Sequestrectomy Versus Conventional Microdiscectomy for the Treatment of a Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Systematic Review

STUDY DESIGN.A systematic review. OBJECTIVE.The aim of this study was to compare the effects of sequestrectomy versus conventional microdiscectomy for lumbar disc herniation (LDH). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA.Open surgery for LDH can be performed by sequestrectomy (removal of disc fragments) or conve...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Spine (Philadelphia, Pa. 1976) Pa. 1976), 2015-12, Vol.40 (24), p.E1330-E1339
Hauptverfasser: Azarhomayoun, Amir, Chou, Roger, Shirdel, Saeedeh, Lakeh, Maziar Moradi, Vaccaro, Alexander R, Rahimi-Movaghar, Vafa
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:STUDY DESIGN.A systematic review. OBJECTIVE.The aim of this study was to compare the effects of sequestrectomy versus conventional microdiscectomy for lumbar disc herniation (LDH). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA.Open surgery for LDH can be performed by sequestrectomy (removal of disc fragments) or conventional discectomy (removal of disc fragments and disc). Sequestrectomy might be associated with a higher risk of recurrence but less low back pain (LBP) after surgery. METHODS.We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from 1980 to November 2014. We selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized prospective studies of conventional discectomy versus sequestrectomy for adult patients with LDH that evaluated the following primary outcomesradicular pain or LBP as measured by a visual analog scale, or neurological deficits of the lower extremity. We also evaluated the following secondary outcomescomplications of surgery, reherniation rate, duration of hospital stay, postoperative analgesic use, and health-related quality-of-life measures. Two authors independently reviewed citations and articles for inclusion. We assessed the risk of bias, synthesized data, and the level evidence using standard methodological procedures as recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group. RESULTS.We identified 5 studies (746 participants) of sequestrectomy versus microdiscectomy. One study was RCT and the other 4 were nonrandomized prospective comparisons; all studies were assessed as being at a high risk of bias. There were no significant differences for leg pain, LBP, functional outcomes, complications, and hospital stay or recurrence rate for 2 years (level of evidenceLow). Sequestrectomy was associated with less analgesic consumption versus discectomy (level of evidenceVery low). CONCLUSION.Sequestrectomy and standard microdiscectomy were associated with similar effects on pain after surgery, recurrence rate, functional outcome, and complications; more evidence is needed to determine whether sequestrectomy is associated with less postoperative analgesic consumption.Level of Evidence2
ISSN:0362-2436
1528-1159
DOI:10.1097/BRS.0000000000001174