Minimally invasive decompression alone versus fusion surgery for acute lumbar disk herniation combined incomplete cauda equina syndrome

Abstract

Study designRetrospective single center study. BackgroundCauda equine syndrome (CES), which caused by acute lumbar disc herniation (LDH), often requires urgent surgical treatment. Currently, there is no standard defining the type of surgery, and approaches to the treatment of patients are based on the experience of the surgeon. Purposeto compare the clinical efficacy of minimally invasive decompression alone (Decompression alone group) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Fusion group) in the treatment of the incomplete CES, caused by acute LDH. Patients and methods89 patients with acute incomplete CES associated with LDH either underwent decompression alone and fusion surgery from January 2005 to January 2020 in single-center, and data were collected and retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into 2 groups according to the operation technics: the Decompression alone group (n = 46) and the Fusion group (n = 43). The perioperative clinical data (neurological deficit, control of the urinary bladder sphincter, ODI scale, SF-36) was used to assess the efficacy of the respective surgical methods before operation and with a minimum follow-up 24 months. ResultsVerified statistical significance more bleeding, longer surgery time and hospital stay, in the Fusion group than in the Decompression alone group. The postoperative clinical data dramatic improved after Decompression alone and Fusion surgery. At early postoperative period registered better clinical outcomes according to ODI, SF-36 after Decompression alone surgery, but at minimum follow-up 24 months verified better in the Fusion group. The number of revision interventions in the Decompression alone group was 28.3% (n = 13), in Fusion group – 9.3% (n = 4) (p = 0.02). ConclusionsThe prevalence of acute incomplete CES due to LDH in our series was registered in 1.02% of patients (124 of 12087). In the Fusion group, in the long-term period, there were better clinical outcomes and fewer revision surgical interventions compared with Decompression alone.