nucleoplasty in patients with single lumbar disc herniation. J Res Med Sci. 2015;20(12):1133–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Brouwer PA, Brand R, van den Akker-van Marle ME, Jacobs WC, Schenk B, van den Berg-Huijsmans AA, et al. Percutaneous laser disc decompression versus conventional microdiscectomy in sciatica: a randomized controlled trial. Spine J. 2015;15(5):857–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Cristante AF, Rocha ID, MartusMarcon R, Filho TE. Randomized clinical trial comparing lumbar percutaneous hydrodiscectomy with lumbar open microdiscectomy for the treatment of lumbar disc protrusions and herniations. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2016;71(5):276–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Gadjradj PS, Arts MP, van Tulder MW, Rietdijk WJR, Peul WC, Harhangi BS. Management of symptomatic lumbar disk herniation: an international perspective. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2017;42(23):1826–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark P. Arts .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Arts, M.P., Jacobs, W.C.H. (2019). The Use of Minimal Invasive Techniques for Lumbar Herniated Disc in Comparison to More Classical Approaches. In: Bartels, R., Rovers, M., Westert, G. (eds) Evidence for Neurosurgery. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16323-5_16

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16323-5_16

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-16322-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-16323-5

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics