PubMed · 10193632
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
N H Horwitz, H Rizzoli. 1999. Disc pathology.. https://doi.org/10.3171/jns.1999.90.4.0804
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
OBJECTIVES: The primary rationale for surgery for disc prolapse is to relieve nerve root irritation or compression due to herniated disc material. Claims of the merits of alternative surgical procedures are made without clear evidence about clinical outcomes. The objective of this review was to assess the effects of surgical interventions for the treatment of lumbar disc prolapse. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Medline, Embase, Biosis, Dissertation Abstracts, Index to UK Thesis, and reference lists of the retrieved articles up to March 1997 and we corresponded with experts. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised trials of the surgical management of lumbar disc prolapse. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers assessed trial quality and extracted data from published papers. Additional information was sought from the authors if necessary. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-seven trials were found. There were methodological weaknesses in many of the trials. Sixteen of the 27 trials were of some form of chemonucleolysis. Ten trials compared different surgical techniques, although only one of these compared surgical discectomy with conservative management. Surgical discectomy produced better clinical outcomes than chemonucleolysis with chymopapain, and chemonucleolysis produced better clinical outcomes than placebo. Three trials showed no difference in clinical outcomes between microdiscectomy and standard discectomy. Three trials failed to show a significant reduction in scar formation or improved clinical outcomes by inserting an inter-position membra ne to cover the spinal dura after discectomy. Three trials of percutaneous discectomy provided moderate evidence that it produces poorer clinical outcomes than standard discectomy or chymopapain. We found no published randomised trials of laser discectomy. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Chemonucleolysis is more effective than placebo and it is less invasive but less effective than surgical disectomy. Surgical discectomy for carefully selected patients with sciatica due to lumbar disc prolapse provides faster relief from the acute attack than conservative management, although any positive or negative effects on the lifetime natural history of the underlying disc disease are unclear.
In a meta-analysis of 69 prospective and retrospective studies, we investigated the value of various surgical techniques in the treatment of lumbar disk herniations. This analysis includes standard diskectomy (5080 patients from nine series), microdiskectomy (5354/23), and comparison of both techniques (2494/10) and furthermore chemonucleolysis (2729/16), laser therapy (881/3), percutaneous nucleotomy (3506/18), comparisons of percutaneous techniques (942/5) with microdiskectomies (561/5) and standard diskectomies (1020/6). Outcomes were rated according to Macnab's criteria: I "excellent", II "good", III "improved", IV "same as before", V "worse", I/II "markedly improved", III "partially improved", IV/V "not improved", I-III "successful", and IV/V "unsuccessful". Results after microdiskectomy were "successful" more often (90% vs. 95%), "good/excellent" more often (82% vs. 73%), and patients left the hospital sooner than with standard diskectomy. Recurrence rates were comparable (4%). Results of both open techniques were clearly superior to those from any type of percutaneous treatment: chemonucleolysis und laser therapy were "successful" in 69% and 70% of cases respectively, with recurrence rates of 17% and 18%, endoscopic nucleotomy was "successful" in 84% of cases, and recurrence rate was 14%. Please ask the author for the reference database.
OBJECTIVE: To report a case of peripheral nerve compression caused by a specialized spinal retraction system, the Thompson-Farley retractor system, that most likely would not have been detected without intraoperative monitoring of the ulnar nerve. DESIGN: Bilateral median and peroneal nerve somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEPs) were monitored continuously during a C5 corpectomy, as was core body temperature. RESULTS: Within minutes after cervical soft-tissue retraction, the left ulnar nerve SSEP began to decline in amplitude. Peroneal nerve SSEPs were normal throughout the surgery; core body temperature remained at 36 degrees +/- 0.2 degrees C. After much effort to reposition the patient, the SSEPs returned to baseline and the Thompson-Farley system was replaced by a self-retracting system. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first report of peripheral nerve compression caused by the Thompson-Farley retractor system. Even with careful positioning on the operating table, obese patients may be particularly at risk for upper arm compression. Continuous monitoring of SSEPs is suggested to prevent postoperative morbidity.