Microdiscectomy in Relieving Neurological Symptoms in Patients with Lumbar Disc Herniation
Keywords:
lumbar disc herniation, microdiscectomy, efficacy, MRC, ensation, SLRAbstract
Introduction: Minimally invasive spine surgical approaches such as microdiscectomy have gained attention in recent years due to less tissue damage, speedy and acceptable neurological improvement with less complication.
Objective: To assess efficacy of microdiscectomy in improving neurological status in patients with lumbar disc herniation.
Material and Methods: A Quasi experimental study comprising 70 consecutive cases though non-probability purposive sampling technique of both the sexes admitted in Neurosurgery department, Mayo Hospital operated for the 1st time for any disc pathology with no other spinal lesions giving consent themselves or though legal guardians was conducted. Pain for leg and back was measured pre and post-operatively was done by VAS which had 42 days of follow up. Standard Neurological examinations were conducted pertaining to muscle power (by MRC), sensory status and SLR test pre and post-operatively. Variables according to their nature were expressed in the form of Mean ± SD, Median (Range) and Frequency (percentage). Mc Neumer’s chi square test and paired t test were used to see association between pre-operative and post-operative Neurological status (MRC grade, sensory status, SLR) depending on their nature viz: qualitative or quantitative respectively in SPSS version 15 and hence efficacy of microdiscectomy was assessed.
Results: Out of 70 patients 74% were male and 26% were females. Mean ± SD of patients was 37.6 ± 13.0 years. Majority were Laborers after housewives. Illiterates, Poor lifting techniques were the most common characteri-stics in the respective headings of education and employment. Most common level of disc herniation was L4-L5, L5-S1 level (96%) where Prolapse and extrusion were most common MRI findings. As compared to pre-operative (3.4) muscle power 1st and 42nd day power were respectively 4.0 and 4.7 (p = 0.001). Pre-operatively only 32 (45.7%) had normal sensation which improved to 38 (54.3%) and 51 (72.9%) respectively in 1st and 42nd day of surgery (p = 0.001). Pre-operative mean SLR improved to 98.6 degrees in 1st POD and continued to be the same till 42nd day (p = 0.001). All the MRC findings, sensory status and SLR values in each post-operative days were statistically significant with the baseline by paired t test (p = 0.001).
Conclusion: Microdiscectomy is one of the effective procedures which can be adopted for symptomatic unilateral lumber disc herniation with significant improvement in Neurological statuses.
References
2. Lau D, Han SJ, Lee JG, Lu DC, Chou D. Minimally invasive compared to open microdiscectomy for lumbar disc herniation. J Clin Neurosci. 2011; 18 (1): 81-4.
3. German JW, Adamo MA, Hoppenot RG, et al. Periope-rative results following lumbar discectomy: comparison of minimally invasive discectomy and standard micro-discectomy. Neurosurg Focus, 2008; 25: E20.
4. Chi JH, Dhall SS, Kanter AS, et al. The mini-open tra-nspedicular thoracic discectomy: surgical technique and assessment. Neurosurg Focus, 2008; 25: E5.
5. Righesso O, Falavigna A, Avanzi O. Comparison of open discectomy with microendoscopic discectomy in lumbar disc herniations: results of a randomized con-trolled trial. Neurosurg. 2007; 61: 545–9.
6. Nowitzke AM. Assessment of the learning curve for lumbar microendoscopic discectomy. Neurosurg. 2005; 56: 755–62.
7. Wu X, Zhuang S, Mao Z, et al. Microendoscopic dis-cectomy for lumbar disc herniation: surgical technique and outcome in 873 consecutive cases. Spine, 2006; 31: 2689–94.
8. Harrington JF, French P. Open versus minimally inva-sive lumbar microdiscectomy: comparison of operative times, length of hospital stay, narcotic use and compli-cations. Minim Invasive Neurosurg. 2008; 51: 30–5.
9. Cole JS, Jackson TR. Minimally invasive lumbar dis-cectomy in obese patients. Neurosurg. 2007; 61: 539–44.
10. Ryang YM, Oertel MF, Mayfrank L, et al. Standard open microdiscectomy versus minimal access trocar microdiscectomy: results of a prospective randomized study. Neurosurg. 2008; 61: 174–82.11. Arts MP, Peul WC, Brand R, et al. Cost-effectiveness of microendoscopic discectomy versus conventional open discectomy in the treatment of lumbar disc herni-ation: a prospective randomized controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2006; 7: 42.
12. McLoughlin GS, Fourney DR. The learning curve of minimally-invasive lumbar microdiscectomy. Can J Neurol Sci 2008; 35: 75–8.
13. German JW, Adamo MA, Hoppenot RG, Blossom JH, Nagle HA. Perioperative results following lumbar dis-cectomy: comparison of minimal invasive discectomy and standard microdiscectomy. Neurosurg Focus, 2008; 25 (2): E20.
14. Mannion AF, Porchet F, Kleinstiick FS, Lattig F, Jes-zenszky D, Bartanusz V, Dvorak J, Grob D. The quality
of spine surgery from the patient’s perspective. Part 1: The Core Outcome Measures Index in clinical practice. Eup Spine Journal, 2009; 18 (3): 367-373.
15. Porchet F, Bartanusz V, Kleinstueck FS, et al. Micro-discectomy compared with standard discectomy: an old problem revisited with new outcome measures within the framework of a spine surgical registry. Eur Spine J. 2009; 3: 360–6.
16. Khan Z, Sharafat S, Ali M. Surgical outcome after mic-rodiscectomy for lumber disc herniation. J Med Sci. 2013; 21 (2): 74-76.
17. Raja RA, Khemani VD, Lakhair MA, Khan SA. Dis-cectomy in single level lumbar disease. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad, 2012; 24 (2): 81-3
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
The work published by PJNS is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0). Copyrights on any open access article published by Pakistan Journal of Neurological Surgery are retained by the author(s).
