Download PDF
Minim Invasive Neurosurg 2008; 51(1): 30-35
DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-1004543
Original Article

© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Open versus Minimally Invasive Lumbar Microdiscectomy: Comparison of Operative Times, Length of Hospital Stay, Narcotic Use and Complications

J. F. Harrington 1 , P. French 1
  • 1Department of Neurosurgery, Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, Rhode Island, USA
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
28 February 2008 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

To determine if a minimally invasive approach to lumbar microdiscectomy reduces post-operative pain, length of hospital stay, or frequency of complications we retrospectively compared medical records of single level microdiscectomy patients by a single surgeon performed using a traditional open approach versus a minimally invasive approach. Thirty-five patients were in the open group: 63% male, average age 41.2 years, and 31 patients were in the minimally invasive group: 68% male, average age 42.1 years. There was no difference in surgical time or blood loss between the open and minimally invasive groups: 84.1 versus 76.8 minutes and 51.4 versus 69.7 mL, respectively. There were no significant complications intraoperatively or within the 30 day post-op period for either group. The average dose of intravenous morphine taken was 12.9 mg for the minimally invasive group and 15.7 mg for the open group (P=0.04). The average dose of hydrocodone was 13.4 mg for the minimally invasive group and 20.9 mg for the open group (P=0.03). The open group took an average of 11.7 mg oxycodone, the minimally invasive none. 45.2% of patients in the minimally invasive group were discharged on the same day as surgery compared to 5.75% in the open group (P=0.001). Microdiscectomy was performed safely and effectively through a minimally invasive expanding retractor system and operating microscope. Surgical times, blood loss, complications, and outcome were similar to a traditional open microdiscectomy while pain medication requirements and hospitalization were significantly less.

Key words

minimally invasive - microdiscectomy - outcomes - surgical techniques

References

  • 1 Perez-Cruet MJ, Foley KT, Isaacs RE. et al . Microendoscopic lumbar discectomy: technical note.  Neurosurgery. 2002;  51 S129-136
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Javedan S, Sonntag VK. Lumbar disc herniation: microsurgical approach.  Neurosurgery. 2003;  52 160-162
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Sun EC, Wang JC, Endow K. et al . Adjacent two-level lumbar discectomy: outcome and SF-36 functional assessment.  Spine. 2004;  29 E22-E27
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Pappas CT, Harrington T, Sonntag VK. Outcome analysis in 654 surgically treated lumbar disc herniations.  Neurosurgery. 1992;  30 862-866
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Wenger M, Mariani, Kalbarczyk A. et al . Long term outcome of 104 patients after lumbar sequestrectomy according to Williams.  Neurosurgery. 2001;  19 329-331
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Williams RW. Lumbar disc disease. Microdiscectomy.  Neurosurg Clin N Am. 1993;  4 101-108
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Mixter WJ, Barr JS. Rupture of the intervertebral disc with involvement of the spinal canal.  N Engl J Med. 1934;  5 210-215
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Koebbe CJ, Maroon JC, Abla A. et al . Lumbar microdiscectomy: a historical perspective and current technical considerations.  Neurosurg Focus. 2002;  13 E3
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Smith L, Garvin PJ, Gesler RM. et al . Enzyme dissolution of nucleus pulposus.  Nature. 1963;  198 1311-1312
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Nordby EJ, Fraser RD, Javid MJ. Chemonucleolysis.  Spine. 1996;  21 1102-1105
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Sutton JC. Chemonucleolysis in the management of lumbar disc disease: a minimum six year follow up evaluation.  Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1986;  206 46-60
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Wittenberg RH, Oppel S, Rubenthaler FA. et al . Five year results from chemonucleolysis with chymopapain or collagenase: a prospective randomized study.  Spine. 2001;  26 1835-1841
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Guyer RD, Corbin TP. Minimally invasive posterior fusion and internal fixation with the Atavi system. In: Kambin P (ed.) Arthroscopic and Endoscopic Spinal Surgery. New Jersey: Humana Press 2005: 227-237
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Kotilainin E. Microinvasive lumbar disc surgery. A study on patients treated with microdiscectomy or percutaneous nucleotomy for disc herniation.  Ann Chir Gynaecol. 1994;  209 1-50
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Mochida J, Toh E, Nomura T, Nishimua K. The risks and benefits of percutaneous nucleotomy for lumbar disc herniation. A 10 year longitudinal study.  J Bone Joint Surg [Br]. 2001;  83 501-505
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Sahlstrand T, Lonntoft M. A prospective study of preoperative and postoperative sequential magnetic resonance imaging and early clinical outcome in automated percutaneous discectomy.  J Spinal Disord Tech. 1999;  12 368-374
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Choy DS. Techniques of percutaneous laser disc decompression with the Nd:YAG laser.  J Clin Laser Med Surg. 1995;  13 187-193
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Gangi A, Dietemann H, Ide C. et al . Percutaneous laser disk decompression under CT and fluoroscopic guidance: indications, technique, and clinical experience.  Radiographics. 1996;  16 89-96
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Quigley MR, Maroon JC. Laser discectomy: a review.  Spine. 1994;  19 53-56
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Kambin P. Arthroscopic microdiscectomy.  Arthroscopy. 1992;  8 287-295
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Mayer HM, Brock M. Percutaneous endoscopic discectomy: surgical technique and preliminary results compared to microsurgical discectomy.  J Neurosurg. 1993;  78 216-225
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Obenchain TG. Speculum lumbar extraforaminal microdiscectomy.  Spine. 2001;  1 415-420
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Yeung AT, Tsou PM. Posterolateral endoscopic excision for lumbar disc herniation: Surgical technique, outcome, and complications in 307 consecutive cases.  Spine. 2002;  27 2081-2082
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Haines SJ, Jordan N, Boen JR. et al . Discectomy strategies for lumbar disc herniation: results of the LAPDOG trial.  Clin Neurosci. 2002;  9 411-417
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Kwo HC, Steudel WI. Comparison of the microsurgical lumbar intervertebral disc operation with the conventional technique in free sequestered intervertebral disc prolapse. A retrospective study based on 267 cases.  Neurochurgia (Stutt). 1999;  29 181-185
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Goffin J. Microdiscectomy for lumbar disc herniation.  Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 1994;  96 130-134
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Isaacs RE, Podichetty V, Fessler RG. Microendoscopic discectomy for recurrent disc herniations.  Neurosurg Focus. 2002;  15 E11
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Ahn Y, Lee SH, Park WM. et al . Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for recurrent disc herniation: surgical technique, outcome, and prognostic factors of 43 consecutive cases.  Spine. 2004;  29 E326-332
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Schizas C, Tsiridis E, Saksena J. Microendoscopic discectomy compared with standard microsurgical discectomy for the treatment of uncontained or large contained disc herniations.  Neurosurgery. 2005;  57 ((ONS suppl 3)) 357-360
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Mathews HH, Long BH. Minimally invasive techniques for treatment of intervertebral disk herniation.  A Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2002;  10 80-85
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Nowitzke AM. Assessment of the learning curve for lumbar microendoscopic discectomy.  Neurosurgery. 2005;  56 755-762
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Palmer S. Use of a tubular retractor system in microscopic lumbar discectomy: 1 year prospective results in 135 patients.  Neurosurg Focus. 2002;  13 E5
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Mack PF, Hass D, Lavyne MH. et al . Postoperative narcotic requirement after microscopic lumbar discectomy is not affected by intraoperative ketorolaqc or bupivacaine.  Spine. 2001;  26 658-661
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Stevens KJ, Spenciner DB, Griffiths KL. et al . Comparison of minimally invasive and conventional open posterolateral lumbar fusion using magnetic resonance imaging and retraction pressure studies.  J Spinal Disord Tech. 2006;  19 77-86
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Ersayli DT, Gurbet A, Bekar A. et al . Effects of perioperatively administered bupivacaine and bupivacaine-methylprednisolone on pain after lumbar discectomy.  Spine. 2006;  31 2221-2226
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Chadduck JB, Sneyd JR, Pobereskin LH. The role of bupivacaine in early postoperative pain control and lumbar decompression.  J Neurosurg. 1999;  90 ((1 Suppl)) 67-72
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Glasser RS, Knego RS, Delashaw JB. et al . The perioperative use of corticosteroids and bupivacaine in the management of lumbar disc disease.  J Neurosurg. 1993;  78 383-388
    PubMedGoogle Scholar

Correspondence

J.F. HarringtonMD 

Department of Neurosurgery

Rhode Island Hospital

235 Plain St.

Providence

02905 Rhode Island

USA

Phone: +1/401/521 99 99

Fax: +1/401/521 99 11

Email: fredharrington@cox.net

      >