Comparing outcomes of fusion versus repeat discectomy for recurrent lumbar disc herniation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Panagiotis Kerezoudis, Sandy Goncalves, Joseph D. Cesare, Mohammed Ali Alvi, Dennis P. Kurian, Arjun S. Sebastian, Ahmad Nassr, Mohamad Bydon

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: Current surgical treatment options for one-time recurrent lumbar disc herniation (RLDH) include repeat discectomy or discectomy supplemented with fusion. Significant contention exists within the surgical spine community with regard to the most effective treatment modality. The objective of this study is to compare reoperation rates and patient reported outcomes following fusion versus repeat discectomy for RLDH. Patients and Methods: The electronic literature search was performed in Ovid Medline/Pubmed, EMBASE and Cochrane, Scopus and China National Knowledge Infrastructure for human studies directly comparing repeat discectomy with fusion for ipsilateral or contralateral RLDH. Random effects meta-analysis was conducted to pool the estimates of effect, using mean differences (MD) and odds ratios (OR) for continuous and categorical outcomes, respectively. Results: A total of 1405 patients with RLDH (746 fusions and 659 repeat discectomies) from 15 studies (13 observational and 2 randomized controlled trials) were analyzed. Mean time to reherniation was 54.4 ± 30.4 months, while average follow-up time was 40 ± 11.7 months (range: 12–92.6). No difference was found between fusions and repeat discectomies with regards to related reoperations (OR: 0.68; 95% C.I: 0.14–3.2). Changes in PRO scores from baseline to last follow-up were also similar between the two groups, including VAS-back pain (MD, −0.3; 95% CI, −1.4 to 0.7), VAS-leg pain (MD, −0.3; 95% CI, −1.4 to 0.7), ODI (MD, 0.6; 95% CI, −0.2 to 1.4), JOA (MD: 1.0; 95% CI: 0.02 to 2.0) and MacNab satisfaction (OR: 1.5; 95% CI, 0.9 to 2.3). Conclusion: Available evidence shows that in treating one-time recurrent disc herniations, repeat discectomy and fusion are associated with comparable reoperation rates, incidence of dural tears, functional outcomes as well as satisfaction with surgical treatment at last follow-up. Future longitudinal, randomized controlled trials should be completed to validate any associations found in this study.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)70-78
Number of pages9
JournalClinical Neurology and Neurosurgery
Volume171
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 1 2018

Fingerprint

Diskectomy
Meta-Analysis
Reoperation
Odds Ratio
Randomized Controlled Trials
Back Pain
Tears
PubMed
Observational Studies
China
Leg
Spine
Therapeutics
Pain
Incidence

Keywords

  • Back pain
  • Discectomy
  • Dural tear
  • Fusion
  • Leg pain
  • Lumbar disc herniation
  • Modified Japanese orthopedic scale
  • Oswestry disability index
  • Patient reported outcomes
  • Recurrent
  • Reoperation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Clinical Neurology

Cite this

Comparing outcomes of fusion versus repeat discectomy for recurrent lumbar disc herniation : A systematic review and meta-analysis. / Kerezoudis, Panagiotis; Goncalves, Sandy; Cesare, Joseph D.; Alvi, Mohammed Ali; Kurian, Dennis P.; Sebastian, Arjun S.; Nassr, Ahmad; Bydon, Mohamad.

In: Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery, Vol. 171, 01.08.2018, p. 70-78.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Kerezoudis, Panagiotis ; Goncalves, Sandy ; Cesare, Joseph D. ; Alvi, Mohammed Ali ; Kurian, Dennis P. ; Sebastian, Arjun S. ; Nassr, Ahmad ; Bydon, Mohamad. / Comparing outcomes of fusion versus repeat discectomy for recurrent lumbar disc herniation : A systematic review and meta-analysis. In: Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery. 2018 ; Vol. 171. pp. 70-78.
@article{d5556eb91db74da48a8243e77a8494ec,
title = "Comparing outcomes of fusion versus repeat discectomy for recurrent lumbar disc herniation: A systematic review and meta-analysis",
abstract = "Objectives: Current surgical treatment options for one-time recurrent lumbar disc herniation (RLDH) include repeat discectomy or discectomy supplemented with fusion. Significant contention exists within the surgical spine community with regard to the most effective treatment modality. The objective of this study is to compare reoperation rates and patient reported outcomes following fusion versus repeat discectomy for RLDH. Patients and Methods: The electronic literature search was performed in Ovid Medline/Pubmed, EMBASE and Cochrane, Scopus and China National Knowledge Infrastructure for human studies directly comparing repeat discectomy with fusion for ipsilateral or contralateral RLDH. Random effects meta-analysis was conducted to pool the estimates of effect, using mean differences (MD) and odds ratios (OR) for continuous and categorical outcomes, respectively. Results: A total of 1405 patients with RLDH (746 fusions and 659 repeat discectomies) from 15 studies (13 observational and 2 randomized controlled trials) were analyzed. Mean time to reherniation was 54.4 ± 30.4 months, while average follow-up time was 40 ± 11.7 months (range: 12–92.6). No difference was found between fusions and repeat discectomies with regards to related reoperations (OR: 0.68; 95{\%} C.I: 0.14–3.2). Changes in PRO scores from baseline to last follow-up were also similar between the two groups, including VAS-back pain (MD, −0.3; 95{\%} CI, −1.4 to 0.7), VAS-leg pain (MD, −0.3; 95{\%} CI, −1.4 to 0.7), ODI (MD, 0.6; 95{\%} CI, −0.2 to 1.4), JOA (MD: 1.0; 95{\%} CI: 0.02 to 2.0) and MacNab satisfaction (OR: 1.5; 95{\%} CI, 0.9 to 2.3). Conclusion: Available evidence shows that in treating one-time recurrent disc herniations, repeat discectomy and fusion are associated with comparable reoperation rates, incidence of dural tears, functional outcomes as well as satisfaction with surgical treatment at last follow-up. Future longitudinal, randomized controlled trials should be completed to validate any associations found in this study.",
keywords = "Back pain, Discectomy, Dural tear, Fusion, Leg pain, Lumbar disc herniation, Modified Japanese orthopedic scale, Oswestry disability index, Patient reported outcomes, Recurrent, Reoperation",
author = "Panagiotis Kerezoudis and Sandy Goncalves and Cesare, {Joseph D.} and Alvi, {Mohammed Ali} and Kurian, {Dennis P.} and Sebastian, {Arjun S.} and Ahmad Nassr and Mohamad Bydon",
year = "2018",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.clineuro.2018.05.023",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "171",
pages = "70--78",
journal = "Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery",
issn = "0303-8467",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparing outcomes of fusion versus repeat discectomy for recurrent lumbar disc herniation

T2 - A systematic review and meta-analysis

AU - Kerezoudis, Panagiotis

AU - Goncalves, Sandy

AU - Cesare, Joseph D.

AU - Alvi, Mohammed Ali

AU - Kurian, Dennis P.

AU - Sebastian, Arjun S.

AU - Nassr, Ahmad

AU - Bydon, Mohamad

PY - 2018/8/1

Y1 - 2018/8/1

N2 - Objectives: Current surgical treatment options for one-time recurrent lumbar disc herniation (RLDH) include repeat discectomy or discectomy supplemented with fusion. Significant contention exists within the surgical spine community with regard to the most effective treatment modality. The objective of this study is to compare reoperation rates and patient reported outcomes following fusion versus repeat discectomy for RLDH. Patients and Methods: The electronic literature search was performed in Ovid Medline/Pubmed, EMBASE and Cochrane, Scopus and China National Knowledge Infrastructure for human studies directly comparing repeat discectomy with fusion for ipsilateral or contralateral RLDH. Random effects meta-analysis was conducted to pool the estimates of effect, using mean differences (MD) and odds ratios (OR) for continuous and categorical outcomes, respectively. Results: A total of 1405 patients with RLDH (746 fusions and 659 repeat discectomies) from 15 studies (13 observational and 2 randomized controlled trials) were analyzed. Mean time to reherniation was 54.4 ± 30.4 months, while average follow-up time was 40 ± 11.7 months (range: 12–92.6). No difference was found between fusions and repeat discectomies with regards to related reoperations (OR: 0.68; 95% C.I: 0.14–3.2). Changes in PRO scores from baseline to last follow-up were also similar between the two groups, including VAS-back pain (MD, −0.3; 95% CI, −1.4 to 0.7), VAS-leg pain (MD, −0.3; 95% CI, −1.4 to 0.7), ODI (MD, 0.6; 95% CI, −0.2 to 1.4), JOA (MD: 1.0; 95% CI: 0.02 to 2.0) and MacNab satisfaction (OR: 1.5; 95% CI, 0.9 to 2.3). Conclusion: Available evidence shows that in treating one-time recurrent disc herniations, repeat discectomy and fusion are associated with comparable reoperation rates, incidence of dural tears, functional outcomes as well as satisfaction with surgical treatment at last follow-up. Future longitudinal, randomized controlled trials should be completed to validate any associations found in this study.

AB - Objectives: Current surgical treatment options for one-time recurrent lumbar disc herniation (RLDH) include repeat discectomy or discectomy supplemented with fusion. Significant contention exists within the surgical spine community with regard to the most effective treatment modality. The objective of this study is to compare reoperation rates and patient reported outcomes following fusion versus repeat discectomy for RLDH. Patients and Methods: The electronic literature search was performed in Ovid Medline/Pubmed, EMBASE and Cochrane, Scopus and China National Knowledge Infrastructure for human studies directly comparing repeat discectomy with fusion for ipsilateral or contralateral RLDH. Random effects meta-analysis was conducted to pool the estimates of effect, using mean differences (MD) and odds ratios (OR) for continuous and categorical outcomes, respectively. Results: A total of 1405 patients with RLDH (746 fusions and 659 repeat discectomies) from 15 studies (13 observational and 2 randomized controlled trials) were analyzed. Mean time to reherniation was 54.4 ± 30.4 months, while average follow-up time was 40 ± 11.7 months (range: 12–92.6). No difference was found between fusions and repeat discectomies with regards to related reoperations (OR: 0.68; 95% C.I: 0.14–3.2). Changes in PRO scores from baseline to last follow-up were also similar between the two groups, including VAS-back pain (MD, −0.3; 95% CI, −1.4 to 0.7), VAS-leg pain (MD, −0.3; 95% CI, −1.4 to 0.7), ODI (MD, 0.6; 95% CI, −0.2 to 1.4), JOA (MD: 1.0; 95% CI: 0.02 to 2.0) and MacNab satisfaction (OR: 1.5; 95% CI, 0.9 to 2.3). Conclusion: Available evidence shows that in treating one-time recurrent disc herniations, repeat discectomy and fusion are associated with comparable reoperation rates, incidence of dural tears, functional outcomes as well as satisfaction with surgical treatment at last follow-up. Future longitudinal, randomized controlled trials should be completed to validate any associations found in this study.

KW - Back pain

KW - Discectomy

KW - Dural tear

KW - Fusion

KW - Leg pain

KW - Lumbar disc herniation

KW - Modified Japanese orthopedic scale

KW - Oswestry disability index

KW - Patient reported outcomes

KW - Recurrent

KW - Reoperation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85047820190&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85047820190&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.clineuro.2018.05.023

DO - 10.1016/j.clineuro.2018.05.023

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85047820190

VL - 171

SP - 70

EP - 78

JO - Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery

JF - Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery

SN - 0303-8467

ER -