Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Nov 23;15(1):557.
doi: 10.1186/s13018-020-02087-6.

Clinical outcome of biportal endoscopic revisional lumbar discectomy for recurrent lumbar disc herniation

Affiliations

Clinical outcome of biportal endoscopic revisional lumbar discectomy for recurrent lumbar disc herniation

Min-Seok Kang et al. J Orthop Surg Res. .

Abstract

Background: Although literature provides evidence regarding the superiority of surgery over conservative treatment in patients with lumbar disc herniation, recurrent lumbar disc herniation (RLDH) was the indication for reoperation in 62% of the cases. The major problem with revisional lumbar discectomy (RLD) is that the epidural scar tissue is not clearly isolated from the boundaries of the dura matter and nerve roots; therefore, unintended durotomy and nerve root injury may occur. The biportal endoscopic (BE) technique is a newly emerging minimally invasive spine surgical modality. However, clinical evidence regarding BE-RLD remains limited. We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes after performing open microscopic (OM)-RLD and BE-RLD to evaluate the feasibility of BE-RLD.

Methods: This retrospective study included 36 patients who were diagnosed with RLDH and underwent OM-RLD and BE-RLD. RLDH is defined as the presence of herniated disc material at the level previously operated upon in patients who have experienced a pain-free phase for more than 6 months. BE-RLD was performed as follows: two independent surgical ports were made inside the medial pedicular line of the target segment and on the intact upper and lower laminas. Peeling off the soft tissue from the vertebral lamina helps to easily identify the traversing nerve root and the recurrent disc material without dealing with the fibrotic scar tissue. Clinical outcomes were obtained using a visual analog scale (VAS) and the modified Macnab criteria before and at 2 days, 2 and 6 weeks, and 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery.

Results: The data of 20 and 16 patients who underwent OM-RLD and BE-RLD, respectively, were evaluated. The demographic and perioperative data were comparable between the groups. During the year following the surgery, in the BE-RLD group, the VAS scores at each point were significantly improved over the baseline and remained improved up to 2 weeks after surgery (p < 0.05); however, no statistical difference between the two groups was observed after 6 weeks of surgery (p > 0.05). According to the modified Macnab criteria on the follow-up, the excellent or good satisfaction rates reported at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months after surgery were 81.25%, 81.25%, 75%, and 81.25%, respectively, in the BE-RLD group, and 50%, 75%, 75%, and 80%, respectively, in the OM-RLD group.

Conclusion: BE-RLD yielded similar outcomes to OM-RLD, including pain improvement, functional improvement, and patient satisfaction, at 1 year after surgery. However, faster pain relief, earlier functional recovery, and better patient satisfaction were observed when applying BE-LRD.

Trial registration: Retrospectively registered.

Keywords: Biportal endoscopic; Lumbosacral radiculopathy; Open microscopic; Recurrent lumbar disc herniation; Revisional lumbar discectomy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Location of the surgical portal. a The viewing and working surgical ports (bold line) were made right inside the medial pedicular line of the target segment and above the intact upper and lower laminas. These were located more lateral than the ports made during conventional biportal endoscopic discectomy (dotted line). b Direct access to the lamina and the facet joint was made to complete the red vision discectomy with minimal laminotomy (triangle). c Clinical photographs show independent surgical ports on the outside of the previous midline incision site
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
a Mimetic diagram of lumbar revision discectomy. b The placement of surgical ports laterally with respect to those of the conventional method helps to easily access the epidural space (white bar) without dealing with the fibrotic tissue (red star). c Decompressive laminectomy was performed
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Case presentation: A 39-year-old man with right subarticular recurrent lumbar disc herniation at L4–L5 and L5–S1. a Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the right subarticular protruded lumbar disc herniation in the first event. b Postoperative MRI after primary open lumbar microdiscectomy. c MRI of the recurrent lumbar disc herniation at the same level and direction at 2.5 years after the virgin surgery. d Postoperative MRI after biportal endoscopic lumbar redo discectomy: adequate decompression of the sequestrated nucleus and preservation of the facet joint. MRI magnetic resonance imaging
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Changes in clinical outcomes between the two surgeries during the 12-month follow-up period
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Changes in the ratio of “good” and “excellent,” according to the modified Macnab criteria

References

    1. Shin BJ. Risk factors for recurrent lumbar disc herniations. Asian spine journal. 2014;8(2):211–215. doi: 10.4184/asj.2014.8.2.211. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Cheng J, Wang H, Zheng W, Li C, Wang J, Zhang Z, et al. Reoperation after lumbar disc surgery in two hundred and seven patients. Int Orthop. 2013;37(8):1511–1517. doi: 10.1007/s00264-013-1925-2. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lebow RL, Adogwa O, Parker SL, Sharma A, Cheng J, McGirt MJ. Asymptomatic same-site recurrent disc herniation after lumbar discectomy: results of a prospective longitudinal study with 2-year serial imaging. Spine. 2011;36(25):2147–2151. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182054595. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Yoshihara H, Chatterjee D, Paulino CB, Errico TJ. Revision surgery for “real” recurrent lumbar disk herniation: a systematic review. Clinical spine surgery. 2016;29(3):111–118. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000365. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ilyas H, Savage J. Lumbar disk herniation and SPORT: a review of the literature. Clinical spine surgery. 2018;31(9):366–372. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000696. - DOI - PubMed