KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Annals of Medical Research / 2020 / Cilt: 27 - Sayı: 12

Comparison outcomes of repeat mini-open microdiscectomy versus fusion for recurrent lumbar disc herniations regarding preoperative radiological features-single institute experience

Barış POLAT
Ayşe Esin POLAT
Ramadan ÖZMANEVRA
Odhan YÜKSEL
Halil İbrahim SECER
Sayfa
3054–3060
Yayın Tarihi
2022-10-12
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

The mean age, mean duration of hospital stay and operation time were significantly lowerin microdiscectomy group (p=0.003, p

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Aim: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical results of two different surgical approaches for patients with recurrent lumbardisc herniation.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Furthermore, we retrospectively analysed both groups and compared preoperative radiological features, which maybe useful to select most appropriate surgical technique.Materials and Methods: 36 patients underwent mini-open microdiscectomy and 14 patients underwent microdiscectomy withfusion surgery for recurrent lumbar disc herniation in our institution between 2007-2017.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:The mean age, mean duration of hospital stay and operation time were significantly lowerin microdiscectomy group (p=0.003, p
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:2007-2017 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical results of two different surgical approaches for patients with recurrent lumbardisc herniation. Furthermore, we retrospectively analysed both groups and compared preoperative radiological features, which maybe useful to select most appropriate surgical technique.Materials and Methods: 36 patients underwent mini-open microdiscectomy and 14 patients underwent microdiscectomy withfusion surgery for recurrent lumbar disc herniation in our institution between 2007-2017. Patient’s demographic characteristicsand clinical results, as well as preoperative radiological features (such as disc height, disc degeneration, facet joint angle on sagittaland axial plane, existence of foraminal stenosis or previous facetectomy, facet joint degeneration, adjacent segment degeneration,sagittal instability, coronal instability) were retrospectively analyzed and compared between two groups.Results: There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in terms of postoperative visual analog scaleand Oswestry Disability Index scores. The mean age, mean duration of hospital stay and operation time were significantly lowerin microdiscectomy group (p=0.003, p

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

POLAT, B., POLAT, A. E., ÖZMANEVRA, R., YÜKSEL, O., SECER, H. İ. (2022). Comparison outcomes of repeat mini-open microdiscectomy versus fusion for recurrent lumbar disc herniations regarding preoperative radiological features-single institute experience. Annals of Medical Research, Cilt: 27 - Sayı: 12, 3054–3060. https://ajindex.com/articles/446518

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (14)

  1. Kim KT, Park SW, Kim YB. Disc height and segmental motion as risk factors for recurrent lumbar disc herniation. Spine 2009;34:2674-8
  2. Ellenbogen JR, Marlow W, Fischer BE et al. Is the rate of re-operation after primary lumbar microdiscectomy affected by surgeon grade or intra-operative lavage of the disc space? Br J Neurosurg 2014;28:247-51
  3. Wera GD, Dean CL, Ahn UM, et al. Reherniation and failure after lumbar discectomy: a comparison of fragment excision alone versus subtotal discectomy. J Spinal Disord Techn 2008;21:316-9
  4. Goker B, Aydin S. Endoscopic surgery for recurrent disc herniation after microscopic or endoscopic lumbar discectomy. Turk Neurosurg 2020;30:112-8
  5. Selva-Sevilla C, Ferrara P, Geronimo-Pardo M. Costutility analysis for recurrent lumbar disc herniation: Conservative treatment versus discectomy versus discectomy with fusion. Clin Spine Surg 2019;32:228- 34
  6. Tanavalee C, Limthongkul W, Yingsakmongkol W, et al. A comparison between repeat discectomy versus fusion for the treatment of recurrent lumbar disc herniation: Systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Neurosci 2019;66:202-8
  7. Chen HC, Lee CH, Wei L, et al. Comparison of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy and open lumbar surgery for adjacent segment degeneration and recurrent disc herniation. Neurol Res Int 2015;2015:791943
  8. Le H, Sandhu FA, Fessler RG. Clinical outcomes after minimal access surgery for recurrent lumbar disc herniation. Neurosurg Focus 2003;15:12
  9. Chen Z, Zhao J, Liu A, et al. Surgical treatment of recurrent lumbar disc herniation by transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Int Orthop 2009;33:197-201
  10. Chitnavis B, Barbagallo G, Selway R, et al. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion for revision disc surgery: review of 50 cases in which carbon fiber cages were implanted. J Neurosurg 2001;95:190-5
  11. Liu C, Zhou Y. Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for recurrent lumbar disk herniation. World Neurosurg 2017;98:14-20
  12. Beack JY, Chun HJ, Bak KH, et al. Risk factors of secondary lumbar discectomy of a herniated lumbar disc after lumbar discectomy. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 2019;62:586-93
  13. Shimia M, Babaei-Ghazani A, Sadat BE, et al. Risk factors of recurrent lumbar disk herniation. Asian J Neurosurg 2013;8:93-6
  14. Griffith JF, Wang YX, Antonio GE, et al. Modified Pfirrmann grading system for lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007;32