Minimally Invasive Lumbar Spine Surgeries for Herniated Disk

Authors

  • Dr. Haidar Karim Hussein M.B.Ch.B., F.I.B.M.S., C.A.B.N.S. \ (Neurosurgery) Iraqi Ministry of Health, Baghdad Al-Rusafa Health Directorate, Dr. Saad Al-Witry Hospital for Neurosciences, Baghdad, Iraq
  • Dr. Basim Nema Furaih M.B.Ch.B., F.I.C.M.S. \ (Neurosurgery) Consultant Neurosurgeon Iraqi Ministry of Health, Baghdad Al-Rusafa Health Directorate, Neurosurgical Hospital, Baghdad, Iraq
  • Dr. Ardam Jamal Ahmed M.B.Ch.B., F.I.C.M.S. \ (Neurosurgery) Iraqi Ministry of Health, Kirkuk Health Directorate, Azadi Teaching Hospital, Kirkuk, Iraq

Keywords:

Minimally invasive lumbar spine surgeries, herniated disk, clinical outcomes, quality of life

Abstract

Background: Lumbar disc herniation surgery has evolved in recent decades towards the use of less invasive techniques. These new techniques maintained the effectiveness of the procedure by reducing the morbidity of patients. Objective: Our study was assessed minimally invasive lumbar spine surgeries for Herniated disks. Patients and methods: This study collected clinical data for patients who underwent both endoscopic discectomy and laser disc decompression. One hundred twenty patients aged between 30 and 60 years were recruited, and the patient's clinical data were identified and collected before surgery. Patient data were collected for both surgeries, which were divided into arthroscopic discectomy, with 48 patients, and laser disc decompression, with 72 patients. To compare the two surgeries, this study determined intra- and postoperative outcomes, which included operative time, rate of blood loss during surgery, mortality rate, recurrence, recovery time, complications, pain rate, and postoperative quality of life assessment. Results: To compare the two surgeries, the clinical results recorded the duration of surgery for arthroscopic discectomy was 114.78 ± 7.2, and laser disc decompression was 54.65 ± 6.8. The average patient rate and length of hospital stay were 1.1 ± 0.2 days after arthroscopic discectomy and 2.01 ± 0.32 days after laser disc decompression surgery. The mortality rate included two cases in the group that underwent arthroscopic disc decompression surgery and only one case in the group that underwent laser disc decompression surgery. The recovery time for patients was 2.8 ± 1.07 for the group that underwent arthroscopic disc decompression surgery, while it was 1.6 ± 0.71. For the group that underwent laser disc decompression surgery, the complication rate for patients was post-operative endoscopic discectomy. It included seven patients and 4 cases after laser disc decompression surgery, the most prominent of which were bleeding and infection. Conclusion: The current study indicates that the superiority and effectiveness of the two surgeries, laser disc decompression over arthroscopic discectomy, because of its high success rate in terms of pain rate, faster recovery, fewer complications, and a significant and noticeable improvement in the quality of life of patients in the long term.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Weinstein, J.N., Lurie, J.D., Tosteson, T.D., Tosteson, A.N., Blood, E.A., Abdu, W.A., et al. (2008) Surgical versus Nonoperative Treatment for Lumbar Disc Herniation: Four-Year Results for the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT). Spine, 33, 2789-2800.

Lee S, Kim SK, Lee SH, et al. Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for migrated disc herniation: classification of disc migration and surgical approaches. Eur Spine J. 2007;16 (3):431–437.

Liu C, Chu L, Yong HC, Chen L, Deng ZL. Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for highly migrated lumbar disc herniation. Pain Physician. 2017;20 (1): E75–E84.

Ruan W, Feng F, Liu Z, Xie J, Cai L, Ping A. Comparison of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy versus open lumbar microdiscectomy for lumbar disc herniation: a meta-analysis. Int J Surg. 2016; 31:86–92.

Mobbs RJ, Sivabalan P, Li J. Minimally invasive surgery compared to open spinal fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine pathologies. J Clin Neurosci. 2012;19 (6):829–835.

Foley KT, Holly LT, Schwender JD. Minimally invasive lumbar fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003;28 (15 Suppl): S26–35.

Sheng SR, Geng YB, Zhou KL, Wu AM, Wang XY, Ni WF. Minimally invasive surgery for degenerative spondylolisthesis: transforaminal or oblique lumbar interbody fusion. J Comp Eff Res. 2020;9 (1):45–51.

Chen YC, Zhang L, Li EN, et al. An updated meta-analysis of clinical outcomes comparing minimally invasive with open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in patients with degenerative lumbar diseases. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019;98 (43): e17420.

Lin GX, Park CK, Hur JW, Kim JS. Time course observation of outcomes between minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo). 2019;59 (6):222–230.

Yang Y, Liu ZY, Zhang LM, et al. Microendoscopy-assisted minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases: 5-year outcomes. World Neurosurg. 2018;116: e602–e610.

Karikari IO, Isaacs RE. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a review of techniques and outcomes. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35 (26 Suppl): S294–301.

Parker SL, Adogwa O, Witham TF, Aaronson OS, Cheng J, McGirt MJ. Post-operative infection after minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): literature review and cost analysis. Minim Invasive Neurosurg. 2011;54 (1):33–37.

Yao Y, Zhang H, Wu J, et al. Comparison of three minimally invasive spine surgery methods for revision surgery for recurrent herniation after percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy. World Neurosurg. 2017; 100:641–647 e641.

Peng CW, Yeo W, Tan SB. Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy: clinical and quality of life outcomes with a minimum 2-year follow-up. J Orthop Surg Res. 2009;4 (1):20.

Choi G, Lee SH, Lokhande P, et al. Percutaneous endoscopic approach for highly migrated intracanal disc herniations by foraminoplastic technique using rigid working channel endoscope. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008;33 (15): E508–515.

Than KD, Mummaneni PV. Unilateral approach for bilateral decompression with MIS TLIF. World Neurosurg. 2014;82 (5):646–647.

Du J, Tang X, Jing X, Li N, Wang Y, Zhang X. Outcomes of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy via a translaminar approach, especially for soft, highly down-migrated lumbar disc herniation. Int Orthop. 2016;40 (6):1247–1252.

Wu X, Fan G, Gu X, Guan X, He S. Surgical outcome of two-level transforaminal percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for far-migrated disc herniation. Biomed Res Int. 2016; 2016:4924013.

Zhao Y, Fan Y, Yang L, et al. Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy (PELD) via a transforaminal and interlaminar combined approach for very highly migrated Lumbar Disc Herniation (LDH) between L4/5 and L5/S1 level. Med Sci Monit. 2020;26: e922777.

Wang Y, Ning C, Xu F, et al. Recurrent lumbar disc herniation recurrence after percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy: a case report. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018;97 (34): e11909.

Downloads

Published

2024-01-22

How to Cite

Hussein, D. H. K. ., Furaih, D. B. N. ., & Ahmed, D. A. J. . (2024). Minimally Invasive Lumbar Spine Surgeries for Herniated Disk. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HEALTH SYSTEMS AND MEDICAL SCIENCES, 3(1), 96–105. Retrieved from https://inter-publishing.com/index.php/IJHSMS/article/view/3367

Issue

Section

Articles