Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Surgical technique and effectiveness of microendoscopic discectomy for large uncontained lumbar disc herniations: a prospective, randomized, controlled study with 8 years of follow-up

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

An Erratum to this article was published on 12 July 2014

Abstract

Background

There is a long-held concept among spine surgeons that endoscopic lumbar discectomy procedures are reserved for small-contained disc herniation; 8-year follow-up has not been reported. The purpose of this study is to assess microendoscopic discectomy (MED) in patients with large uncontained lumbar disc herniation (the antero-posterior diameter of the extruded fragment is 6–12 mm or more on axial cuts of MRI) and report long-term outcome.

Methods

One hundred eighty-five patients with MED or standard open discectomy underwent follow-up for 8 years. Primary (clinical) outcomes data included Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for back and leg symptoms and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) to quantify pain and disability, respectively. Secondary (objective) outcomes data included operative time, blood loss, postoperative analgesics, length of hospital stay, time to return to work, reoperation and complication rate, patient satisfaction index (PSI), and modified (MacNab) criteria.

Results

At the end of the follow-up, the leg pain relief was statistically significant for both groups. NRS back pain, ODI, PSI and MacNab criteria showed significant deterioration for control group. Secondary outcomes data of MED group were significantly better than the control group.

Conclusions

Large, uncontained, lumbar disc herniations can be sufficiently removed using MED which is an effective alternative to open discectomy procedures with remarkable long-term outcome. Although the neurological outcome of the two procedures is the same, the morbidity of MED is significantly less than open discectomy. Maximum benefit can be gained if we adhere to strict selection criteria. The optimum indication is single- or multi-level radiculopathy secondary to a single-level, large, uncontained, lumbar disc herniation.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  1. Dandy WE (1929) Loose cartilage from intervertebral disk simulating tumor of the spinal cord. Arch Surg 19:660–672 (Reference unverified)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Mixter WJ, Barr JS (2001) Rupture of intervertebral disc with involvement of the spinal canal. N Engl J Med 211:210–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Deyo RA, Weinstein JN (2001) Primary care: low back pain. N Engl J Med 344:363–370

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Williams DK, Park LA (2007) Lower back pain and disorders of intervertebral disc. In: Terry Canale S, Beaty HJ (eds) Campbell’s operative orthopaedics, 11th edn. Mosby-Year Book Inc., pp 2210–2212

  5. Kim SM, Park K-W, Hwang C et al (2009) Recurrence rate of lumbar disc herniation after open discectomy in active young men. Spine 34(1):24–29

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Skaf G, Bouclaous C, Alaraj A, Chamoun R (2005) Clinical outcome of surgical treatment of failed back surgery syndrome. Surg Neurol 64(6):483–488

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Abumi K, Panjabi MM, Kramer KM et al (1990) Biomechanical evaluation of lumbar spinal stability after graded facetectomies. Spine 15:1142–1147

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kotilainen E, Valtonen S (1993) Clinical instability of the lumbar spine after microdiscectomy. Acta Neurochir 125:120–126

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Haher TR, O’Brien M, Dryer JW et al (1994) The role of the lumbar facet joints in spinal stability. Identification of alternative paths of loading. Spine 19:2667–2670

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hopp E, Tsou PM (1988) Postdecompression lumbar instability. Clin Orthop 227:143–151

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kaigle AM, Holm SH, Hansson TH (1995) Experimental instability in the lumbar spine. Spine 20:421–430

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kato Y, Panjabi MM, Nibu K (1998) Biomechanical study of lumbar spinal stability after osteoplastic laminectomy. J Spinal Disord 11:146–150

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kotilainen E (2001) Clinical instability of the lumbar spine after microdiscectomy. In: Gerber BE, Knight M, Siebert WE (eds) Lasers in the musculoskeletal system. Springer, Berlin, pp 241–243

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Sharma M, Langrana NA, Rodrigues J (1995) Role of ligaments and facets in lumbar spinal stability. Spine 20:887–900

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lewis PJ, Weir BKA, Broad RW et al (1987) Longterm prospective study of lumbosacral discectomy. J Neurosurg 67:49–54

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Cooper R, Mitchell W, Illimgworth K et al (1991) The role of epidural fibrosis and defective fibrinolysis in the persistence of postlaminectomy back pain. Spine 16:1044–1048

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Waddell G, Reilly S, Torsney B et al (1988) Assessment of the outcome of low back surgery. J Bone Jt Surg Br 70:723–727

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Ozgen S, Naderi S, Ozgen MM et al (1999) Findings and outcome of revisionlumbar disc surgery. J Spinal Disord 12:287–292

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Vishteh AG, Dickman CA (2001) Anterior lumbar microdiscectomy and interbody fusion for the treatment of recurrent disc herniation. Neurosurgery 48:334–337

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Salenius P, Laurent LE (1977) Results of operative treatment of lumbar disc herniation. A survey of 886 patients. Acta Orthop Scand 48:630–634

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Weber H (1983) Lumbar disc herniation. A controlled, prospective study with ten years of observation. Spine 8:131–140

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Hakelius A (1970) Prognosis in sciatica. A clinical follow-up of surgical and nonsurgical treatment. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl 129:1–76

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hanley EN Jr, Shapiro DE (1989) The development of low-back pain after excision of a lumbar disc. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 71:719–721

    Google Scholar 

  24. Kim KD, Wang JC, Roderston DB, Brodke DS, Olson EM, Duberg AC, Bendebba M, Block KM, Dizerega GS (2003) Reduction of radiculopathy and pain with oxyplex/SP gel after laminectomy, laminotomy and discectomy: a pilot study. Spine 28:1080–1087

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Hoyland JA, Freemnt AJ, Denton J, Thomas AMC, McMillan JJ, Jayson MIV (1988) Retained surgical swab in post-laminectomy arachnoiditis and peridural fibrosis. J Bone Jt Surg 70:659–662

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Lee CK, Alexander H (1984) Prevention of postlaminectomy scar formation. Spine 9:707–713

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Foley KT, Smith MM (1997) Microendoscopic discectomy. Tech Neurosurg 3:301–307

    Google Scholar 

  28. Smith MW, Foley KT (1998) Microendoscopic discectomy: the first 100 cases. Annual Meeting of the Congress of Neurological Surgeons, Seattle, Oct 1998

  29. Perez-Cruet MJ, Smith M, Foley K (2002) Microendoscopic lumbar discectomy. In: Fessler RG, Perez-Cruet MJ (eds) Outpatient spinal surgery. Quality Medical, St. Louis, pp 171–183

    Google Scholar 

  30. Wu X, Zhuang S, Mao Z, Chen H (2006) Microendoscopic discectomy for lumbar disc herniation: surgical technique and outcome in 873 consecutive cases. Spine 31(23):2689–2694

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Muramatsu K, Hachiya Y, Morita C (2001) Postoperative magnetic resonance imaging of lumbar disc herniation: comparison of microendoscopic discectomy and Love’s method. Spine 26:1599–1605

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Schick U, Döhnert J, Richter A et al (2002) Microendoscopic lumbar discectomy versus open surgery: an intraoperative EMG study. Eur Spine J 11:20–26

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. World Medical Association (2002) Declaration of Helsinki (Accessed 30 April 2002, at http://www.wma.net/e/policy/b3.htm)

  34. Carragee EJ, Han M, Kim D, Yang B, Stanford CA (1999) Fragment-type and annular defect as predictive factors in lumbar discectomy. In: Presented at the 14th annual meeting of North American Spine Society (NASS), Chicago Hilton and Towers, Oct 1999

  35. Derby R, Howard MW, Grant GM et al (1999) The ability of pressure controlled discography to predict surgical and nonsurgical outcomes. Spine 24(4):364–372

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Fairbank J, Pynsent P (2000) The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine 25:2940–2953

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Daltroy LH, Cats-Baril WL, Katz JN et al (1996) The North American Spine Society (NASS) lumbar spine outcome instrument: reliability and validity tests. Spine 21:741–749

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. MacNab I (1971) Negative disc exploration. J Bone Jt Surg Am 53:891–903

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL (1979) Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 86:420–428

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Palmer S (2002) Use of tubular retractor system in microscopic lumbar discectomy: one year prospective results in 135 patients. Neurosurg Focus 13(2):E5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Schizas C, Tsiridis E, Saksena J (2005) Microendoscopic discectomy compared with standard microsurgical discectomy for treatment for uncontained or large contained disc herniations. Neurosurgery 57(suppl. 3):357–360

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Dvorak J, Gauchat M-H, Valach L (1988) The outcome of surgery for lumbar disc herniation. 1. A 4–17 years’ follow-up with emphasis on somatic aspects. Spine 13:1418–1422

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Brayda-Bruno M, Cinnella P (2000) Posterior endoscopic discectomy (and other procedures). Eur Spine J 9(Suppl. 1):24–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 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 33(9):931–939

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Tosteson NAA, Tosteson DT, Lurie DJ et al (2011) Comparative effectiveness evidence from the spine patient outcomes research trial surgical versus nonoperative care for spinal stenosis, degenerative spondylolisthesis, and intervertebral disc herniation. Spine 36(24):2061–2068

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the assistance of Dr. Safaa El-Najjar for providing statistical analysis and also acknowledge the rest of the Zagazig Orthopedic Department’s members (medical and non-medical) for their contributions to the present study.

Conflict of interest

The authors did not receive any outside funding or grants in support of their research for or preparation of this work. Neither they nor a member of their immediate families received payments or other benefits or a commitment or agreement to provide such benefits from a commercial entity. No commercial entity paid or directed, or agreed to pay or direct, any benefits to any research fund, foundation, division, center, clinical practice, or other charitable or nonprofit organization with which the authors, or a member of their immediate families, are affiliated or associated.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Tennessee University, Memphis, USA

    Mohamed Hussein

  2. Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Surgery Hospital, 4th Floor, Zagazig University Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine, Zagazig University, Zagazig City, Sharkiah, 44519, Egypt

    Mohamed Hussein, Ashraf Abdeldayem & Mahmoud M. M. Mattar

Authors
  1. Mohamed Hussein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ashraf Abdeldayem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mahmoud M. M. Mattar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohamed Hussein.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hussein, M., Abdeldayem, A. & Mattar, M.M.M. Surgical technique and effectiveness of microendoscopic discectomy for large uncontained lumbar disc herniations: a prospective, randomized, controlled study with 8 years of follow-up. Eur Spine J 23, 1992–1999 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3296-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3296-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation