Dataset Information

Comparison of discectomy versus sequestrectomy in lumbar disc herniation: a meta-analysis of comparative studies.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Lumbar disc removal is currently the standard treatment for lumbar disc herniation. No consensus has been achieved whether aggressive disc resection with curettage (discectomy) versus conservative removal of the offending disc fragment alone (sequestrectomy) provides better outcomes. This study aims to compare the reherniation rate and clinical outcomes between discectomy and sequestrectomy by literature review and a meta-analysis.

Methods

A systematic search of PubMed, Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library was performed up to June 1, 2014. Outcomes of interest assessing the two techniques included demographic and clinical baseline characteristics, perioperative variables, complications, recurrent herniation rate and post-operative functional outcomes.

Results

Twelve eligible trials evaluating discectomy vs sequestrectomy were identified including one randomized controlled study, five prospective and six retrospective comparative studies. By contrast to discectomy, sequestrectomy was associated with significantly less operative time (p<0.001), lower visual analogue scale (VAS) for low back pain (p<0.05), less post-operative analgesic usage (p<0.05) and better patients' satisfaction (p<0.05). Recurrent herniation rate, reoperation rate, intraoperative blood loss, hospitalization duration and VAS for sciatica were without significant difference.

Conclusions

According to our pooled data, sequestrectomy entails equivalent reherniation rate and complications compared with discectomy but maintains a lower incidence of recurrent low back pain and higher satisfactory rate. High-quality prospective randomized controlled trials are needed to firmly assess these two procedures.

SUBMITTER: Ran J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4376728 | biostudies-literature | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of discectomy versus sequestrectomy in lumbar disc herniation: a meta-analysis of comparative studies.

Ran Jisheng J Hu Yejun Y Zheng Zefeng Z Zhu Ting T Zheng Huawei H Jing Yibiao Y Xu Kan K

PloS one 20150327 3

<h4>Background</h4>Lumbar disc removal is currently the standard treatment for lumbar disc herniation. No consensus has been achieved whether aggressive disc resection with curettage (discectomy) versus conservative removal of the offending disc fragment alone (sequestrectomy) provides better outcomes. This study aims to compare the reherniation rate and clinical outcomes between discectomy and sequestrectomy by literature review and a meta-analysis.<h4>Methods</h4>A systematic search of PubMed, ...[more]

PMID: 25815514

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background:Percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy (PETD) is regarded as a viable alternative option for upper lumbar disc herniation (LDH). However, few studies have evaluated PETD for upper LDH, and no study has compared the advantages of endoscopic procedures versus conventional surgery. The present study was aimed at comparing the surgical outcome and safety of PETD versus conventional open lumbar discectomy in the treatment of upper LDH. Methods:Data from 42 patients treated for upper LDH from July 2015 to July 2018 were retrospectively analyzed, including 21 patients treated with PETD (PETD group) and 21 patients treated with conventional posterior lumbar discectomy (open group). The two groups were compared regarding demographic information, physical examination, radiological evaluations, and perioperative indicators. The clinical outcomes were assessed in accordance with the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analog scale (VAS), and modified MacNab criteria. Results:The postoperative ODI and VAS scores were significantly improved in both groups compared with the preoperative baseline values (P < 0.001), and the satisfactory rate was 90.5% in both groups in accordance with the modified MacNab criteria. There were no significant differences between the two groups in the clinical outcomes and complication rate (P < 0.001), and the satisfactory rate was 90.5% in both groups in accordance with the modified MacNab criteria. There were no significant differences between the two groups in the clinical outcomes and complication rate (P < 0.001), and the satisfactory rate was 90.5% in both groups in accordance with the modified MacNab criteria. There were no significant differences between the two groups in the clinical outcomes and complication rate (. Conclusions:PETD has a similar outcome to the conventional surgical method for the treatment of upper LDH but provides the typical advantages of minimally invasive procedures such as reduced iatrogenic injury, minimal activity restrictions, and accelerated ambulation recovery postoperatively.

Project description:BackgroundFenestration discectomy, for symptomatic lumbar disc herniation, is the most common surgical procedure in spine surgery. It can be done by open or microscopic procedures. This study compared the results of fenestration microdiscectomy with open fenestration discectomy in the treatment of symptomatic lumbar disc herniation as a relation to the functional outcome, leg pain, back pain, hospital stay, returns to daily activity, cost, recurrence, reoperation and type of surgery for recurrent disc herniation.Methods60 patients age (29 - 50 years), with L4-L5 disc herniation, are divided randomly into group A- 30 patients underwent an open fenestration discectomy- and group B- 30 patients underwent fenestration microdiscectomy. All patients are assessed at 1 week, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months after surgery for Oswestry disability index and Visual analogue scale for back pain and leg pain and followed up for 4 years.ResultsIn both groups, all patients have minimal disability by Oswestry Disability Index after surgery. There were significant differences between means of post-operative Visual Analogue Scale for back pain between these two groups after 1 week (3.7 in group A versus 2.2 in group B) (t = 13.28, P = < 0.001*) and after 3 months (1.73 in group A versus 0.43 in group B) (t = 10.54, P = < 0.001*). There were no significant differences between two groups regarding post-operative VAS for leg pain, recurrence (5 patients in group A versus 4 patients in group B) and reoperation rate (2 patients in each group). There were significant differences between means of length of hospital stay (2.10 in group A versus 1.06 in group B) (P < 0.001), time of returning to daily activities (7.33 in group A versus 4.03 in group B) (P < 0.001) and cost of surgery (1996.66 in group A versus 3003.3 in group B) (P < 0.001).ConclusionUse of microscope in fenestration discectomy for treatment of symptomatic lumbar disc herniation can achieve the same goals of open fenestration regarding nerve root decompression and relief of leg pain with advantage of less back pain, less hospital staying and early return to daily activities with disadvantage of more cost with the use of microscope. With 4 years follow up, there was no significant deference in rate of recurrence and reoperation with the use of microscope but we found that type of surgery for recurrent cases may be less invasive if microscope was used in primary surgery.Trial registrationNCT, NCT04112485. Registered 30 September 2019 - Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/NCT04112485.

Project description:Study designSecondary analysis of data from a concurrent randomized trial and cohort study.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to determine risks and predictors of recurrent pain following standard open discectomy for subacute/chronic symptomatic lumbar disc herniation (SLDH).Summary of background dataMost previous studies of recurrence after discectomy do not explicitly define pain resolution and recurrence, and do not account for variable durations of time at risk for recurrence.MethodsWe used survival analysis methods to examine predictors of leg pain recurrence. For individuals with initial resolution of leg pain, we defined recurrent leg pain as having leg pain, receiving lumbar epidural steroid injections, or undergoing lumbar surgery subsequent to initial leg pain resolution. We calculated cumulative risks of leg pain recurrence using Kaplan-Meier survival curves, and examined predictors of recurrence using Cox proportional hazards models. We used similar methods to examine LBP recurrence.ResultsOne- and three-year cumulative risks of leg pain recurrence were 20% and 45%, respectively. One- and three- year leg pain recurrence risks were substantially lower in participants with complete initial resolution of leg pain (17% and 41%, respectively) than in those without (27% and 54%, respectively). In multivariate analyses, complete leg pain resolution (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.52-0.90), smoking (aHR 1.68 [95% CI 1.22-2.33]), and depression (aHR 1.74 [95% CI 1.18-2.56]) predicted leg pain recurrence. The 1- and 3-year risk of LBP recurrence was 29% and 65%, respectively. LBP recurrence risk at 3 years was substantially lower in participants with complete initial resolution of LBP than in those without, but not at 1 year.ConclusionRecurrence of leg pain and LBP is common after discectomy for SLDH. Cumulative risks of both leg pain and LBP recurrence were generally lower in participants achieving complete initial resolution of pain post-discectomy.Level of evidence2.

Dataset Information

Comparison of discectomy versus sequestrectomy in lumbar disc herniation: a meta-analysis of comparative studies.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Comparison of discectomy versus sequestrectomy in lumbar disc herniation: a meta-analysis of comparative studies.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets