Dataset Information

Short-term and long-term revision rates after lumbar spine discectomy versus laminectomy: a population-based cohort study.

ABSTRACT:

Background/objective

Degenerative diseases of the lumbar spine were managed with discectomy or laminectomy. This study aimed to compare these two surgical treatments in the postoperative revision rates.

Design

A population-based cohort study from analysis of a healthcare database.

Setting

Data were gathered from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD).

Participants

We enrolled 16?048 patients (4450 women and 11?598 men) with a mean age of 40.34 years who underwent lumbar discectomy or laminectomy for the first time between 1 January 1997 and 31 December 2007. All patients were followed up for 5 years or until death.

Results

Revision rate within 3 months of the index surgery was significantly higher in patients who underwent discectomy (2.75%) than in those who underwent laminectomy (1.18%; p<0.0001). This difference persisted over the first year following the index surgery (3.38% vs 2.57%). One year afterwards, the revision rates were similar between the discectomy (9.75%) and laminectomy (9.69%) groups. The final spinal fusion surgery rates were also similar between the groups (11.25% vs 12.08%).

Conclusion

The revision rate after lumbar discectomy was higher than that after laminectomy within 1?year of the index surgery. However, differences were not identified between patient groups for the two procedures with respect to long-term revision rates and the proportion of patients who required final spinal fusion surgery.

SUBMITTER: Kao FC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6059274 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Short-term and long-term revision rates after lumbar spine discectomy versus laminectomy: a population-based cohort study.

Kao Feng-Chen FC Hsu Yao-Chun YC Wang Chang-Bi CB Tu Yuan-Kun YK Liu Pao-Hsin PH

BMJ open 20180717 7

<h4>Background/objective</h4>Degenerative diseases of the lumbar spine were managed with discectomy or laminectomy. This study aimed to compare these two surgical treatments in the postoperative revision rates.<h4>Design</h4>A population-based cohort study from analysis of a healthcare database.<h4>Setting</h4>Data were gathered from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD).<h4>Participants</h4>We enrolled 16 048 patients (4450 women and 11 598 men) with a mean age of 40.34 ...[more]

PMID: 30018095

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo test the equivalence for clinical effectiveness between microdecompression and laminectomy in patients with central lumbar spinal stenosis.DesignMulticentre observational study.SettingProspective data from the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery.Participants885 patients with central stenosis of the lumbar spine who underwent surgery at 34 Norwegian orthopaedic or neurosurgical departments. Patients were treated from October 2006 to December 2011.InterventionsLaminectomy and microdecompression.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was change in Oswestry disability index score one year after surgery. Secondary endpoints were quality of life (EuroQol EQ-5D), perioperative complications, and duration of surgical procedures and hospital stays. A blinded biostatistician performed predefined statistical analyses in unmatched and propensity matched cohorts.ResultsThe study was powered to detect a difference between the groups of eight points on the Oswestry disability index at one year. 721 patients (81%) completed the one year follow-up. Equivalence between microdecompression and laminectomy was shown for the Oswestry disability index (difference 1.3 points, 95% confidence interval -1.36 to 3.92, P<0.001 for equivalence). Equivalence was confirmed in the propensity matched cohort and full information regression analyses. No difference was found between groups in quality of life (EQ-5D) one year after surgery. The number of patients with complications was higher in the laminectomy group (15.0% v 9.8%, P=0.018), but after propensity matching for complications the groups did not differ (P=0.23). The duration of surgery for single level decompression was shorter in the microdecompression group (difference 11.2 minutes, 95% confidence interval 4.9 to 17.5, P<0.001), but after propensity matching the groups did not differ (P=0.15). Patients in the microdecompression group had shorter hospital stays, both for single level decompression (difference 1.5 days, 95% confidence interval 1.7 to 2.6, P<0.001) and two level decompression (0.8 days, 1.0 to 2.2, P=0.003).ConclusionAt one year the effectiveness of microdecompression is equivalent to laminectomy in the surgical treatment of central stenosis of the lumbar spine. Favourable outcomes were observed at one year in both treatment groups.Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02006901.

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:BackgroundThe Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial showed an overall advantage for operative compared with nonoperative treatment of lumbar disc herniations. Because a recent randomized trial showed no benefit for operative treatment of a disc at the lumbosacral junction (L5-S1), we reviewed subgroups within the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial to assess the effect of herniation level on outcomes of operative and nonoperative care.MethodsThe combined randomized and observation cohorts of the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial were analyzed by actual treatment received stratified by level of disc herniation. Overall, 646 L5-S1 herniations, 456 L4-L5 herniations, and eighty-eight upper lumbar (L2-L3 or L3-L4) herniations were evaluated. Primary outcome measures were the Short Form-36 bodily pain and physical functioning scales and the modified Oswestry Disability Index assessed at six weeks, three months, six months, one year, and two years. Treatment effects (the improvement in the operative group minus the improvement in the nonoperative group) were estimated with use of longitudinal regression models, adjusting for important covariates.ResultsAt two years, patients with upper lumbar herniations (L2-L3 or L3-L4) showed a significantly greater treatment effect from surgery than did patients with L5-S1 herniations for all outcome measures: 24.6 and 7.1, respectively, for bodily pain (p = 0.002); 23.4 and 9.9 for Short Form-36 physical functioning (p = 0.014); and -19 and -10.3 for Oswestry Disability Index (p = 0.033). There was a trend toward greater treatment effect for surgery at L4-L5 compared with L5-S1, but this was significant only for the Short Form-36 physical functioning subscale (p = 0.006). Differences in treatment effects between the upper lumbar levels and L4-L5 were significant for Short Form-36 bodily pain only (p = 0.018).ConclusionsThe advantage of operative compared with nonoperative treatment varied by herniation level, with the smallest treatment effects at L5-S1, intermediate effects at L4-L5, and the largest effects at L2-L3 and L3-L4. This difference in effect was mainly a result of less improvement in patients with upper lumbar herniations after nonoperative treatment.

Dataset Information

Short-term and long-term revision rates after lumbar spine discectomy versus laminectomy: a population-based cohort study.

Background/objective

Design

Setting

Participants

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Short-term and long-term revision rates after lumbar spine discectomy versus laminectomy: a population-based cohort study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets