Lumbar Disc Herniation in Heavy Manual Workers: Conventional Microdiscectomy versus (MIS) TLIF with Unilateral Fixation

Mohamed Alqazaz
{"title":"Lumbar Disc Herniation in Heavy Manual Workers: Conventional Microdiscectomy versus (MIS) TLIF with Unilateral Fixation","authors":"Mohamed Alqazaz","doi":"10.18502/jsp.v1i1.9791","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Conventional discectomy is a common surgical method for treating lumbar disc prolapse. The situation may differ in heavy manual workers who may have more pronounced degenerative spine disease, broad-based disc herniations, and are expected to be exposed postoperatively to the same preoperative manual stress. This study was aimed at comparing the clinical outcomes in patients operated for conventional discectomy versus those operated for TLIF with unilateral spinal fixation. \nMethodology: Sixty patients underwent surgeries for lumbar disc herniation. They were divided into two groups; the microscopic conventional discectomy group and the fusion (TLIF and unilateral TPF) group. They were operated between 2017 and 2019. Participants were evaluated pre- and postoperatively at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months’ intervals. Pain was scored by Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for both lower limb and back pain. The clinical outcomes were compared using the Prolo economic and functional rating scale and a new outcome score. \nResult: The two groups of patients were fairly homogeneous and comparable. Workload exposure to repetitive vibration was the biggest risk for disc prolapse and surgery (28.3%). Fusion group showed better clinical outcomes parameter including better VAS for back pain, better Prolo economic and functional rating scale, and better new clinical outcome score. In comparison, the discectomy group showed significantly higher recurrence rate and reoperation during the follow-up period. During the 12 months’ follow-up visit, when the patients were asked if, under the same circumstances, they would undergo the procedure again, 71.6% of the patients (43 patients) answered affirmatively and this reflects their satisfaction with the results of their surgeries. This satisfaction was reported in 27 patients (90%) in the fusion group and 16 patients (53.4%) in the discectomy group. \nConclusion: Heavy manual workers treated with unilateral transforaminal interbody fusion reported less pain and lower disability scores all over the follow-up period. This technique is preferable to conventional discectomy because it reduces back and leg pain while avoiding the possibility of recurrence by heavy duties and maintains stability of the lumbar spine. We proposed a new clinical outcome score to monitor the clinical outcomes of spine surgery in heavy manual workers. It relates the outcomes to the hours of work, sick leaves, and patient satisfaction with surgery. In our group of patients, it showed significant improvement in the fusion group in comparison to the discectomy group.","PeriodicalId":199836,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Spine Practice (JSP)","volume":"52 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Spine Practice (JSP)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18502/jsp.v1i1.9791","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Conventional discectomy is a common surgical method for treating lumbar disc prolapse. The situation may differ in heavy manual workers who may have more pronounced degenerative spine disease, broad-based disc herniations, and are expected to be exposed postoperatively to the same preoperative manual stress. This study was aimed at comparing the clinical outcomes in patients operated for conventional discectomy versus those operated for TLIF with unilateral spinal fixation. Methodology: Sixty patients underwent surgeries for lumbar disc herniation. They were divided into two groups; the microscopic conventional discectomy group and the fusion (TLIF and unilateral TPF) group. They were operated between 2017 and 2019. Participants were evaluated pre- and postoperatively at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months’ intervals. Pain was scored by Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for both lower limb and back pain. The clinical outcomes were compared using the Prolo economic and functional rating scale and a new outcome score. Result: The two groups of patients were fairly homogeneous and comparable. Workload exposure to repetitive vibration was the biggest risk for disc prolapse and surgery (28.3%). Fusion group showed better clinical outcomes parameter including better VAS for back pain, better Prolo economic and functional rating scale, and better new clinical outcome score. In comparison, the discectomy group showed significantly higher recurrence rate and reoperation during the follow-up period. During the 12 months’ follow-up visit, when the patients were asked if, under the same circumstances, they would undergo the procedure again, 71.6% of the patients (43 patients) answered affirmatively and this reflects their satisfaction with the results of their surgeries. This satisfaction was reported in 27 patients (90%) in the fusion group and 16 patients (53.4%) in the discectomy group. Conclusion: Heavy manual workers treated with unilateral transforaminal interbody fusion reported less pain and lower disability scores all over the follow-up period. This technique is preferable to conventional discectomy because it reduces back and leg pain while avoiding the possibility of recurrence by heavy duties and maintains stability of the lumbar spine. We proposed a new clinical outcome score to monitor the clinical outcomes of spine surgery in heavy manual workers. It relates the outcomes to the hours of work, sick leaves, and patient satisfaction with surgery. In our group of patients, it showed significant improvement in the fusion group in comparison to the discectomy group.
重体力劳动者的腰椎间盘突出:传统的微椎间盘切除术与单侧固定的(MIS) TLIF
简介:常规腰椎间盘切除术是治疗腰椎间盘突出症的常用手术方法。重体力劳动者的情况可能有所不同,他们可能有更明显的退行性脊柱疾病,广泛的椎间盘突出,并且预计术后暴露于相同的术前手工压力。本研究旨在比较传统椎间盘切除术与单侧脊柱固定的TLIF患者的临床结果。方法:60例腰椎间盘突出症患者接受手术治疗。他们被分为两组;显微常规椎间盘切除术组和融合(TLIF和单侧TPF)组。它们在2017年至2019年期间运行。参与者分别在术前、术后3个月、6个月、9个月和12个月进行评估。采用视觉模拟量表(VAS)对下肢和背部疼痛进行评分。临床结果采用Prolo经济和功能评定量表和新的结果评分进行比较。结果:两组患者具有相当的同质性和可比性。工作负荷暴露于重复振动是椎间盘脱垂和手术的最大风险(28.3%)。融合组腰痛VAS评分、Prolo经济功能评分、新临床结局评分均优于融合组。相比之下,椎间盘切除术组在随访期间的复发率和再手术率明显高于对照组。在12个月的随访中,当患者被问及在相同的情况下是否会再次接受手术时,71.6%(43例)的患者回答肯定,这反映了他们对手术结果的满意度。融合组27例(90%)患者和椎间盘切除术组16例(53.4%)患者报告了这种满意度。结论:在整个随访期间,接受单侧椎间孔椎间融合术治疗的重体力劳动者疼痛减轻,残疾评分降低。这项技术比传统的椎间盘切除术更可取,因为它减少了背部和腿部疼痛,同时避免了重负荷复发的可能性,并保持了腰椎的稳定性。我们提出了一个新的临床结果评分来监测重型体力劳动者脊柱手术的临床结果。它将结果与工作时间、病假和患者对手术的满意度联系起来。在我们的患者组中,与椎间盘切除术组相比,融合组表现出明显的改善。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信