To compare the effectiveness of microdiscectomy and macrodiscectomy on the single-level lumbar disc protrusion (LDP). Methods Between November 2002 and October 2005, 241 patients with LDP underwent 2 surgical procedures: microdiscectomy (group A, 93 cases) and macrodiscectomy (group B, 148 cases). All patients had singlelevel LDP. In group A, there were 51 males and 42 females with an average age of 32.3 yeares (range, 18-47 years); there were 23cases of protrusion, 52 cases of prolapse, and 18 cases of sequestration with an average disease duration of 8.5 months (range, 1-18 months), including 8 cases at L2,3 level, 11 cases at L3,4 level, 35 cases at L4,5 level, and 39 cases at L5, S1 level. In group B, there were 81 males and 67 females with an average age of 31.8 years (range, 16-50 years); there were 37 cases of protrusion, 85 cases of prolapse, and 26 cases of sequestration with an average disease duration of 9.3 months (range, 1-20 months), including 9 cases at L2,3 level, 15 cases at L3,4 level, 63 cases at L4,5 level, and 61 cases at L5, S1 level. There was no significant difference in age, sex, segment level, type, or disease duration between 2 groups (P gt; 0.05). Results Immediate back and sciatic pain rel ief was achieved in 225 (93.4%) patients after operation. The satisfactory rates were 91.4% in group A and 87.8% in group B at 1 week after operation, showing no significant difference (P gt; 0.05). The length of incision, amount of bleeding, amount of drainage, and hospital ization time in group A were significantly fewer than those in group B (P lt; 0.05); while the operative time in group A was longer than that in group B, but showing no significant difference (P gt; 0.05). Dural laceration occurred in 4 cases of groupA and 5 cases of group B, superficial infections of incision occurred in 5 cases of group B and intervertebral space nfections occurred in 4 cases of group B, and epidural hematoma occurred in 1 case of group A. The perioperative compl ication rate (5.4%, 5/93) in group A was significantly lower (P lt; 0.05) than that in group B (9.5%, 14/148). LDP recurred in 4 cases (4.3%) of group A and in 9 cases (6.1%) of group B postoperatively, showing no significant difference (P gt; 0.05); of them, 11 cases received second operation and 2 cases were treated conservatively. All cases were followed up 36-77 months (mean, 51.4 months). There were significant differences in visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry disabil ity index (ODI) between 2 groups at the last follow-up and preoperation (P gt; 0.05), but there was significant difference in VAS at 1 week postoperatively between 2 groups (P lt; 0.05). VAS and ODI were obviously improved at 1 week and last follow-up when compared with preoperation (P lt; 0.05). There was no significant difference in the improvement rates of VAS and ODI between 2 groups at last follow-up (P gt; 0.05). According to cl inical evaluation of Modified Macnab criteria, the excellent and good rate was 90.3% in group A and 86.5% in group B at final follow-up (P gt; 0.05). Conclusion Both macrodiscectomy and microdiscectomy are effective for LDP, furthermore microdiscectomy is less invasive than macrodiscectomy. Microdiscectomy is recommended to treat single-level LDP.
Objective To compare the therapeutic effect of conventional discectomy, posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) on the recurrent lumbar disc protrusion (RLDP). Methods From January 2000 to January 2008, 65 patients with RLDP underwent different surgical procedures, namely conventional discectomy (group A, 25 cases), PLIF (group B, 22 cases), and TLIF (group C, 18 cases). There were 44 males and 21 females aged 26-65 years old (average 41 years old). All the patients were single-level protrusion, including 33 cases at the L4, 5 level and 32 cases at the L5, S1 level. The primary procedure included laminectomy discectomy in 39 patients, unilateral hemilaminectomy discectomy in 15 patients, and bilateral laminectomy and total laminectomy discectomy in 11patients. The recurrent time to the primary operation was 13-110 months (average 64 months). The location of recurrent disc protrusion was at the ipsilateral side in 47 cases and the contralateral side in 18 cases. No significant differences among three groups were evident in terms of basel ine data (P gt; 0.05). Results The incision all healed by first intention. The incidence of perioperative compl ication in group A (24.0%) and group B (22.3%) was significantly higher than that of group C (5.6%) (P lt; 0.05), and there was no significant difference between group A and group B (P gt; 0.05). The operation time and bleed loss during operation of group B were obviously higher than that of group A and group C (P lt; 0.05), and there was no significant difference between group A and group C (P gt; 0.05). There were no significant differences among three groups in terms of the length of hospital ization (P gt; 0.05). Six-one patients were followed up for 12-36 months (average 20 months). At 1 week after operation, the satisfied rate of patients was 84.0% in group A, 81.8% in group B, and 88.9% in group C (P gt; 0.05). All the patients in group B and group C achieved fusion uneventfully. There were no significant differences among three groups in terms of visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry disabil ity index (ODI) when compared the preoperative value with the final follow-up value (P gt; 0.05). There was significant difference within group A, B, and C in terms of VAS and ODI when compared the preoperative value with the final follow-up value (P lt; 0.05), but there were no significant differences among three groups in the improvement rate (P gt; 0.05). The intervertebral space grading method proposed by Roberts et al. was adopted to evaluate the intervertebral space height (ISH), the preoperative value was 2.04 ± 0.93 in group A, 2.18 ± 0.91 in group B, and 2.11 ± 0.90 in group C, andat the final follow-up, the value was 2.64 ± 0.58 in group A, 1.05 ± 0.59 in group B, and 1.06 ± 0.42 in group C. There were significant differences among three groups in the ISH when compared the properative value with the final follow-up value (P lt; 0.05). Conclusion All of the three surgical procedures are effective for RLDP, but conventional discectomy and PLIF have more compl ications than TLIF. Conventional discectomy may result in the further narrow of the intervertebral space and the occurrence of segment instabil ity, whereas TLIF is safer, more effective, and one of the ideal methods to treat RLDP.