Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society

  • 제52권3호
  • /
  • Pages.210-214
  • /
  • 2012
  • /
  • 2005-3711(pISSN)
  • /
  • 1598-7876(eISSN)
대한신경외과학회 (The Korean Neurosurgical Society)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Fragmentectomy versus Conventional Microdiscectomy in Single-Level Lumbar Disc Herniations : Comparison of Clinical Results and Recurrence Rates

  • Baek, Geum-Seong (Department of Neurosurgery, Gwangju Saewoori Spine Hospital) ;
  • Kim, Yeon-Seong (Department of Neurosurgery, Gwangju Saewoori Spine Hospital) ;
  • Lee, Min-Cheol (Department of Neurosurgery, Gwangju Saewoori Spine Hospital) ;
  • Song, Jae-Wook (Department of Neurosurgery, Gwangju Saewoori Spine Hospital) ;
  • Kim, Sang-Kyu (Department of Neurosurgery, Gwangju Saewoori Spine Hospital) ;
  • Kim, In-Hwan (Department of Neurosurgery, Gwangju Saewoori Spine Hospital)
  • 투고 : 2012.02.06
  • 심사 : 2012.09.17
  • 발행 : 2012.09.28
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Objective : This retrospective study aimed to compare clinical outcomes in terms of pain relief and recurrence rate between fragmentectomies and conventional microdiscectomies in patients with lumbar disc herniation (LDH). Methods : Between January 2008 and May 2011, a total of 175 patients met the inclusion criteria of this study. The visual analogue scale (VAS) scores of back and radicular pains were recorded before surgery, 2 and 6 weeks after surgery. Recurrence was defined when a patient had the same pattern of preoperative symptoms and was confirmed with magnetic resonance imaging. Results : Seventy-four patients (42.3%) were suitable for fragmentectomy, and 101 patients underwent conventional microdiscectomy. There were no significant differences in VAS scores between the fragmentectomy and conventional microdiscectomy groups 2 and 6 weeks after surgery. During the follow-up period, 3 patients (4.05%) in the fragmentectomy group and 7 patients (6.93%) in the conventional microdiscectomy group relapsed. Conclusion : If patients are selected according to well-defined criteria, fragmentectomy can be a good surgical option for LDH, in the physiological aspect of preserving healthy intervertebral disc materials.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Barth M, Diepers M, Weiss C, Thome C : Two-year outcome after lumbar microdiscectomy versus microscopic sequestrectomy : part 2 : radiographic evaluation and correlation with clinical outcome. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33 : 273-279, 2008 https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31816201a6
  2. Barth M, Weiss C, Thome C : Two-year outcome after lumbar microdiscectomy versus microscopic sequestrectomy : part 1 : evaluation of clinical outcome. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33 : 265-272, 2008 https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e318162018c
  3. Carragee EJ, Han MY, Suen PW, Kim D : Clinical outcomes after lumbar discectomy for sciatica : the effects of fragment type and anular competence. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85 : 102-108, 2003 https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200301000-00016
  4. Carragee EJ, Spinnickie AO, Alamin TF, Paragioudakis S : A prospective controlled study of limited versus subtotal posterior discectomy : shortterm outcomes in patients with herniated lumbar intervertebral discs and large posterior anular defect. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31 : 653-657, 2006 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000203714.76250.68
  5. Caspar W : A new surgical procedure for lumbar disc herniation causing less tissue damage through a microsurgical approach in Wullenweber R, Brock M, Hamer J (eds) : Advances in Neurosurgery. Berlin : Springer-Verlag, 1977, pp74-77
  6. Fakouri B, Patel V, Bayley E, Srinivas S : Lumbar microdiscectomy versus sequesterectomy/free fragmentectomy : a long-term (>2 y) retrospective study of the clinical outcome. J Spinal Disord Tech 24 : 6-10, 2011 https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0b013e3181bfdd07
  7. Faulhauer K, Manicke C : Fragment excision versus conventional disc removal in the microsurgical treatment of herniated lumbar disc. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 133 : 107-111, 1995 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01420059
  8. Goodkin R, Laska LL : Vascular and visceral injuries associated with lumbar disc surgery : medicolegal implications. Surg Neurol 49 : 358- 370; discussion 370-372, 1998 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-3019(97)00372-8
  9. Kast E, Oberle J, Richter HP, Börm W : Success of simple sequestrectomy in lumbar spine surgery depends on the competence of the fibrous ring : a prospective controlled study of 168 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33 : 1567-1571, 2008 https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181788ede
  10. Kim DS, Lee JK, Moon KS, Ju JK, Kim SH : Small bowel injury as a complication of lumbar microdiscectomy : case report and literature review. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 47 : 224-227, 2010 https://doi.org/10.3340/jkns.2010.47.3.224
  11. Kjaer P, Leboeuf-Yde C, Korsholm L, Sorensen JS, Bendix T : Magnetic resonance imaging and low back pain in adults : a diagnostic imaging study of 40-year-old men and women. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30 : 1173- 1180, 2005 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000162396.97739.76
  12. Mochida J, Nishimura K, Nomura T, Toh E, Chiba M : The importance of preserving disc structure in surgical approaches to lumbar disc herniation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 21 : 1556-1563; discussion 1563-1564, 1996 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199607010-00014
  13. Rogers LA : Experience with limited versus extensive disc removal in patients undergoing microsurgical operations for ruptured lumbardiscs. Neurosurgery 22 : 82-85, 1988 https://doi.org/10.1227/00006123-198801000-00013
  14. Striffeler H, Gröger U, Reulen HJ : "Standard" microsurgical lumbar discectomy vs. "conservative" microsurgical discectomy. A preliminary study. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 112 : 62-64, 1991 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01402455
  15. Thome C, Barth M, Scharf J, Schmiedek P : Outcome after lumbar sequestrectomy compared with microdiscectomy : a prospective randomized study. J Neurosurg Spine 2 : 271-278, 2005 https://doi.org/10.3171/spi.2005.2.3.0271
  16. Watters WC 3rd, McGirt MJ : An evidence-based review of the literature on the consequences of conservative versus aggressive discectomy for the treatment of primary disc herniation with radiculopathy. Spine J 9 : 240-257, 2009 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2008.08.005
  17. Wenger M, Mariani L, Kalbarczyk A, Groger U : Long-term outcome of 104 patients after lumbar sequestrectomy according to Williams. Neurosurgery 49 : 329-334; discussion 334-335, 2001
  18. Wera GD, Dean CL, Ahn UM, Marcus RE, Cassinelli EH, Bohlman HH, et al. : Reherniation and failure after lumbar discectomy : a comparison of fragment excision alone versus subtotal discectomy. J Spinal Disord Tech 21 : 316-319, 2008 https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0b013e31813e0314
  19. Williams RW : Microlumbar discectomy : a conservative surgical approach to the virgin herniated lumbar disc. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 3 : 175-182, 1978 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-197806000-00015
  20. Yasargil MG : Microsurgical operation of herniated lumbar disc. Adv Neurosurg 4 : 81, 1977

피인용 문헌

  1. Comparison of Discectomy versus Sequestrectomy in Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Meta-Analysis of Comparative Studies vol.10, pp.3, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121816
  2. Primary Versus Revision Single-level Minimally Invasive Lumbar Discectomy : Analysis of Clinical Outcomes and Narcotic Utilization vol.40, pp.18, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000000976
  3. Rehabilitation of the patients presenting with the operated spine syndrome during the complicated postoperative period after discectomy vol.94, pp.5, 2012, https://doi.org/10.17116/kurort201794540-47
  4. A Pilot Study of Percutaneous Interlaminar Endoscopic Lumbar Sequestrectomy: A Modern Strategy to Tackle Medically-Refractory Radiculopathies and Restore Spinal Function vol.16, pp.1, 2019, https://doi.org/10.14245/ns.1836210.105
  5. Surgical training in spine surgery: safety and patient-rated outcome vol.28, pp.4, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-019-05883-9
  6. Complications and limitations of endoscopic spine surgery and percutaneous instrumentation vol.3, pp.1, 2020, https://doi.org/10.4103/isj.isj_27_19
  7. Full endoscopic surgery for thoracic pathology: an assessment of supportive evidence vol.6, pp.1, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1302/2058-5241.6.200080