English Abstract
Journal Article
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

[Clinical study on the treatment of postoperative recurrence of lumbar disc herniation with intervertebral fusion].

OBJECTIVE: To explore clinical effect of different intervertebral fusion devices (cage) in treating postoperative recurrent lumbar disc herniation (LDH).

METHODS: One hundred and forty-two LDH patients with recurrence after simple intervertebral disc nucleus pulpoideectomy from January 2019 to January 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. All patients were treated with combined underchannel fixation and interbody fusion and divided into a single anatomical group,two-anatomical group and a single banana group according to types and numbers of implanted cage. There were 51 patients in a single anatomical group,included 29 males and 22 females,aged from 39 to 65 years old with an average of (53.74±5.68) years old;body mass index (BMI) ranged from 18.62 to 28.13 kg·m-2 with an average of (22.08±2.15) kg·m-2 ;the interval between operation and recurrence ranged from 0.5 to 4.0 years with an average of (2.7±0.8) years;5 patients with L3,4 ,35 patients with L4,5 and 11 patients with L5 S1 ;a single anatomical cage was implanted. There were 46 patients in two-anatomical group,included 25 males and 21 females,aged from 37 to 66 years old with an average of (54.52±6.02) years old;BMI ranged from 18.25 to 28.44 kg·m-2 with an average of (21.74±1.83) kg·m-2 ;the interval between operation and recurrence ranged from 0.5 to 5.0 years with an average of (2.7±0.9) years;4 patients with L3,4 ,32 patients with L4,5 and 10 patients with L5 S1 ;two-anatomical cages were implanted. There were 45 patients in a single banana group,included 22 males and 23 females,aged from 38 to 65 years old with an average of (54.49±6.45) years old;BMI ranged from 18.85 to 28.20 kg·m-2 with an average of (21.63±1.59) kg·m-2 ;the interval between operation and recurrence ranged from 0.5 to 5.0 years with an average of (2.6±1.0) years;3 patients with L3,4 ,36 patients with L4,5 and 16 patients with L5 S1 ;a single banana cage was implanted. Operation time,intraoperative blood loss,incision length,postoperative incision drainage volume,hospital stay and complications among 3 groups were observed and compared. The height of intervertebral space before and after operation,curvature of lordosis and the postoperative intervertebral fusion were compared. Visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) were used to evaluate degree of lumbar pain and lumbar function before operation,1 and 6 months after operation,respectively.

RESULTS: All patients among 3 groups were followed up at least 6 months,and no cases were fell out. There were no significant difference in operation time,intraoperative blood loss,incision length,postoperative incision drainage volume and hospital stay among 3 groups ( P >0.05). At 6 months after operation,the height of intervertebral space in two-anatomical group and a single group were [(11.08±1.78) mm,(10.95±1.62) mm],curvature of lordosis were [(12.05±1.86) °,(11.63±1.57) °],which were higher than those in a single dissection group (10.14±1.54) mm,(10.92±1.45) °,and the difference were statistically significant ( P <0.05). The interbody fusion rate between two-anatomical and a banana group (95.65%,95.56%) were higher than that in a single anatomical group (78.43%) at 6 months after operation ( P <0.05). VAS and ODI of lumbar among 3 groups were decreased at 1 and 6 months after operation ( P <0.05). There was no significant difference in complications among 3 groups ( P >0.05).

CONCLUSION: The three fusion devices could achieve significant results in treating postoperative recurrence of LDH,but the implantation of two-anatomical cage and a single banana cage are more helpful to maintain the height of intervertebral space and lordosis curvature of patients with postoperative recurrence of LDH,and obtain good intervertebral fusion results.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app