Advertisement

Der Orthopäde

, Volume 47, Issue 12, pp 993–1002 | Cite as

Lumbar disc herniation treated by microendoscopic discectomy

Prognostic predictors of long-term postoperative outcome
  • Xin Hong
  • Rui Shi
  • Yun-Tao Wang
  • Lei Liu
  • Jun-Ping Bao
  • Xiao-Tao WuEmail author
Originalien

Abstract

Purpose

Microendoscopic discectomy (MED) is becoming an established and effective minimally invasive surgical method for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH); however, the absence of prognostic factors for long-term outcomes after MED results in a lack of specific criteria for appropriate patient selection. Therefore, we evaluated the long-term outcomes and associated predictors in patients who underwent MED for LDH.

Material and methods

Baseline and follow-up data for 664 LDH patients who suffered from sciatica and underwent primary MED were reviewed retrospectively. Variables at baseline that were analyzed as potential prognostic factors included sociodemographic characteristics, clinical findings, and imaging features. Follow-up data including improvements in the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), postoperative low back pain (LBP), reoperation, and excellent/good results according to the modified MacNab criteria were set as outcome variables for univariate and further multivariate logistic regression analyses.

Results

The mean follow-up period was 63.8 ± 20.0 months (range 24–96 months). On average, sufficient improvements in both the VAS score (72.8%) and ODI (63.4%) were observed. In addition, a low postoperative LBP rate (23.9%), low reoperation rate (7.1%), and high rate of excellent/good clinical outcomes (89.9%) were achieved. A multivariate analysis indicated that older age, shorter disease duration, higher preoperative VAS score, lower preoperative ODI, shorter surgical time, lower severity of disc and adjacent disc degeneration, and lower severity of lumbar multifidus atrophy contributed to superior clinical outcomes.

Conclusion

Excellent long-term outcomes after primary MED were achieved and specific sociodemographic, clinical, and imaging variables were identified as prognostic factors that can be used to guide patient selection and clinical decision making.

Keywords

Retrospective study Surgical procedures Visual analog scale Low back pain Minimally invasive surgery 

Abbreviations

CI

Confidence interval

IMMPACT

Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials

LBP

Low back pain

LDH

Lumbar disc herniation

LM

Lumbar multifidus

MRI

Magnetic resonance imaging

MED

Microendoscopic discectomy

ODI

Oswestry disability index

OR

Odds ratio

VAS

Visual analog scale

Behandlung eines Bandscheibenvorfalls der Lendenwirbelsäule mittels endoskopischer Mikrodiskektomie

Prognostische Prädiktoren für das postoperative Langzeitergebnis

Zusammenfassung

Zweck

Die endoskopische Mikrodiskektomie (MED) entwickelt sich zu einer etablierten minimalinvasiven Operationsmethode zur Behandlung eines Bandscheibenvorfalls der Lendenwirbelsäule (LDH). Die Abwesenheit prognostischer Faktoren für Langzeitergebnisse nach MED resultiert jedoch in einem Mangel an spezifischen Kriterien für eine entsprechende Patientenselektion. Daher evaluierten wir die Langzeitergebnisse und die damit assoziierten Prädiktoren bei Patienten, die sich aufgrund eines LDH einer MED unterzogen.

Material und Methoden

Baseline- und Follow-up-Daten für 664 LDH-Patienten, die an Ischialgie litten und sich einer primären MED unterzogen, wurden retrospektiv beurteilt. Die Baseline-Variablen, die als potenzielle prognostische Faktoren analysiert wurden, umfassten soziodemographische Charakteristika, klinische Befunde sowie Bildgebungsmerkmale. Die Follow-up-Daten, einschließlich Verbesserung des Scores der visuellen Analogskala (VAS) und Oswestry-Disability-Index (ODI), postoperative untere Rückenschmerzen (LBP), Reoperation und exzellente/gute Ergebnisse nach den modifizierten MacNab-Kriterien, wurden als Outcome-Variablen für die univariaten und multivariaten logistische Regressionsanalysen festgelegt.

Ergebnisse

Der mittlere Follow-up-Zeitraum betrug 63,8 ± 20,0 Monate (Range: 24–96 Monate). Im Durchschnitt wurden ausreichende Verbesserungen sowohl bei den VAS-Scores (72,8 %) als auch den ODI-Werten (63,4 %) beobachtet. Zudem wurden eine niedrige postoperative LBP-Rate (23,9 %), eine niedrige Reoperationsrate (7,1 %) sowie eine hohe Rate an exzellenten/guten klinischen Ergebnissen (89,9 %) erreicht. Eine multivariate Analyse zeigte, dass ein fortgeschrittenes Alter, eine kurze Krankheitsdauer, höhere präoperative VAS-Scores, geringere präoperative ODI-Werte, eine kürzere Operationszeit, ein geringerer Degenerationsgrad der Bandscheibe und benachbarten Bandscheiben sowie eine geringere Schwere einer Musculi-multifidi-Atrophie der Lendenwirbelsäule zu den überragenden klinischen Ergebnissen beitrugen.

Schlussfolgerung

Exzellente Langzeitergebnisse nach primärer MED wurden erreicht. Spezifische soziodemographische klinische und Bildgebungsvariablen wurden als prognostische Faktoren identifiziert, welche für die Patientenselektion und die klinische Entscheidungsfindung verwendet werden können.

Schlusselwörter

Retrospektive Studie Operationsverfahren Visuelle Analogskala Untere Rückenschmerzen Minimalinvasive Chirurgie 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 81702201, 81272035, 81071493, 31070876, 81572190 and 81572170) and the Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province (CN): Grant No. BK20170701.

Funding

Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu, Province (CN), (BK20170701) and National Natural Science Foundation of China (CN), (81702201) Dr. Rui Shi; National Natural Science Foundation of China (CN), (81272035) and National Natural Science Foundation of China (CN), (81071493), Dr Xiao-Tao Wu; National Natural Science Foundation of China (CN), (31070876), Dr. Yun-Tao Wang; National Natural Science Foundation of China (CN), (81572190), Dr. Xin Hong; National Natural Science Foundation of China (CN), (81572170), Dr. Xiao-Tao Wu; Research Funds of Jiangsu Provincial Commission of Health and Family Planning (H201533), Dr. Xin Hong

Compliance with ethical guidelines

Conflict of interest

X. Hong, R. Shi, Y.-T. Wang, L. Liu, J.-P. Bao and X.-T. Wu declare that they have no competing interests.

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Supplementary material

132_2018_3624_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (50 kb)
ESM Table 1: Logistic regression analysis of >30% and >50% improvements in VAS for leg pain at follow-up
132_2018_3624_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (108 kb)
ESM Table 2: Logistic regression analysis of >30% and >50% improvements in ODI at follow-up
132_2018_3624_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (49 kb)
ESM Table 3: Logistic regression analysis of postoperative LBP
132_2018_3624_MOESM4_ESM.pdf (48 kb)
ESM Table 4: Logistic regression analysis of reoperation
132_2018_3624_MOESM5_ESM.pdf (48 kb)
ESM Table 5: Logistic regression analysis of excellent/good results (modified Macnab criteria) at follow-up

References

  1. 1.
    Maroon JC (2002) Current concepts in minimally invasive discectomy. Neurosurgery 51(5):S137–S145Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wu X, Zhuang S, Mao Z, Chen H (2006) Microendoscopic discectomy for lumbar disc herniation: surgical technique and outcome in 873 consecutive cases. Spine 31(23):2689–2694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jhala A, Mistry M (2010) Endoscopic lumbar discectomy: experience of first 100 cases. Indian J Orthop 44(2):184–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Smith N, Masters J, Jensen C, Khan A, Sprowson A (2013) Systematic review of microendoscopic discectomy for lumbar disc herniation. Eur Spine J 22(11):2458–2465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Casal-Moro R, Castro-Menéndez M, Hernández-Blanco M, Bravo-Ricoy JA, Jorge-Barreiro FJ (2011) Long-term outcome after microendoscopic diskectomy for lumbar disk herniation: a prospective clinical study with a 5-year follow-up. Neurosurgery 68(6):1568–1575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Macnab I, McCulloch J (1990) Disc ruptures. Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, pp 130–134Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Griffith JF, Wang Y‑XJ AGE, Choi KC, Yu A, Ahuja AT, Leung PC (2007) Modified Pfirrmann grading system for lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration. Spine 32(24):E708–E712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Modic MT, Steinberg PM, Ross JS, Masaryk TJ, Carter JR (1988) Degenerative disk disease: assessment of changes in vertebral body marrow with MR imaging. Radiology 166(1 Pt 1):193–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kader DF, Wardlaw D, Smith FW (2000) Correlation between the MRI changes in the lumbar multifidus muscles and leg pain. Clin Radiol 55(2):145–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cook CE, Arnold PM, Passias PG, Frempong-Boadu AK, Radcliff K, Isaacs R (2015) Predictors of pain and disability outcomes in one thousand, one hundred and eight patients who underwent lumbar discectomy surgery. Int Orthop 39(11):2143.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-015-2748-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Wyrwich KW, Beaton D, Cleeland CS, Farrar JT, Haythornthwaite JA, Jensen MP, Kerns RD, Ader DN, Brandenburg N, Burke LB, Cella D, Chandler J, Cowan P, Dimitrova R, Dionne R, Hertz S, Jadad AR, Katz NP, Kehlet H, Kramer LD, Manning DC, McCormick C, McDermott MP, McQuay HJ, Patel S, Porter L, Quessy S, Rappaport BA, Rauschkolb C, Revicki DA, Rothman M, Schmader KE, Stacey BR, Stauffer JW, von Stein T, White RE, Witter J, Zavisic S (2008) Interpreting the clinical importance of treatment outcomes in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. J Pain 9(2):105–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Parker S, Mendenhall S, Godil S, Sivasubramanian P, Cahill K, Ziewacz J, McGirt M (2015) Incidence of low back pain after lumbar discectomy for herniated disc and its effect on patient-reported outcomes. Clin Orthop Relat Res 473(6):1988–1999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Matsumoto M, Watanabe K, Hosogane N, Tsuji T, Ishii K, Nakamura M, Chiba K, Toyama Y (2013) Recurrence of lumbar disc herniation after microendoscopic discectomy. J Neurol Surg A 74(4):222–227Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Smith MM, Foley KT (1997) Microendoscopic discectomy: Surgical technique and initial clinical results. J Clin Neurol Neurosurg 99(97):105–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Findlay GF, Hall BI, Musa BS, Oliveira MD, Fear SC (1998) A 10-year follow-up of the outcome of lumbar microdiscectomy. Spine 23(10):1168–1171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Soliman J, Harvey A, Howes G, Seibly J, Dossey J, Nardone E (2014) Limited microdiscectomy for lumbar disk herniation: a retrospective long-term outcome analysis. J Spinal Disord Tech 27(1):E8–E13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Graver V, Ljunggren AE, Loeb M, Haaland AK, Lie H, Magnaes B (1998) Background variables (medical history, anthropometric and biological factors) in relation to the outcome of lumbar disc surgery. Scand J Rehabil Med 30(4):221–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rothoerl RD, Woertgen C, Brawanski A (2002) When should conservative treatment for lumbar disc herniation be ceased and surgery considered? Neurosurg Rev 25(3):162–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dewing CB, Provencher MT, Riffenburgh RH, Kerr S, Manos RE (1976) The outcomes of lumbar microdiscectomy in a young, active population: correlation by herniation type and level. Spine 33(1):33–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Silverplats K, Lind B, Zoega B, Halldin K, Rutberg L, Gellerstedt M, Brisby H (2010) Clinical factors of importance for outcome after lumbar disc herniation surgery: long-term follow-up. Eur Spine J 19(9):1459–1467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dolan P, Greenfield K, Nelson RJ, Nelson IW (1976) Can exercise therapy improve the outcome of microdiscectomy? Spine 25(12):1523–1532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kara B, Tulum Z, Acar Ü (2005) Functional results and the risk factors of reoperations after lumbar disc surgery. Eur Spine J 14(1):43–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Parkkola R, Rytökoski U, Kormano M (1993) Magnetic resonance imaging of the discs and trunk muscles in patients with chronic low back pain and healthy control subjects. Spine 18(7):830–836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dora C, Schmid MR, Elfering A, Zanetti M, Hodler J, Boos N (2005) Lumbar disk herniation: do MR imaging findings predict recurrence after surgical diskectomy? Radiology 235(2):562–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tang S, Rebholz BJ (2013) Does lumbar microdiscectomy affect adjacent segmental disc degeneration? A finite element study. J Surg Res 182(1):62–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chin KR, Tomlinson DT, Auerbach JD, Shatsky JB, Deirmengian CA (2008) Success of lumbar microdiscectomy in patients with modic changes and low-back pain: a prospective pilot study. J Spinal Disord Tech 21(2):139–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sorlie A, Moholdt V, Kvistad KA, Nygaard OP, Ingebrigtsen T, Iversen T, Kloster R, Solberg TK (2012) Modic type I changes and recovery of back pain after lumbar microdiscectomy. Eur Spine J 21(11):2252–2258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Yoshihara K, Shirai Y, Nakayama Y, Uesaka S (1976) Histochemical changes in the multifidus muscle in patients with lumbar intervertebral disc herniation. Spine 26(6):622–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Yoshihara K, Nakayama Y, Fujii N, Aoki T, Ito H (2003) Atrophy of the multifidus muscle in patients with lumbar disk herniation: histochemical and electromyographic study. Orthopedics 26(5):493–495Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hebert JJ, Fritz JM, Koppenhaver SL, Thackeray A, Kjaer P (2016) Predictors of clinical outcome following lumbar disc surgery: the value of historical, physical examination, and muscle function variables. Eur Spine J 25(1):310.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-3916-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xin Hong
    • 1
  • Rui Shi
    • 1
  • Yun-Tao Wang
    • 1
  • Lei Liu
    • 1
  • Jun-Ping Bao
    • 1
  • Xiao-Tao Wu
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Spine Surgery CenterZhongda Hospital, Medical School, Southeast UniversityNanjingChina

Personalised recommendations