31
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Treatment of Recurrent Disc Herniation: A Systematic Review

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Intervertebral disc herniation is one of the most common causes of back and extremity pain. The most commonly used surgical treatment is lumbar discectomy. About 0.5-25% go on to develop recurrent disc herniation (rDH) after a successful first discectomy. Currently, there aren’t any guidelines to assist surgeons in determining which approach is most appropriate to treat rDH. A recent survey showed significant heterogeneity among surgeons regarding treatment options for rDH. It remains unclear which methods lead to better outcomes, as there are no comparative studies with a sufficient level of evidence. In this study, we aimed to perform a systematic review to compare treatment options for rDH and determine if one intervention provides better outcomes than the other; more specifically, whether outcome differences exist between discectomy alone and discectomy with fusion.

          We applied the PICOS (participants, intervention, comparison, outcome, study design) format to develop this systematic review through PubMed. Twenty-seven papers from 1978-2014 met our inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. Nine papers reported outcomes after discectomy and seven of them showed good or excellent outcomes (70.60%-89%). Ten papers reported on minimally invasive discectomy. The percent change in visual analog scale (VAS) ranged from -50.77% to -86.57%, indicating an overall pain reduction. Four studies out of the ten reported good or excellent outcomes (81% to 90.2%). Three studies looked at posterolateral fusion. Three studies analyzed posterior lumbar interbody fusion. For one study, we found the VAS percentage change to be -46.02%. All reported good to excellent outcomes. Six studies evaluated the transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. All reported improvement in pain. Four used VAS, and we found the percent change to be -54% to -86.5%. The other two used the Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score, and we found the percent change to be 68.3% to 93.3%.

          We did not find enough evidence to support any significant difference in outcomes between discectomy alone and discectomy with fusion. The limitation of our study includes the lack of standardized outcomes reporting in the literature. However, reviewing the selected articles shows that fusion may have a greater improvement in pain compared to reoperation without fusion. Nonetheless, our study shows that further and more in-depth investigation is needed on the of treatment of rDH.

          Related collections

          Most cited references56

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for recurrent disc herniation: surgical technique, outcome, and prognostic factors of 43 consecutive cases.

          A retrospective study of 43 consecutive patients who underwent percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for recurrent disc herniation. To evaluate the efficacy of endoscopic discectomy for recurrent disc herniations and to determine the prognostic factors affecting surgical outcome. Repeated open discectomy with or without fusion has been the most common procedure for a recurrent lumbar disc herniation. There have been no reports published on the feasibility and prognostic factors of the endoscopic discectomy for recurrent disc herniation. The inclusion criteria were recurrent disc herniations at the same level, regardless of side, with a pain-free interval longer than 6 months after the conventional open discectomy. Posterolateral endoscopic laser-assisted disc excisions were performed under local anesthesia. The mean follow-up period was 31 months (24-39 months). Based on the MacNab criteria, 81.4% showed excellent or good outcomes. The mean visual analog scale decreased from 8.72 +/- 1.20 to 2.58 +/- 1.55 (P <0.0001). In our series, better outcomes were obtained in patients younger than 40 years (P = 0.035), patients with duration of symptoms of less than 3 months (P = 0.028), and patients without concurrent lateral recess stenosis (P = 0.007). Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy is effective for recurrent disc herniation in selected cases. The posterolateral approach through unscarred virgin tissue can prevent nerve injury and could preserve the spinal stability. Both foraminal and intracanalicular portions can be decompressed simultaneously.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Recurrent disc herniation and long-term back pain after primary lumbar discectomy: review of outcomes reported for limited versus aggressive disc removal.

            It remains unknown whether aggressive disc removal with curettage or limited removal of disc fragment alone with little disc invasion provides a better outcome for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation with radiculopathy. We reviewed the literature to determine whether outcomes reported after limited discectomy (LD) differed from those reported after aggressive discectomy (AD) with regard to long-term back pain or recurrent disc herniation. A systematic MEDLINE search was performed to identify all studies published between 1980 and 2007 reporting outcomes after AD or LD for a herniated lumbar disc with radiculopathy. The incidence of short- and long-term recurrent back or leg pain and recurrent disc herniation was assessed from each reported LD or AD cohort and the cumulative incidence compared. Fifty-four studies (60 discectomy cohorts) met the inclusion criteria, reporting the outcomes of 13 359 patients after lumbar discectomy (LD, 6135 patients; AD, 7224 patients). The reported incidence of short-term recurrent back or leg pain was similar after LD (mean, 14.5%; range, 7-16%) and AD (mean, 14.1%; range, 6-43%) (P < 0.01). However, more than 2 years after surgery, the reported incidence of recurrent back or leg pain was 2.5-fold less after LD (mean, 11.6%; range, 7-16%) compared with AD (mean, 27.8%; range, 19-37%) (P < 0.0001). The reported incidence of recurrent disc herniation after LD (mean, 7%; range, 2-18%) was greater than that reported after AD (mean, 3.5%; range, 0-9.5%) (P < 0.0001). Review of the literature demonstrates a greater reported incidence of long-term recurrent back and leg pain after AD but a greater reported incidence of recurrent disc herniation after LD. Prospective, randomized trials are needed to firmly assess this possible difference.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A prospective cohort study of close interval computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging after primary lumbar discectomy: factors associated with recurrent disc herniation and disc height loss.

              Prospective cohort study. We performed a prospective cohort study with standardized postoperative lumbar imaging every 3 months for a year then annually to assess the incidence and factors associated with same-level recurrent disc herniation. The true incidence of same-level recurrent disc herniation after lumbar discectomy is unclear. Retrospective studies have reported widely varying incidences between 3% and 18%. Prospective controlled studies are lacking. A total of 108 patients undergoing first-time lumbar discectomy for refractory radiculopathy were enrolled. Baseline lumbar CT and MRI and standardized clinical data were assessed before surgery, and CT and MRI scans repeated 6 weeks, 3, 6, 9, 12, and 24-months after surgery and at the time of recurrent sciatica. Age, weight, preoperative disc volume, and height, volume of disc removed, and size of anular defect were compared with postoperative disc height loss and recurrent disc herniation using regression analysis. One hundred patients (41 +/- 10 years old) were available for 1-year (93%) and 76 (70%) for 2-year follow-up (mean follow-up: 25 +/- 12 months). Improvement in all outcome measures was observed by 6 weeks after surgery (P < 0.005). An 18% loss of disc height was observed 3 months after surgery, progressing to 26% by 2 years. Eleven (10.2%) patients experienced recurrent disc herniation requiring revision discectomy a mean 10.5 months after surgery. Subjects with larger anular defects (P = 0.019) and with smaller percentage of disc volume removed (P = 0.028) were associated with an increased risk of recurrent disc herniation. Conversely, those from whom greater disc volumes were removed (P = 0.024) had more progressive disc height loss by 6 months after surgery. Larger anular defects and less disc removal increased the risk of reherniation. Greater volumes of disc removal were associated with accelerated disc height loss. In the setting of larger anular defects or less aggressive disc removal, concern for recurrent herniation should be increased during outpatient follow-up. In this situation effective anular repair may be helpful.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Cureus
                Cureus
                2168-8184
                Cureus
                Cureus (Palo Alto (CA) )
                2168-8184
                23 May 2016
                May 2016
                : 8
                : 5
                : e622
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Department of Neurosurgery, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center
                [2 ] Department of Neurosurgery, University of Louisville
                [3 ] Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, University of Louisville
                [4 ] Deparment of Orthopedics, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center
                Author notes
                Article
                10.7759/cureus.622
                4922511
                27382530
                04c6779c-cebb-4ce0-846e-a798b2e55542
                Copyright © 2016, Drazin et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 24 September 2015
                : 21 May 2016
                Categories
                Neurosurgery

                recurrent disc herniation,recurrent lumbar disc herniation,spine,spinal fusion,revision fusion,minimally invasive lumbar fusion,interbody fusion,back pain

                Comments

                Comment on this article