Advertisement

Complications of endoscopic microdiscectomy using the EASYGO! system: is there any difference with conventional discectomy during the learning-curve period?

Abstract

Background

Microendoscopic discectomy (MED) is emerging as a minimally invasive alternative to conventional microsurgical discectomy (MSD). EASYGO! is a new system for spinal endoscopy that claims smooth transition from MSD to MED, with a reduced learning curve period. The aims of this study were to describe the complications that appeared during the learning curve period of MED and to compare their incidence with the rate and type of complications that occurred during a simultaneous non-randomised series of standard MSDs.

Methods

Between July 2009 and December 2010, 138 patients underwent scheduled first-time discectomy in our institution, 37 using an MED approach and 101 by a conventional MSD. A MED learning curve was obtained by plotting every case with its respective operative time. Complications, length of hospital stay, need of further surgery and outcome were prospectively recorded in both groups.

Results

The mean operative time was 66 min for the MSD group and 100 min for the MED group, although for the last 14 cases of the latter group the time was reduced. Curve-fitting techniques showed that the inverse equation, ƒ(x) = 122.12/x + 73.05, had the best correlation between case number and operative time. The learning curve was overcome after the 30th case. Complications occurred in 9.8 % of the MSD group and 8.1 % of the MED group (P = 0.49). Average length of hospital stay was 2.36 days for the MED group and 3.36 days for the MSD group (P = 0.01). The procedure successfully relieved patient symptoms in 68.63 % of the MSD group and 89.92 % of the MED group. No revision surgery was required in the MED group, but it was necessary in ten patients of the MSD group.

Conclusions

Between 25 and 30 cases are needed to reach the learning curve’s asymptote of MED. Even during this initial learning period MED is a safe procedure, with comparable results to those obtained with conventional MSD and with a similar complication rate. The key points for reducing intraoperative complications are an adequate expertise in MSD, a precise selection of initial cases, a proper surgical planning and a careful technique, which are mandatory to avoid unnecessary neurological injury in an otherwise secure surgical approach.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant unlimited access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Price includes VAT for USA

Subscribe to journal

Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.

US$ 199

This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  1. 1.

    Arts M, Brand R, van der Kallen B, Lycklama à Nijeholt G, Peul W (2011) Does minimally invasive lumbar disc surgery result in less muscle injury than conventional surgery? A randomized controlled trial. Eur Spine J 20:51–57

  2. 2.

    Arts MP, Brand R, van den Akker ME, Koes BW, Bartels RH, Peul WC, Leiden-The Hague Spine Intervention Prognostic Study Group (SIPS) (2009) Tubular diskectomy vs conventional microdiskectomy for sciatica: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 302:149–158

  3. 3.

    Arts MP, Brand R, van den Akker ME, Koes BW, Bartels RH, Tan WF, Peul WC (2011) Tubular diskectomy vs conventional microdiskectomy for the treatment of lumbar disk herniation: 2-year results of a double-blind randomized controlled trial. Neurosurgery 69:135–144

  4. 4.

    Arts MP, Nieborg A, Brand R, Peul WC (2007) Serum creatine phosphokinase as an indicator of muscle injury after various spinal and nonspinal surgical procedures. J Neurosurg Spine 7:282–286

  5. 5.

    Arts MP, Peul WC, Leiden-Hague Spine Intervention Prognostic Study Group (2011) Timing and minimal access surgery for sciatica: a summary of two randomized trials. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 153:967–974

  6. 6.

    Arts MP, Peul WC, Brand R, Koes BW, Thomeer RT (2006) Cost-effectiveness of microendoscopic discectomy versus conventional open discectomy in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation: a prospective randomised controlled trial [ISRCTN51857546]. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 7:42

  7. 7.

    Casal-Moro R, Castro-Menendez M, del Campo-Perez V, Hernandez-Blanco M, Jorge-Barreiro FJ (2010) Learning curve of microendoscopic discectomy for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation. Rev Esp Cir Ortop Traumatol 54:272–279

  8. 8.

    Caspar W (1977) A new surgical procedure for lumbar disc herniation causing less tissue damage through a microsurgical approach. Adv Neurosurg 4:74–80

  9. 9.

    Chang SS, Fu TS, Liang YC, Lia PL, Niu CC, Chen LH, Chen WJ (2009) Results of microendoscopic discectomy performed in the 26 cases with a minimum 3 years follow-up. Chang Gung Med J 32:89–97

  10. 10.

    Christie SD, Song JK (2006) Minimally invasive lumbar discectomy and foraminotomy. Neurosurg Clin N Am 17:459–466

  11. 11.

    Foley KT, Smith MM (1997) Microendoscopic discectomy. Tech Neurosurg 3:301–307

  12. 12.

    Franke J, Greiner-Perth R, Boehm H, Mahlfeld K, Grasshoff H, Allam Y, Awiszus F (2009) Comparison of a minimally invasive procedure versus standard microscopic discotomy: a prospective randomised controlled clinical trial. Eur Spine J 18:992–1000

  13. 13.

    Fritsch EW, Heisel J, Rupp S (1996) The failed back surgery syndrome: reasons, intraoperative findings, and long-term results: a report of 182 operative treatments. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 21:626–633

  14. 14.

    Gibson JN, Waddell G (2007) Surgical interventions for lumbar disc prolapse: updated Cochrane Review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32:1735–1747

  15. 15.

    Huang TJ, Hsu RW, Li YY, Cheng CC (2005) Less systemic cytokine response in patients following microendoscopic versus open lumbar discectomy. J Orthop Res 23:406–411

  16. 16.

    Isaacs RE, Podichetty V, Fessler RG (2003) Microendoscopic discectomy for recurrent disc herniations. Neurosurg Focus 15:E11

  17. 17.

    Jansson KA, Nemeth G, Granath F, Blomqvist P (2004) Surgery for herniation of a lumbar disc in Sweden between 1987 and 1999. An analysis of 27,576 operations. J Bone Joint Surg Br 86:841–847

  18. 18.

    Jhala A, Mistry M (2010) Endoscopic lumbar discectomy: experience of first 100 cases. Indian J Orthop 44:184–190

  19. 19.

    Kerr SM, Tannoury C, White AP, Hannallah D, Mendel RC, Anderson G (2007) The role of minimally invasive surgery in the lumbar spine. Oper Tech Orthop 17:183–189

  20. 20.

    Lau D, Han SJ, Lee JG, Lu DC, Chou D (2011) Minimally invasive compared to open microdiscectomy for lumbar disc herniation. J Clin Neurosci 18:81–84

  21. 21.

    Macnab I (1971) Negative disc exploration. An analysis of the causes of nerve-root involvement in sixty-eight patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 53:891–903

  22. 22.

    Matsui H, Kitagawa H, Kawaguchi Y, Tsuji H (1995) Physiologic changes of nerve root during posterior lumbar discectomy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 20:654–659

  23. 23.

    Matsumoto M, Hasegawa T, Ito M, Aizawa T, Konno S, Yamagata M, Ebara S, Hachiya Y, Nakamura H, Yagi S, Sato K, Dezawa A, Yoshida M, Shinomiya K, Toyama Y, Shimizu K, Nagata K (2010) Incidence of complications associated with spinal endoscopic surgery: nationwide survey in 2007 by the Committee on Spinal Endoscopic Surgical Skill Qualification of Japanese Orthopaedic Association. J Orthop Sci 15:92–96

  24. 24.

    McLoughlin GS, Fourney DR (2008) The learning curve of minimally-invasive lumbar microdiscectomy. Can J Neurol Sci 35:75–78

  25. 25.

    Meyer B (2009) Endoscopic lumbar disc surgery: the hammer and the nail problem or the “Not-So-Easy Go” system. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 151:1035–1036

  26. 26.

    Nakagawa H, Kamimura M, Uchiyama S, Takahara K, Itsubo T, Miyasaka T (2003) Microendoscopic discectomy (MED) for lumbar disc prolapse. J Clin Neurosci 10:231–235

  27. 27.

    Nowitzke AM (2005) Assessment of the learning curve for lumbar microendoscopic discectomy. Neurosurgery 56:755–762

  28. 28.

    Oertel JM, Mondorf Y, Gaab MR (2009) A new endoscopic spine system: the first results with “Easy GO”. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 151:1027–1033

  29. 29.

    Perez-Cruet MJ, Foley KT, Isaacs RE, Rice-Wyllie L, Wellington R, Smith MM, Fessler RG (2002) Microendoscopic lumbar discectomy: technical note. Neurosurgery 51:S129–S136

  30. 30.

    Righesso O, Falavigna A, Avanzi O (2007) Comparison of open discectomy with microendoscopic discectomy in lumbar disc herniations: results of a randomized controlled trial. Neurosurgery 61:545–549

  31. 31.

    Rong LM, Xie PG, Shi DH, Dong JW, Liu B, Feng F, Cai DZ (2008) Spinal surgeons’ learning curve for lumbar microendoscopic discectomy: a prospective study of our first 50 and latest 10 cases. Chin Med J (Engl) 121:2148–2151

  32. 32.

    Ruetten S, Komp M, Merk H, Godolias G (2008) Full-endoscopic interlaminar and transforaminal lumbar discectomy versus conventional microsurgical technique: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:931–939

  33. 33.

    Ryang YM, Oertel MF, Mayfrank L, Gilsbach JM, Rohde V (2008) Standard open microdiscectomy versus minimal access trocar microdiscectomy: results of a prospective randomized study. Neurosurgery 62:174–181

  34. 34.

    Stolke D, Sollmann WP, Seifert V (1989) Intra- and postoperative complications in lumbar disc surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 14:56–59

  35. 35.

    Strömqvist F, Jönsson B, Strömqvist B, Swedish Society of Spinal Surgeons (2010) Dural lesions in lumbar disc herniation surgery: incidence, risk factors, and outcome. Eur Spine J 19:439–442

  36. 36.

    Sun MJ, Gao SM, Wang YH (2011) Simultaneous intra-operative repair for inadvertent dural tear under posterior lumbar disk scope. Orthop Surg 3:188–192

  37. 37.

    Teli M, Lovi A, Brayda-Bruno M, Zagra A, Corriero A, Giudici F, Minoia L (2010) Higher risk of dural tears and recurrent herniation with lumbar micro-endoscopic discectomy. Eur Spine J 19:443–450

  38. 38.

    van den Akker ME, Arts MP, van den Hout WB, Brand R, Koes BW, Peul WC (2011) Tubular diskectomy vs conventional microdiskectomy for the treatment of lumbar disk-related sciatica: cost utility analysis alongside a double-blind randomized controlled trial. Neurosurgery 69:829–835

  39. 39.

    Voyadzis JM (2011) The learning curve in minimally invasive spine surgery. Semin Spine Surg 23:9–13

  40. 40.

    Wang B, Lu G, Patel AA, Ren P, Cheng I (2011) An evaluation of the learning curve for a complex surgical technique: the full endoscopic interlaminar approach for lumbar disc herniations. Spine J 11:122–130

  41. 41.

    Webb J, Gottschalk L, Lee YP, Garfin S, Kim C (2008) Surgeon perceptions of minimally invasive spine surgery. SAS J 2:145

  42. 42.

    Wiese M, Krämer J, Bernsmann K, Ernst Willburger R (2004) The related outcome and complication rate in primary lumbar microscopic disc surgery depending on the surgeon’s experience: comparative studies. Spine J 4:550–556

  43. 43.

    Wu X, Zhuang S, Mao Z, Chen H (2006) Microendoscopic discectomy for lumbar disc herniation: surgical technique and outcome in 873 consecutive cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:2689–2694

  44. 44.

    Yaçargil MG (1977) Microsurgical operation of the herniated lumbar disc. Adv Neurosurg 4:81–82

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Dr. Juan Martino for his insightful comments and his assistance with the correction of the English text. Portions of this work were presented in abstract form at the 2011 meeting of the Spanish Society of Neurosurgery in Madrid.

Conflicts of interest

None.

Author information

Correspondence to Rubén Martín-Láez.

Electronic supplementary materials

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Intraoperative video showing the steps of the surgical technique that were followed in order to perform a microendoscopic discectomy using the EasyGO! spinal endoscope (MPG 67346 kb)

Online Resource 1

Intraoperative video showing the steps of the surgical technique that were followed in order to perform a microendoscopic discectomy using the EasyGO! spinal endoscope (MPG 67346 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Martín-Láez, R., Martínez-Agüeros, J.Á., Suárez-Fernández, D. et al. Complications of endoscopic microdiscectomy using the EASYGO! system: is there any difference with conventional discectomy during the learning-curve period?. Acta Neurochir 154, 1023–1032 (2012) doi:10.1007/s00701-012-1321-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Complications
  • Learning curve
  • Microendoscopic discectomy
  • Microsurgical discectomy