When can lumbar fusion be considered appropriate in the treatment of recurrent lumbar disc herniation? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 2.5 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Brain & spine Pub Date : 2025-05-30 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1016/j.bas.2025.104285
Gianpaolo Jannelli, Francesco Polinelli, Antonella Giardina, Marco Cuzzolin, Francesco Calvanese, Ivan Cabrilo, Luca Paun, Enrico Tessitore
{"title":"When can lumbar fusion be considered appropriate in the treatment of recurrent lumbar disc herniation? A systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Gianpaolo Jannelli, Francesco Polinelli, Antonella Giardina, Marco Cuzzolin, Francesco Calvanese, Ivan Cabrilo, Luca Paun, Enrico Tessitore","doi":"10.1016/j.bas.2025.104285","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Recurrent lumbar disc herniation (RLDH) is defined as the reappearance, following initial discectomy, of disc material and pain after a period of at least six symptom-free months. Redo surgery is usually considered following unsuccessful conservative management or in the presence of neurological deficits.</p><p><strong>Research question: </strong>Given the lack of consensus on the ideal surgical strategy for RLDH, we conducted this study to evaluate when lumbar fusion (LF) should be considered in the treatment of RLDH.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>A literature search was conducted on PubMed, Google Scholar and clinicaltrials.gov focusing on the treatment of recurrent disc herniation using microdiscectomy alone or through fusion. The quality of the studies was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale and Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0. The weighted mean difference was calculated for both binary and continuous outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This resulted in a list of 900 references, from which 11 studies were identified as meeting the inclusion criteria for the study. There were four prospective studies and seven retrospective studies. A comparison of LF and redo discectomy (RD) revealed no significant differences in clinical outcome scores. LF resulted in significantly higher intraoperative blood loss, longer hospitalizations and longer surgeries. No further differences were identified.</p><p><strong>Discussion and conclusions: </strong>Both LF and RD represent safe and effective treatment options in first RLDH. The choice of surgical strategy should integrate the eventual co-existence of clinical and radiological features of segmental instability, as well subjective aspects, such as surgeons' training and patient preference.</p>","PeriodicalId":72443,"journal":{"name":"Brain & spine","volume":"5 ","pages":"104285"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12182769/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brain & spine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bas.2025.104285","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Recurrent lumbar disc herniation (RLDH) is defined as the reappearance, following initial discectomy, of disc material and pain after a period of at least six symptom-free months. Redo surgery is usually considered following unsuccessful conservative management or in the presence of neurological deficits.

Research question: Given the lack of consensus on the ideal surgical strategy for RLDH, we conducted this study to evaluate when lumbar fusion (LF) should be considered in the treatment of RLDH.

Material and methods: A literature search was conducted on PubMed, Google Scholar and clinicaltrials.gov focusing on the treatment of recurrent disc herniation using microdiscectomy alone or through fusion. The quality of the studies was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale and Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0. The weighted mean difference was calculated for both binary and continuous outcomes.

Results: This resulted in a list of 900 references, from which 11 studies were identified as meeting the inclusion criteria for the study. There were four prospective studies and seven retrospective studies. A comparison of LF and redo discectomy (RD) revealed no significant differences in clinical outcome scores. LF resulted in significantly higher intraoperative blood loss, longer hospitalizations and longer surgeries. No further differences were identified.

Discussion and conclusions: Both LF and RD represent safe and effective treatment options in first RLDH. The choice of surgical strategy should integrate the eventual co-existence of clinical and radiological features of segmental instability, as well subjective aspects, such as surgeons' training and patient preference.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

什么时候腰椎融合术适合治疗复发性腰椎间盘突出症?系统回顾和荟萃分析。
简介:复发性腰椎间盘突出症(RLDH)定义为在最初的椎间盘切除术后,椎间盘材料和疼痛在至少6个月无症状后再次出现。在保守治疗不成功或存在神经功能缺陷时,通常考虑重做手术。研究问题:由于对RLDH的理想手术策略缺乏共识,我们进行了这项研究,以评估在治疗RLDH时何时应考虑腰椎融合(LF)。材料和方法:检索PubMed、谷歌Scholar和clinicaltrials.gov等网站的文献,关注单纯微椎间盘切除术或融合治疗复发性椎间盘突出症。采用纽卡斯尔-渥太华质量评估量表和Cochrane风险偏倚工具2.0对研究的质量进行评价。计算二元和连续结果的加权平均差。结果:这产生了一个包含900篇参考文献的列表,其中11篇研究被确定为符合本研究的纳入标准。有4项前瞻性研究和7项回顾性研究。LF和重做椎间盘切除术(RD)的比较显示临床结果评分无显著差异。LF导致术中出血量增加,住院时间延长,手术时间延长。没有发现进一步的差异。讨论和结论:LF和RD都是首次RLDH安全有效的治疗选择。手术策略的选择应综合考虑节段性不稳定的临床和影像学特征,以及主观因素,如外科医生的培训和患者的偏好。
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
Brain & spine
Brain & spine Surgery
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
71 days
×
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