Percutaneous endoscopic discectomy is a new technique for removing "contained" lumbar disc herniations (those in which the outer border of the anulus fibrosus is intact) and small "noncontained" lumbar disc herniations (those at the level of the disc space and occupying less than one-third of the sagittal diameter of the spinal canal) through a posterolateral approach with the aid of specially developed instruments. The technique combines rigid straight, angled, and flexible forceps with automated high-power suction shaver and cutter systems. Access can thus be gained to the dorsal parts of the intervertebral space where the disc herniation is located. Percutaneous endoscopic discectomy is monitored using an endoscope angled to 70 degrees coupled with a television and video unit and is performed with the patient under local anesthesia and an anesthesiologist available if needed. Its indication is restricted to discogenic root compression with a minor neurological deficit. Two groups of patients with contained or small noncontained disc herniations were treated by either percutaneous endoscopic discectomy (20 cases) or microdiscectomy (20 cases). Both groups were investigated in a prospective randomized study in order to compare the efficacy of the two methods. The disc herniations were located at L2-3 (one patient), L3-4 (two patients), or L4-5 (37 patients). There were no significant differences between the two groups concerning age and sex distribution, preoperative evolution of complaints, prior conservative therapy, patient's occupation, preoperative disability, and clinical symptomatology. Two years after percutaneous endoscopic discectomy, sciatica had disappeared in 80% (16 of 20 patients), low-back pain in 47% (nine of 19 patients), sensory deficits in 92.3% (12 of 13 patients), and motor deficits in the one patient affected. Two years after microdiscectomy, sciatica had disappeared in 65% (13 of 20 patients), low-back pain in 25% (five of 20 patients), sensory deficits in 68.8% (11 of 16 patients), and motor deficits in all patients so affected. Only 72.2% of the patients in the microdiscectomy group had returned to their previous occupation versus 95% in the percutaneous endoscopic discectomy group. Percutaneous endoscopic discectomy appears to offer an alternative to microdiscectomy for patients with "contained" and small subligamentous lumbar disc herniations.

No abstract

Present data suggest beneficial clinical results of TDR for treatment of DDD in a highly selected group of patients. Better functional outcome was obtained in younger patients under 40 years of age and patients with degenerative disc disease in association with disc herniation. Multilevel disc replacement had significantly higher complication rate and inferior outcome. Results are significantly dependent on preoperative diagnosis and patient selection, number of replaced segments, and age of the patient at the time of operation. Because of significantly varying outcomes, indications for disc replacement must be defined precisely.

Background During the last 20 years several less-invasive anterior approaches to the lumbar spine have become standard, including the extreme lateral transpsoas approach. Although it is associated with a lower risk of vascular injury compared with anterior midline approaches, neuromonitoring is considered mandatory to avoid neurologic complications. Interestingly, despite neuromonitoring, the reported risk of neurologic deficits with the extreme lateral transpsoas approach is greater than observed with other anterior approaches. An alternative lateral, oblique, psoassparing approach, recently named the oblique lumbar interbody fusion, uses the anatomic pathway between the abdominal vessels anteriorly and the lumbar plexus laterally to decrease the risk of neurologic and vascular injury; however, as yet, little on this new approach has been reported. Questions/purposesWe asked: what proportion of patients experienced (1) perioperative complications (overall complications), (2) vascular complications, and (3) neurologic complications after less-invasive anterior lumbar interbody fusion through the oblique lumbar interbody approach at one high-volume center? Methods We performed a chart review of intra-and perioperative complications of all patients who had undergone minimally invasive anterior lumbar interbody fusion through a lateral psoas-sparing approach from L1 to L5 during a 12-year period (1998)(1999)(2000)(2001)(2002)(2003)(2004)(2005)(2006)(2007)(2008)(2009)(2010). During the study period, the oblique, psoas-sparing approach was the preferred approach of the participating surgeons in this study, and it was performed in 812 patients, all of whom are studied here, and all of whom have complete data for assessment of the short-term (inpatient-only) complications that we studied. In general, we performed this approach whenever possible, although it generally was avoided when a patient previously had undergone an open retro-or transperitoneal abdominal procedure, or previous implantation of hernia mesh in the abdomen. During the study period, posterior fusion techniques were used in an additional 573 patients instead of the oblique lumbar interbody fusion when we needed to decompress the spinal canal beyond what is possible through the anterior approach. In case of spinal stenosis calling for fusion in combination with a high disc space, severe endplate irregularity, or severe biomechanical instability, we combined posterior decompression with oblique lumbar interbody fusion in 367 patients. Complications were evaluated by an independent observer who was not involved in the decisionmaking process, the operative procedure, nor the Each author certifies that he or a member of his immediate family, has no funding or commercial associations (eg, consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article. All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 1 ed...

BackgroundAlthough histopathological grading systems for disc degeneration are frequently used in research, they are not yet integrated into daily care routine pathology of surgical samples. Therefore, data on histopathological changes in surgically excised disc material and their correlation to clinical parameters such as age, gender or body mass index (BMI) is limited to date. The current study was designed to correlate major physico-clinical parameters from a population of orthopaedic spine center patients (gender, age and BMI) with a quantitative histologic degeneration score (HDS).MethodsExcised lumbar disc material from 854 patients (529 men/325 women/mean age 56 (15-96) yrs.) was graded based on a previously validated histologic degeneration score (HDS) in a cohort of surgical disc samples that had been obtained for the treatment of either disc herniation or discogenic back pain. Cases with obvious inflammation, tumor formation or congenital disc pathology were excluded. The degree of histological changes was correlated with sex, age and BMI.ResultsThe HDS (0-15 points) showed significantly higher values in the nucleus pulposus (NP) than in the annulus fibrosus (AF) (Mean: NP 11.45/AF 7.87), with a significantly higher frequency of histomorphological alterations in men in comparison to women. Furthermore, the HDS revealed a positive significant correlation between the BMI and the extent of histological changes. No statistical age relation of the degenerative lesions was seen.ConclusionsThis study demonstrated that histological disc alterations in surgical specimens can be graded in a reliable manner based on a quantitative histologic degeneration score (HDS). Increased BMI was identified as a positive risk factor for the development of symptomatic, clinically significant disc degeneration.

No abstract

The terms 'minimally invasive' or 'less invasive surgery' have been used recently to describe surgical approaches or operations that are performed with less trauma to anatomical structures on the way to or surrounding the surgical 'target area'. These types of surgical procedures are usually performed with the help of 'high-tech' instruments such as surgical endoscopes or surgical microscopes, modern video techniques and automated instruments. Within the last 10 years, such techniques have been developed in the field of spinal surgery. The application of minimally or less invasive procedures has concentrated predominantly on anterior approaches to the thoracic and lumbar spine. This article describes two anterior approach techniques for performing anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) through a minimally invasive retroperitoneal or transperitoneal approach. The technical principles are microsurgical modifications of traditional anterior approaches to the lumbar spine. Through small (4-cm) skin incisions, the target area can be exposed. Preliminary results suggest decreased peri - and postoperative morbidity, less blood loss, earlier rehabilitation and acceptable complication rates. The technique is currently used by the author for all patients requiring anterior lumbar interbody fusion.

No abstract