对复发性腰椎间盘突出症的深入了解:手术方法的比较分析和新的分类。

IF 1.4 Q2 OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY
Gerald Musa, Medetbek Dzhumabekovich Abakirov, Gennady E Chmutin, Samat Temirbekovich Mamyrbaev, Manuel De Jesus Encarnacion Ramirez, Kachinga Sichizya, Alexander V Kim, Gennady I Antonov, Egor G Chmutin, Dmitri V Hovrin, Mihail V Slabov, Bipin Chaurasia
{"title":"对复发性腰椎间盘突出症的深入了解:手术方法的比较分析和新的分类。","authors":"Gerald Musa, Medetbek Dzhumabekovich Abakirov, Gennady E Chmutin, Samat Temirbekovich Mamyrbaev, Manuel De Jesus Encarnacion Ramirez, Kachinga Sichizya, Alexander V Kim, Gennady I Antonov, Egor G Chmutin, Dmitri V Hovrin, Mihail V Slabov, Bipin Chaurasia","doi":"10.4103/jcvjs.jcvjs_177_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The management of recurrent lumbar disc herniation (rLDH) lacks a consensus. Consequently, the choice between repeat microdiscectomy (MD) without fusion, discectomy with fusion, or endoscopic discectomy without fusion typically hinges on the surgeon's expertise. This study conducts a comparative analysis of postoperative outcomes among these three techniques and proposes a straightforward classification system for rLDH aimed at optimizing management.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>We examined the patients treated for rLDH at our institution. Based on the presence of facet resection, Modic-2 changes, and segmental instability, they patients were categorized into three groups: Types I, II, and III rLDH managed by repeat MD without fusion, MD with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) (MD + TLIF), and transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (TFED), respectively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 127 patients were included: 52 underwent MD + TLIF, 50 underwent MD alone, and 25 underwent TFED. Recurrence rates were 20%, 12%, and 0% for MD alone, TFED, and MD + TLIF, respectively. A facetectomy exceeding 75% correlated with an 84.6% recurrence risk, while segmental instability correlated with a 100% recurrence rate. Modic-2 changes were identified in 86.7% and 100% of patients experiencing recurrence following MD and TFED, respectively. TFED exhibited the lowest risk of durotomy (4%), the shortest operative time (70.80 ± 16.5), the least blood loss (33.60 ± 8.1), and the most favorable Visual Analog Scale score, and Oswestry Disability Index quality of life assessment at 2 years. No statistically significant differences were observed in these parameters between MD alone and MD + TLIF. Based on this analysis, a novel classification system for recurrent disc herniation was proposed.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In young patients without segmental instability, prior facetectomy, and Modic-2 changes, TFED was available should take precedence over repeat MD alone. However, for patients with segmental instability, MD + TLIF is recommended. The suggested classification system has the potential to enhance patient selection and overall outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":51721,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Craniovertebral Junction and Spine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11029108/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Advancing insights into recurrent lumbar disc herniation: A comparative analysis of surgical approaches and a new classification.\",\"authors\":\"Gerald Musa, Medetbek Dzhumabekovich Abakirov, Gennady E Chmutin, Samat Temirbekovich Mamyrbaev, Manuel De Jesus Encarnacion Ramirez, Kachinga Sichizya, Alexander V Kim, Gennady I Antonov, Egor G Chmutin, Dmitri V Hovrin, Mihail V Slabov, Bipin Chaurasia\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/jcvjs.jcvjs_177_23\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The management of recurrent lumbar disc herniation (rLDH) lacks a consensus. Consequently, the choice between repeat microdiscectomy (MD) without fusion, discectomy with fusion, or endoscopic discectomy without fusion typically hinges on the surgeon's expertise. This study conducts a comparative analysis of postoperative outcomes among these three techniques and proposes a straightforward classification system for rLDH aimed at optimizing management.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>We examined the patients treated for rLDH at our institution. Based on the presence of facet resection, Modic-2 changes, and segmental instability, they patients were categorized into three groups: Types I, II, and III rLDH managed by repeat MD without fusion, MD with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) (MD + TLIF), and transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (TFED), respectively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 127 patients were included: 52 underwent MD + TLIF, 50 underwent MD alone, and 25 underwent TFED. Recurrence rates were 20%, 12%, and 0% for MD alone, TFED, and MD + TLIF, respectively. A facetectomy exceeding 75% correlated with an 84.6% recurrence risk, while segmental instability correlated with a 100% recurrence rate. Modic-2 changes were identified in 86.7% and 100% of patients experiencing recurrence following MD and TFED, respectively. TFED exhibited the lowest risk of durotomy (4%), the shortest operative time (70.80 ± 16.5), the least blood loss (33.60 ± 8.1), and the most favorable Visual Analog Scale score, and Oswestry Disability Index quality of life assessment at 2 years. No statistically significant differences were observed in these parameters between MD alone and MD + TLIF. Based on this analysis, a novel classification system for recurrent disc herniation was proposed.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In young patients without segmental instability, prior facetectomy, and Modic-2 changes, TFED was available should take precedence over repeat MD alone. However, for patients with segmental instability, MD + TLIF is recommended. The suggested classification system has the potential to enhance patient selection and overall outcomes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51721,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Craniovertebral Junction and Spine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11029108/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Craniovertebral Junction and Spine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/jcvjs.jcvjs_177_23\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/3/13 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Craniovertebral Junction and Spine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jcvjs.jcvjs_177_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:复发性腰椎间盘突出症(rLDH)的治疗缺乏共识。因此,在不融合的重复显微椎间盘切除术(MD)、融合的椎间盘切除术或不融合的内镜下椎间盘切除术之间做出选择,通常取决于外科医生的专业知识。本研究对这三种技术的术后效果进行了比较分析,并提出了一个简单明了的rLDH分类系统,旨在优化管理:我们研究了在本院接受治疗的 rLDH 患者。根据是否存在切面切除、Modic-2 改变和节段不稳定性,将患者分为三组:I型、II型和III型rLDH分别采用不融合的重复腰椎间盘切除术(MD)、腰椎间盘切除术联合经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术(TLIF)(MD + TLIF)和经椎间孔内镜椎间盘切除术(TFED)进行治疗:结果:共纳入127名患者:结果:共纳入 127 例患者:52 例接受了 MD + TLIF,50 例仅接受了 MD,25 例接受了 TFED。单纯 MD、TFED 和 MD + TLIF 的复发率分别为 20%、12% 和 0%。超过 75% 的切面与 84.6% 的复发风险相关,而节段不稳定与 100% 的复发率相关。在 MD 和 TFED 术后复发的患者中,分别有 86.7% 和 100% 发现了 Modic-2 变化。TFED 的硬膜切开风险最低(4%),手术时间最短(70.80 ± 16.5),失血量最少(33.60 ± 8.1),视觉模拟量表评分和两年后的 Oswestry 失能指数生活质量评估结果最理想。在这些参数上,单纯 MD 与 MD + TLIF 之间未观察到明显的统计学差异。在此分析基础上,提出了一种新的复发性椎间盘突出症分类系统:结论:对于没有节段性不稳定、既往接受过椎面切除术和Modic-2改变的年轻患者,TFED应优先于单纯重复MD。然而,对于节段性不稳定的患者,建议采用 MD + TLIF。建议的分类系统有可能改善患者的选择和整体疗效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Advancing insights into recurrent lumbar disc herniation: A comparative analysis of surgical approaches and a new classification.

Background: The management of recurrent lumbar disc herniation (rLDH) lacks a consensus. Consequently, the choice between repeat microdiscectomy (MD) without fusion, discectomy with fusion, or endoscopic discectomy without fusion typically hinges on the surgeon's expertise. This study conducts a comparative analysis of postoperative outcomes among these three techniques and proposes a straightforward classification system for rLDH aimed at optimizing management.

Patients and methods: We examined the patients treated for rLDH at our institution. Based on the presence of facet resection, Modic-2 changes, and segmental instability, they patients were categorized into three groups: Types I, II, and III rLDH managed by repeat MD without fusion, MD with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) (MD + TLIF), and transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (TFED), respectively.

Results: A total of 127 patients were included: 52 underwent MD + TLIF, 50 underwent MD alone, and 25 underwent TFED. Recurrence rates were 20%, 12%, and 0% for MD alone, TFED, and MD + TLIF, respectively. A facetectomy exceeding 75% correlated with an 84.6% recurrence risk, while segmental instability correlated with a 100% recurrence rate. Modic-2 changes were identified in 86.7% and 100% of patients experiencing recurrence following MD and TFED, respectively. TFED exhibited the lowest risk of durotomy (4%), the shortest operative time (70.80 ± 16.5), the least blood loss (33.60 ± 8.1), and the most favorable Visual Analog Scale score, and Oswestry Disability Index quality of life assessment at 2 years. No statistically significant differences were observed in these parameters between MD alone and MD + TLIF. Based on this analysis, a novel classification system for recurrent disc herniation was proposed.

Conclusion: In young patients without segmental instability, prior facetectomy, and Modic-2 changes, TFED was available should take precedence over repeat MD alone. However, for patients with segmental instability, MD + TLIF is recommended. The suggested classification system has the potential to enhance patient selection and overall outcomes.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
9.10%
发文量
57
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