Carreon Leah Y, Bisson Erica F, Potts Eric A, Brown Morgan E, Gren Stacie, Cowan Rebecca Ruegg, Glassman Steven D
Norton Leatherman Spine Center, Louisville, KY, USA.
University of Utah Health Care, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Global Spine J. 2020 Oct;10(7):832-836. doi: 10.1177/2192568219878132. Epub 2019 Sep 25.
Longitudinal cohort.
It is unclear if patients with a recurrent disc herniation benefit from a concurrent fusion compared with a repeat decompression alone. We compared outcomes of decompression alone (D0) versus decompression and fusion (DF) for recurrent disc herniation.
Patients enrolled in the Quality and Outcomes Database from 3 sites with a first episode of recurrent disc herniation were identified. Demographic, surgical, and radiographic data including the presence of listhesis and extent of facet resection on computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging prior to the index surgery were collected. Patient-reported outcomes were collected preoperatively and at 3 and 12 months postoperatively.
Of 94 cases identified, 55 had D0 and 39 had DF. Patients were similar in age, sex distribution, smoking status, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade and surgical levels. Presence of listhesis (D0 = 7, DF = 5, = .800) and extent of facet resection (D0 = 19%, DF = 16%, = .309) prior to index surgery were similar between the 2 groups. Estimated blood loss (D0 = 26 cm, DF = 329 cm, < .001), operating room time (D0 = 79 minutes, DF = 241 minutes, < .001) and length of stay (D0 <1 day, DF = 4 days, < .001) were significantly less in the D0 group. Preoperative and 1-year postoperative patient-reported outcomes were similar in both groups. Three patients in the D0 group and 2 patients in the DF group required revision. Regression analysis showed that presence of listhesis, extent of facet resection and fusion were not associated with the 12-month Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score.
For a first episode recurrent disc herniation, surgeons can expect similar outcomes whether patients are treated with decompression alone or decompression and fusion.
纵向队列研究。
与单纯再次减压相比,复发性椎间盘突出症患者同时进行融合手术是否有益尚不清楚。我们比较了复发性椎间盘突出症单纯减压(D0)与减压融合(DF)的疗效。
从3个站点的质量与结果数据库中识别出首次发生复发性椎间盘突出症的患者。收集人口统计学、手术和影像学数据,包括腰椎滑脱的存在情况以及在初次手术前计算机断层扫描或磁共振成像上小关节切除的范围。术前以及术后3个月和12个月收集患者报告的结局。
在识别出的94例病例中,55例行D0手术,39例行DF手术。患者在年龄、性别分布、吸烟状况、体重指数、美国麻醉医师协会分级和手术节段方面相似。两组在初次手术前腰椎滑脱的存在情况(D0组=7例,DF组=5例,P=0.800)和小关节切除范围(D0组=19%,DF组=16%,P=0.309)相似。D0组的估计失血量(D0组=26cm,DF组=329cm,P<0.001)、手术室时间(D0组=79分钟,DF组=241分钟,P<0.001)和住院时间(D0组<1天,DF组=4天,P<0.001)明显更少。两组术前和术后1年患者报告的结局相似。D0组有3例患者和DF组有2例患者需要翻修。回归分析显示,腰椎滑脱情况、小关节切除范围和融合与12个月时的Oswestry功能障碍指数(ODI)评分无关。
对于首次发作的复发性椎间盘突出症,无论患者接受单纯减压还是减压融合治疗,外科医生都可预期相似的疗效。