Comparison of Three Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery Methods for Revision Surgery for Recurrent Herniation After Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy.

Abstract

Patients who experience a recurrence of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) need to undergo revision surgery when they fail to respond to conservative therapy. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF), microendoscopic discectomy (MED), and PELD are 3 common minimally invasive surgical approaches for PELD recurrence. However, there have been no studies that have focused on the selection ofthe minimally invasive surgical method for PELD recurrence. Seventy-four patients who underwent revision surgery (MIS-TLIF, 26 cases; MED, 20 cases; PELD, 28 cases) for PELD recurrence were enrolled in this study. The preoperative characteristics and perioperative data were collected. Additionally, the clinical outcomes (visual analogue scale, Oswestry Disability Index, and the 12-item Short Form Health Survey) were collected and assessed at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months postoperatively. No significant differences in clinical outcomes over time were observed between these 3 surgical approaches. MED and PELD were associated with greater pain-relief effects at 1 month after surgery than MIS-TLIF, but this effect equalized at 3 months postoperatively. MED and PELD exhibited the advantages of reductions in operation time, blood loss, hospital stay and total cost compared to MIS-TLIF. However, MED and PELD also were significantly associated with greater recurrence rates than MIS-TLIF. None of the three surgical approaches exhibited clear advantages in long-term pain or functional scores. MED and PELD were associated with lower costs and better perioperative effects than MIS-TLIF. However, compared with MIS-TLIF, the higher recurrence rates of MED and PELD should not be ignored.