Keywords
lumbar spine
surgical treatment
How to Cite
Abstract
Summary. Background. The dependence between the results of surgical treatment and the localization of a hernia is understudied. Understanding this interrelation may help us determine the adequacy of the surgical technique applied depending on the localization of an intervertebral disc protrusion.
Objective. The objective of our study was to compare the results of surgical treatment of intervertebral disc protrusions depending on their location according to the Michigan State University (MSU) classification, using different methods.
Material and Methods. We applied different methods for surgical treatment of patients with intervertebral disc protrusions in the lumbar spine: 93 patients underwent interlaminar microdiscectomy (mean age of the patients was 41.9±11.6 years), 92 underwent unilateral biportal endoscopy via interlaminar approach, and 13 had transforaminal monoportal discectomy. The mean age of the patients surgically treated using endoscopic methods was 43.1±13.1 years. Based on the MRI visualization, disc protrusions were assessed using the MSU classification according to their location by size in the axial plane. To analyze the results, we used standardized VAS and Oswestry scales on the first day, one month, and six months after the surgery.
Results. At all stages of the research, foraminal protrusions type C according to the MSU classification demonstrated the worst results. This fact may be associated with the use of the interlaminar approach, while the transforaminal approach allowed us to obtain good results in this category of patients. The quality of life according to the Oswestry scale within six months after the surgery appeared twice as bad for both methods compared to the non-foraminal location of protrusions (10.5±0.7 compared to 5.2±4.4). Patients with large 2C protrusions had significant worsening of their quality of life but less pain syndrome compared to the patients with 1C protrusions.
Conclusions. Clinical results of both methods demonstrate their comparative efficiency. The obtained data about the higher effectiveness of endoscopic discectomy compared to the microsurgical technique appear convincing in the early postoperative period but remain ambiguous at the later follow-up stages. Taking into account that this method is as good as microsurgery according to technical characteristics and possibilities, this technology may be used instead of the standard method of removing intervertebral disc protrusions.
References
Dohrmann GJ, Mansour N. Long-Term Results of Various Operations for Lumbar Disc Herniation: Analysis of over 39,000 Patients. Med Princ Pract. 2015;24(3):285-90. DOI: 10.1159/000375499.
Kim SK, Kang SS, Hong YH, Park SW, Lee SC. Clinical comparison of unilateral biportal endoscopic technique versus open microdiscectomy for single-level lumbar discectomy: a multicenter, retrospective analysis. J Orthop Surg Res. 2018;13(1):22. doi:10.1186/s13018-018-0725-1
Zhang B, Liu S, Liu J, Yu B, Guo W, Li Y, et al. Transforaminal endoscopic discectomy versus conventional microdiscectomy for lumbar discherniation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg Res. 2018;13(1):169. doi:10.1186/s13018-018-0868-0
Qin R, Liu B, Hao J, Zhou P, Yao Y, Zhang F, et al. Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy Versus Posterior Open Lumbar Microdiscectomy for the Treatment of Symptomatic Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis. World Neurosurg. 2018;120:352- 62. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2018.08.236.
Shi R, Wang F, Hong X, Wang YT, Bao JP, Liu L, et al. Comparison of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy versus microendoscopic discectomy for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation: a meta-analysis. Int Orthop. 2019 ;43(4): 923-37. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-018-4253-8.
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. doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.05.061
Liu X, Yuan S, Tian Y, Wang L, Gong L, Zheng Y, et al. Comparison of percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy, microendoscopic discectomy, and microdiscectomy for symptomatic lumbar disc herniation: minimum 2-year follow-up results. J Neurosurg Spine. 2018;28(3):317-325. doi:10.3171/2017.6.SPINE172
Kim M, Lee S, Kim HS, Park S, Shim SY, Lim DJ. A Comparison of Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy and Open Lumbar Microdiscectomy for Lumbar Disc Herniation in the Korean: A Meta-Analysis. Biomed Res Int. 2018;2018:9073460. doi:10.1155/2018/9073460.
Mysliwiec LW, Cholewicki J, Winkelpleck MD, Eis GP. MSU Classification for herniated lumbar discs on MRI: toward developing objective criteria for surgical selection. Eur Spine J. 2010;19(7):1087-93. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-009-1274-4.
Kim HS, Raorane HD, Wu PH, Yi YJ, Jang IT.
Evolution of endoscopic transforaminal lumbar approach for degenerative lumbar disease. J Spine Surg. 2020;6(2):424-437. DOI: 10.21037/jss.2019.11.05.
Rutten S. Endoscopic lumbar disc surgery. In: Vieweg U, Grochulla F, editors. Manual of Spine Surgery. 1st edition. New York: Springer, 2012. p. 303-308.
Giacomini L, Todeschini A, Miranda CM, Mathias R, Joaquim АF. Transforaminal Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy Through a Transfacet Approach: Detailed Surgical Technique. J Minim Invasive Spine Surg Tech. 2021;6 (1): 42-46. DOI: 10.21182/jmisst.2020.00220.
Fishchenko І, Piontkovsky V, Kolisnichenko V, Kravchuk L. Experience with endoscopic transforaminal microdiskectomy in the treatment of hernias of intervertebral discs of the lumbar spine. Georgian Med News. 2019;(295):13-16.
d'Ercole M, Innocenzi G, Ricciardi F, Bistazzoni S. Prognostic Value of Michigan State University (MSU) Classification for Lumbar Disc Herniation: Is It Suitable for Surgical Selection?. Int J Spine Surg. 2021;15(3):466-470. doi:10.14444/8068
Lin GX, Huang P, Kotheeranurak V, Park CW, Heo DH, Park CK, et al. A Systematic Review of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Spinal Surgery: Preliminary Clinical Results and Complications. World Neurosurg. 2019; 125: 425-432. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2019.02.038.
Zuo R, Jiang Y, Ma M, Yuan S, Li J, Liu C, et al. The clinical efficacy of biportal endoscopy is comparable to that of uniportal endoscopy via the interlaminar approach for the treatment of L5/S1 lumbar disc herniation. Front Surg. 2022; 9:1014033. DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.1014033.
Wang Y, Maimaiti A, Tuoheti A, Xiao Y, Zhang R, Kahaer A, et al. The Method of Portal Making in Lumbar Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Surgery with Different Operative Approaches According to the Constant Anatomical Landmarks of the Lumbar Spine: A Review of the Literature. Global Spine J. 2024:21925682241230465. DOI: 10.1177/21925682241230465.
Feng Z, Zhao Z, Cui W, Meng X, Hai Y. Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy versus microdiscectomy for lumbar disc herniation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Spine J. 2024;33(6):2139-2153. doi:10.1007/s00586-023-08116-2.
Lee HG, Kang MS, Kim SY, Cho KC, Na YC, Cho JM, et al. Dural Injury in Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Spinal Surgery. Global Spine J. 2021;11(6):845-851. doi:10.1177/2192568220941446 .
Kim JE, Choi DJ, Park EJ. Risk Factors and Options of Management for an Incidental Dural Tear in Biportal Endoscopic Spine Surgery. Asian Spine J. 2020;14(6):790-800. DOI: 10.31616/asj.2019.0297.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.