Original ArticlePercutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Reoperation for Recurrent Sciatica Symptoms: A Retrospective Analysis of Outcomes and Prognostic Factors in 94 Patients
Introduction
Recurrent disc herniation is the most common cause of lumbar spinal reoperation. Long-term outcomes after primary discectomy are favorable in most cases, whereas the recurrence of sciatica symptoms is still unpreventable.1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Despite improved surgical techniques, reoperation rates range from 2.8% to 24%.6, 7, 8, 9 A repeated discectomy or microendoscopic discectomy (MED) may result in less comparable outcomes compared with the first surgery, and approach-related complications could be another obvious trouble.6, 10 Scar formation, progressive disc degeneration, and reherniation may lead to increased morbidity after traditional posterior reoperation.10, 11, 12, 13, 14 Epidural scarring may lead to an increased risk of injury to the dura or nerves. Although open MED is a standard method for fragmentectomy, further removal of posterior structures, including the facet joint, could increase the risk of segmental instability. The problems related to scar tissue and retraumatization of the posterior structures can be overcome with the percutaneous endoscopic method.6, 10, 13, 14, 15 Therefore, the optimal surgical treatment of recurrent disc herniation should be sufficient decompression with minimization of operation-induced traumatization and complications.
The advantages of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar decompression could be that there is no need to go through the old scar tissue from the posterolateral approach, which also can be performed with the use of local anesthesia.6, 8, 16, 17, 18 Endoscopic techniques have become the standard in many areas because of the advantages they offer intraoperatively and postoperatively. Previous studies have investigated risk factors, such as age, comorbidities, type of discectomy, and disc morphology, that may be predictive of reoperation.2, 6, 9, 19
However, there are few studies regarding the outcomes or prognostic factors of patients with recurrence sciatica symptom who have undergone percutaneous endoscopic lumbar reoperation. We hypothesized that patient, clinical characteristics, surgeon's level of experience, and primary surgical method would be risk factors for reoperation and evaluated the outcome of patients undergoing percutaneous endoscopic reoperation in different primary surgical groups.
Section snippets
Patients
The study was a consecutive retrospective analysis of the data from the XinQiao Hospital Information Registry database and follow-up questionnaire. The procedure was approved by the Ethics Committee of The Third Military Medical University. Written informed consent was obtained from all patients. 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 Declaration of
Patient Characteristics and Clinical Outcomes
Overall, 94 patients (67 male and 27 female) who met the inclusion criteria underwent PELR. At the primary surgery, PELD was performed in 17 patients, MED in 31 patients, open discectomy (OD) in 30 patients, and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in 16 patients. The characteristics of different primary surgical groups were compared (Table 1). In TLIF group, the mean age was 59.4 ± 9.8 years, which was older than the other groups. There also was a significant difference among the 4
Discussion
Most reoperations after lumbar disc discectomy presented during the 0–0.5 year and 1–5 year periods after primary surgery.7 Generally, lumbar interbody fusion had been considered as the final intervention for lumbar degenerative diseases, whereas recurrence of sciatica symptoms after the previous surgical intervention is a relatively common and troublesome clinical problem. New radicular pain after surgery for disc herniation-induced sciatica mostly resulted from scar tissue, recurrent
Conclusions
In conclusion, PELR is a safe and effective treatment not only for recurrent disc herniation after limited disc decompression but also as an alternative surgical intervention for recurrent sciatica after TLIF. Body mass index, surgeon level, and patient age were independent risk factors associated with clinical outcome. Consideration of these factors might be helpful in treating patients with definite sciatica symptoms. The relevant use of updated endoscopic approaches may be helpful in
References (29)
- et al.
Failed back surgery: etiology and diagnostic evaluation
Spine J
(2003) - et al.
Adolescent lumbar disc herniation: Experience from a large minimally invasive treatment centre for lumbar degenerative disease in Chongqing, China
Clin Neurol Neurosurg
(2013) - et al.
Learning curve for percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy depending on the surgeon's training level of minimally invasive spine surgery
Clin Neurol Neurosurg
(2013) - et al.
Obesity increases the risk of recurrent herniated nucleus pulposus after lumbar microdiscectomy
Spine J
(2010) - et al.
Body mass as a factor in stature change
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)
(2005) - et al.
Repeat decompression of lumbar nerve roots. A prospective two-year evaluation
J Bone Joint Surg Br
(1993) - et al.
Comparison of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy and open lumbar microdiscectomy for recurrent disc herniation
J Korean Neurosurg Soc
(2009) - et al.
Recurrent lumbar disk herniation
J Am Acad Orthop Surg
(2010) - et al.
Risk factors for reoperation in patients treated surgically for intervertebral disc herniation
J Bone Joint Surg Am
(2015) - et al.
Posterolateral endoscopic excision for lumbar disc herniation: surgical technique, outcome, and complications in 307 consecutive cases
Spine
(2002)
Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for recurrent disc herniation: surgical technique, outcome, and prognostic factors of 43 consecutive cases
Spine
Reoperation after lumbar disc surgery in two hundred and seven patients
Int Orthop
Endoscopic transforaminal discectomy for recurrent lumbar disc herniation: a prospective, cohort evaluation of 262 consecutive cases
Spine
Recurrent lumbar disc herniation after conventional discectomy: a prospective, randomized study comparing full-endoscopic interlaminar and transforaminal versus microsurgical revision
J Spinal Disord Tech
Cited by (25)
Adjuvant surgical decision-making system for lumbar intervertebral disc herniation after percutaneous endoscopic lumber discectomy: a retrospective nonlinear multiple logistic regression prediction model based on a large sample
2021, Spine JournalCitation Excerpt :Many studies have provided follow-up data after PELD, but the risk factors reported from them for recurrence of LDH vary. Smoking, diabetes, obesity, a high DHI, and endplate degeneration are widely accepted as risk factors [4,11–19]. However, there is still controversy over risk factors such as age and disc degeneration [4,20].
Full-endoscopic lumbar foraminoplasty and discectomy to manage a recurrent disc in a patient with previous percutaneous lumbo-sacral stabilization - A case report and literature review
2020, Interdisciplinary Neurosurgery: Advanced Techniques and Case ManagementLongitudinal clinical outcomes after full-endoscopic lumbar discectomy for recurrent disc herniation after open discectomy
2020, Journal of Clinical NeuroscienceCitation Excerpt :For those reasons, non-fusion surgery was chosen for 77% of patients in a population-based study, and revision discectomy remains a viable surgical option [1,6,12,15–18]. More recently, full-endoscopic lumbar discectomy (FELD) has been utilized for recurrent LDH, with comparable results to open discectomy [5,9,19–23]. The advantages of FELD for recurrent LDH include a short hospital stay, minimal tissue injury, and less need to go through scar tissue; therefore, FELD may be an alternative surgical technique [3,13,21].
Association between spinal manipulative therapy and lumbar spine reoperation after discectomy: a retrospective cohort study
2024, BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
Conflict of interest statement: The authors declare that the article content was composed in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.