EFFICACY OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE DECOMPRESSION AND STABILIZATION IN SURGICAL TREATMENT OF RECURRENT PAIN AFTER LUMBAR SPINE SURGERY
https://doi.org/10.14531/ss2014.2.60-66
Abstract
Objective. To compare open and minimally invasive decompression and stabilization for recurrent pain in the lumbar spine.
Material and Methods. The study included 138 patients who underwent reoperation on the lumbar spine. They were divided into two groups: Group I (minimally invasive surgery, n = 67) and Group II (open surgery, n = 71).
Results. Results were evaluated up to 3 months after surgery. The average blood loss was 332.8 ml in Group I, and 702.8 ml - in Group II, the average size of the surgical wound was 38 ± 12 and 472 ± 56 cm2, respectively. Good result was achieved in 28.9 % of cases in Group I, and in 19.5 % in Group II; unsatisfactory result was observed in 15.8 % and in 24.4 %, respectively.
Conclusion. Results of minimally invasive decompression and stabilization for recurrent pain are comparable with those of open procedures, but are achieved in a less traumatic way.
About the Authors
Aleksandr Vasilyevich Bulatov
Novisibirsk Research Institute of Traumatology and Orthopaedics n.a. Ya.L. Tsivyan
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Dmitry Mikhailovich Kozlov
Novisibirsk Research Institute of Traumatology and Orthopaedics n.a. Ya.L. Tsivyan
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Aleksandr Vladimirovich Krutko
Novisibirsk Research Institute of Traumatology and Orthopaedics n.a. Ya.L. Tsivyan
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Shamil Alfirovich Akhmetyanov
Novisibirsk Research Institute of Traumatology and Orthopaedics n.a. Ya.L. Tsivyan
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
References
1. Симонович А.Е., Байкалов А.А. Хирургическое лечение рецидивов болевых синдромов после удаления грыж поясничных межпозвонковых дисков // Хирургия позвоночника. 2005. № 3. С. 87-92.
2. Arts MP, Nieborg A, Brand R, et al. Serum creatine phosphokinase as an indicator of muscle injury after various spinal and nonspinal surgical procedures. J Neurosurg Spine. 2007; 7: 282-286.
3. Cinotti G, Roysam GS, Eisenstein SM, et al. Ipsilateral recurrent lumbar disc herniation. A prospective, controlled study. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1998; 80: 825-832.
4. Ehrendorfer S. Ipsilateral recurrent lumbar disc herniation. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1999; 81: 368.
5. Epter RS, Helm S, Hayek SM, et al. Systematic review of percutaneous adhesiolysis and management of chronic low back pain in post lumbar surgery syndrome. Pain Physician. 2009; 12: 361-378.
6. Fu TS, Lai PL, Tsai TT, et al. Long-term results of disc excision for recurrent lumbar disc herniation with or without posterolateral fusion. Spine. 2005; 30: 2830-2834.
7. Gejo R, Matsui H, Kawaguchi Y, et al. Serial changes in trunk muscle performance after posterior lumbar surgery. Spine.1999; 24: 1023-1028.
8. Humphreys SC, Hodges SD, Patwardhan AG, et al. Comparison of posterior and transforaminal approaches to lumbar interbody fusion. Spine. 2001; 26: 567-571.
9. Isaacs RE, Podichetty VK, Santiago P, et al. Minimally invasive microendoscopy-assisted transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with instrumentation. J Neurosurg Spine.2005; 3: 98-105.
10. Manchikanti L, Singh V, Cash KA, et al. A comparative effectiveness evaluation of percutaneous adhesiolysis and epidural steroid injections in managing lumbar post surgery syndrome: a randomized, equivalence controlled trial. Pain Physician. 2009; 12: E355-E368.
11. Ozgen S, Naderi S, Ozek MM, et al. Findings and outcome of revision lumbar disc surgery. J Spinal Disord. 1999; 12: 287-292.
12. Ozgur BM, Yoo K, Rodriguez G, et al. Minimally-invasive technique for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Eur Spine J. 2005; 14: 887-894.
13. Papadopoulos EC, Girardi FP, Sandhu HS, et al. Outcome of revision discectomies following recurrent lumbar disc herniation. Spine. 2006; 31: 1473-1476.
14. Robaina Padron FJ. [Lumbar post-laminectomy syndrome I. Pain management using interventionist techniques]. Neurocirugia (Astur). 2007; 18: 468-477. In Spanish.
15. Rodrigues FF, Dozza DC, de Oliveira CR, et al. Failed back surgery syndrome: casuistic and etiology. Arq Neuropsiquiatr. 2006; 64: 757-761.
16. Scheufler KM, Dohmen H, Vougioukas VI. Percutaneous transforaminal lumbarinterbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar instability. Neurosurgery.2007; 60(4 Suppl 2): 203-212.
17. Schizas C, Tzinieris N, Tsiridis E, et al. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: evaluating initial experience. Int Orthop. 2009; 33: 1683-1688. doi: 10.1007/s00264-008-0687-8.
18. Schwender JD, Holly LT, Rouben DP, et al. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): technical feasibility and initial results. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2005; 18: S1-S6.
19. Shin KH, Chang HG, Rhee NK, et al. Revisional percutaneous full endoscopic disc surgery for recurrent herniation of previous open lumbar discectomy. Asian Spine J. 2011; 3,5: 1-9. doi: 10.4184/asj.2011.5.1.1.
20. Styf JR, Willen J. The effects of external compression by three different retractors on pressure in the erector spine muscles during and after posterior lumbar spine surgery in humans. Spine. 1998; 23: 354-358.
21. Suk KS, Lee HM, Moon SH, et al. Recurrent lumbar disc herniation: results of operative management. Spine. 2001; 26: 672-676.
22. Wang J, Zhou Y, Zhang ZF, et al. Minimally invasive or open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion as revision surgery for patients previously treated by open discectomy and decompression of the lumbar spine. Eur Spine J. 2011; 20: 623-628. doi: 10.1007/s00586-010-1578-4.
Review
For citations:
Bulatov A.V., Kozlov D.M., Krutko A.V., Akhmetyanov Sh.A. EFFICACY OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE DECOMPRESSION AND STABILIZATION IN SURGICAL TREATMENT OF RECURRENT PAIN AFTER LUMBAR SPINE SURGERY. Russian Journal of Spine Surgery (Khirurgiya Pozvonochnika). 2014;(2):60-66. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.14531/ss2014.2.60-66
Email this article 