Microdiscectomy for Lumbar Intervertebral Disc Prolapse: Is Fixation Required?

IF 0.3 Q4 SURGERY
A. P. Patankar, Shivani R. Chaudhary, Kashyap Patel
{"title":"Microdiscectomy for Lumbar Intervertebral Disc Prolapse: Is Fixation Required?","authors":"A. P. Patankar, Shivani R. Chaudhary, Kashyap Patel","doi":"10.1055/s-0042-1759617","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Introduction  Microdiscectomy, as of now, is considered the gold standard for the treatment of herniated lumbar disc. It preserves motion at the spinal segment and does not alter the local spinal anatomy significantly, resulting in a “functional and mobile” spine. Development of increasingly better-quality implants has seen their indiscriminate use in cases without any demonstrable instability. We see an increasing number of patients of lumbar disc prolapse being treated by fixation and fusion procedures, without any clear indication or evidence supporting such practice. This adds to the operating time, blood loss, cost of surgery and leads to loss of motion at the spinal segment resulting in a “stiff and immobile spine.” Our 10-year experience of treating lumbar disc herniation by micro-discectomy makes a strong case for preserving the spinal motion segment wherever possible and to use fixation very judiciously only in cases of proven instability. Materials and Methods  A total of 295 cases of lumbar disc prolapse operated by the first author from January 2013 to April 2022 were analyzed. All the patients had unilateral or bilateral radicular pain. Preoperatively instability was ruled out by dynamic X-rays. All the patients were operated in prone position on Wilson's frame. Microdiscectomy was done through the inter-laminar space. Patient outcomes and complications were analyzed. Results  There was no mortality in our series. All the patients had significant relief of lower limb pain with improved visual analog scale scores postoperatively. The patients were followed up for 6 months. There were complications in 17 patients, all of which were treated successfully with a good outcome. None of the complications were attributable to failure of doing fixation. Conclusion  Lumbar disc prolapse can be treated effectively by microdiscectomy. Fixation should be reserved for only those cases with demonstrable preoperative instability.","PeriodicalId":53938,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Neurosurgery","volume":"15 3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Journal of Neurosurgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-1759617","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Introduction  Microdiscectomy, as of now, is considered the gold standard for the treatment of herniated lumbar disc. It preserves motion at the spinal segment and does not alter the local spinal anatomy significantly, resulting in a “functional and mobile” spine. Development of increasingly better-quality implants has seen their indiscriminate use in cases without any demonstrable instability. We see an increasing number of patients of lumbar disc prolapse being treated by fixation and fusion procedures, without any clear indication or evidence supporting such practice. This adds to the operating time, blood loss, cost of surgery and leads to loss of motion at the spinal segment resulting in a “stiff and immobile spine.” Our 10-year experience of treating lumbar disc herniation by micro-discectomy makes a strong case for preserving the spinal motion segment wherever possible and to use fixation very judiciously only in cases of proven instability. Materials and Methods  A total of 295 cases of lumbar disc prolapse operated by the first author from January 2013 to April 2022 were analyzed. All the patients had unilateral or bilateral radicular pain. Preoperatively instability was ruled out by dynamic X-rays. All the patients were operated in prone position on Wilson's frame. Microdiscectomy was done through the inter-laminar space. Patient outcomes and complications were analyzed. Results  There was no mortality in our series. All the patients had significant relief of lower limb pain with improved visual analog scale scores postoperatively. The patients were followed up for 6 months. There were complications in 17 patients, all of which were treated successfully with a good outcome. None of the complications were attributable to failure of doing fixation. Conclusion  Lumbar disc prolapse can be treated effectively by microdiscectomy. Fixation should be reserved for only those cases with demonstrable preoperative instability.
微椎间盘切除术治疗腰椎间盘突出:需要固定吗?
目前,微椎间盘切除术被认为是治疗腰椎间盘突出症的金标准。它保留了脊柱节段的运动,不会显著改变局部脊柱解剖结构,从而形成“功能和活动”的脊柱。越来越高质量的植入物的发展已经看到它们在没有任何明显不稳定的情况下被任意使用。我们看到越来越多的腰椎间盘突出症患者采用固定融合手术治疗,但没有任何明确的适应症或证据支持这种做法。这增加了手术时间、出血量、手术费用,并导致脊柱节段失去运动能力,导致“僵硬和不动的脊柱”。我们通过微型椎间盘切除术治疗腰椎间盘突出症的10年经验表明,在可能的情况下保留脊柱运动节段,只有在证实不稳定的情况下才非常明智地使用固定。材料与方法对第一作者2013年1月至2022年4月行腰椎间盘突出症手术的295例患者进行分析。所有患者均有单侧或双侧神经根疼痛。术前动态x光检查排除不稳定。所有患者均在Wilson框架上俯卧位进行手术。通过椎板间间隙进行微椎间盘切除术。分析患者预后和并发症。结果本组无死亡病例。所有患者下肢疼痛均有明显缓解,术后视觉模拟评分均有改善。随访6个月。17例患者出现并发症,均治疗成功,预后良好。所有并发症均未因固定失败引起。结论显微椎间盘切除术能有效治疗腰椎间盘突出症。只有在术前有明显不稳定的情况下才应进行固定。
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
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
52
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信