Download PDF
J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg 2021; 82(03): 218-224
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1721019
Original Article

Comparison of the Minimally Invasive Tubular Transmuscular Approach with the Conventional Microsurgical Approach for Microsurgical Treatment of Lumbar Disk Herniation: A Prospective Randomized Study

Bogdan Pintea
1   Department of Neurochirurgie, Berufsgenossenschaftliches Universitätsklinikum Bergmannsheil, Bochum, Germany
2   Department of Neurosurgery, Universitätsklinikum Bonn Zentrum für Nervenheilkunde, Bonn, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany
,
Nadine Krämer
2   Department of Neurosurgery, Universitätsklinikum Bonn Zentrum für Nervenheilkunde, Bonn, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany
,
Andreas Müller
2   Department of Neurosurgery, Universitätsklinikum Bonn Zentrum für Nervenheilkunde, Bonn, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany
3   Department of Neurosurgery, Medizinische Fäkultat der RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany
,
Matthias Florian Geiger
2   Department of Neurosurgery, Universitätsklinikum Bonn Zentrum für Nervenheilkunde, Bonn, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany
3   Department of Neurosurgery, Medizinische Fäkultat der RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany
,
Martin Podlogar
2   Department of Neurosurgery, Universitätsklinikum Bonn Zentrum für Nervenheilkunde, Bonn, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany
,
Patrick Weber
4   Department of Movement and Neurosciences, Deutsche Sporthochschule Köln, Koln, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany
,
Rudolf Andreas Kristof
2   Department of Neurosurgery, Universitätsklinikum Bonn Zentrum für Nervenheilkunde, Bonn, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany
5   Department of Neurosurgery, HELIOS Klinikum Meiningen, Meiningen, Thüringen, Germany
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background The aim of this study is to compare the outcome of the minimally invasive transmuscular approach using a tubular retractor system (Metrx) with the conventional microsurgical standard approach (CM) for microsurgical treatment of lumbar disk herniation.

Methods This is a prospective randomized controlled study with a 1:1 distribution of patients in CM and Metrx study groups. Two hundred and twenty-seven (117 CM and 110 Metrx) patients were included. The primary outcome parameters are postoperative pain intensity reduction, length of hospitalization, postoperative quality of life, and daily life performance based on the standardized questionnaires: Visual Analog Scale (VAS), 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Prolo scores. The secondary outcome parameters are intraoperative variables: surgery duration, blood loss, and fluoroscopy dose.

Results There were no significant statistical differences in the primary outcome measures between the two groups with respect to postoperative pain relief (median VAS pre-op to 3 months post-op for sciatica: 9–2 [CM] vs. 8–2 [Metrx]; for lumbago: 7–2.5 [CM] vs. 6–3 [Metrx]), the length of hospitalization (median of 5 days), or the frequency of occupational reintegration after 3 months (59.1 vs. 60.7%).

Conclusion The microsurgical therapy of lumbar disk herniation via a Metrx approach is a safe and effective treatment option and is equivalent to the CM approach.

Keywords

lumbar disk herniation - microsurgery - tubular transmuscular approach

Informed Consent

Gratitude is expressed to all patients, who gave their informed consent to participate in the trial and for publication of the data.


Availability of data and material: Data and material disclosure to third parties is not envisaged, and has to be proven by the ethics committee in detail.


Authors' Contributions

Prof. Rudolf Andreas Kristof, MD, was responsible for the study concept and design; Bogdan Pintea, MD, and Prof. Rudolf Andreas Kristof, MD, were responsible for drafting the manuscript and preparation of the final version of the manuscript. Krämer Nadine, MS (medical student), contributed substantially and gave intellectual input. Bogdan Pintea, MD, Nadine Krämer, Matthias Florian Geiger, MD, Andreas Müller, MD, PhD, and Martin Podlogar, MD, were responsible for data collection. Bogdan Pintea, MD, and Weber Patrick were responsible for data analysis.




Publication History

Received: 13 December 2019

Accepted: 07 April 2020

Article published online:
24 January 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Mayer C, Siems W. 100 Krankheitsbilder in der Physiotherapie. Berlin: Springer; 2011
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Katz JN. Lumbar disc disorders and low-back pain: socioeconomic factors and consequences. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006; 88 (Suppl. 02) 21-24
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Blamoutier A. Surgical discectomy for lumbar disc herniation: surgical techniques. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2013; 99 (01) S187-S196
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Brunori A, De Caro GM, Giuffrè R. Surgery of lumbar disk hernia: historical perspective. Ann Ital Chir 1998; 69 (03) 285-293
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Caspar W. A new surgical procedure for lumbar disc herniation causing less tissue damage through a microsurgical approach. Adv Neurosurg 1977; 4: 74-77
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Prolo DJ, Oklund SA, Butcher M. Toward uniformity in evaluating results of lumbar spine operations. A paradigm applied to posterior lumbar interbody fusions. Spine 1986; 11 (06) 601-606
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Ruetten S, Komp M, Merk H, Godolias G. Full-endoscopic interlaminar and transforaminal lumbar discectomy versus conventional microsurgical technique: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Spine 2008; 33 (09) 931-939
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Foley KT, Smith MM. Microendoscopic discectomy. Tech Neurosurg 1997; 3: 301-307
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Carlsson AM. Assessment of chronic pain. I. Aspects of the reliability and validity of the visual analogue scale. Pain 1983; 16 (01) 87-101
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Osthus H, Cziske R, Jacobi E. Cross-cultural adaptation of a German version of the Oswestry Disability Index and evaluation of its measurement properties. Spine 2006; 31 (14) E448-E453
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Bullinger M, Morfeld M. Der SF-36 Health Survey. In: Schöffski O, Schulenburg v.d.JMG. eds. Gesundheitsökonomische Evaluationen. Berlin: Springer; 2008
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Ware Jr JE. SF-36 health survey update. Spine 2000; 25 (24) 3130-3139
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Pogatzki-Zahn EM, Meissner W. Postoperative pain therapy in Germany. Status quo. Schmerz 2015; 29 (05) 503-509
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Postacchini F, Postacchini R. Operative management of lumbar disc herniation : the evolution of knowledge and surgical techniques in the last century. Acta Neurochir Suppl (Wien) 2011; 108: 17-21
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Wilson DH, Harbaugh R. Microsurgical and standard removal of the protruded lumbar disc: a comparative study. Neurosurgery 1981; 8 (04) 422-427
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Xu H, Liu X, Liu G, Zhao J, Fu Q, Xu B. Learning curve of full-endoscopic technique through interlaminar approach for L5/S1 disk herniations. Cell Biochem Biophys 2014; 70 (02) 1069-1074
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Riesenburger RI, David CA. Lumbar microdiscectomy and microendoscopic discectomy. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 2006; 15 (05) 267-270
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Overdevest GM, Peul WC, Brand R. Leiden-The Hague Spine Intervention Prognostic Study Group. et al. Tubular discectomy versus conventional microdiscectomy for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation: long-term results of a randomised controlled trial. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2017; 88 (12) 1008-1016
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Chotigavanichaya C, Korwutthikulrangsri E, Suratkarndawadee S. et al. Minimally invasive lumbar discectomy with the tubular retractor system: 4–7 years follow-up. J Med Assoc Thai 2012; 95: 82-86
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Kunert P, Kowalczyk P, Marchel A. Minimally invasive microscopically assisted lumbar discectomy using the METRx X-Tube system. Neurol Neurochir Pol 2010; 44 (06) 554-559
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Silvers HR. Microsurgical versus standard lumbar discectomy. Neurosurgery 1988; 22 (05) 837-841
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Arts MP, Brand R, van den Akker ME, Koes BW, Bartels RH, Peul WC. Leiden-The Hague Spine Intervention Prognostic Study Group (SIPS). Tubular diskectomy vs conventional microdiskectomy for sciatica: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2009; 302 (02) 149-158
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Arts MP, Brand R, van den Akker ME. et al. Tubular diskectomy vs conventional microdiskectomy for the treatment of lumbar disk herniation: 2-year results of a double-blind randomized controlled trial. Neurosurgery 2011; a 69 (01) 135-144, discussion 144
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Arts M, Brand R, van der Kallen B, Lycklama à Nijeholt G, Peul W. Does minimally invasive lumbar disc surgery result in less muscle injury than conventional surgery? A randomized controlled trial. Eur Spine J 2011; 20 (01) 51-57
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Ryang YM, Oertel MF, Mayfrank L, Gilsbach JM, Rohde V. Standard open microdiscectomy versus minimal access trocar microdiscectomy: results of a prospective randomized study. Neurosurgery 2008; 62 (01) 174-181 , discussion 181–182
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Li X, Chang H, Meng X. Tubular microscopes discectomy versus conventional microdiscectomy for treating lumbar disk herniation: systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2018; 97 (05) e9807
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Rasouli MR, Rahimi-Movaghar V, Shokraneh F, Moradi-Lakeh M, Chou R. Minimally invasive discectomy versus microdiscectomy/open discectomy for symptomatic lumbar disc herniation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; 9 (09) CD010328
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Cahill KS, Levi AD, Cummock MD, Liao W, Wang MY. A comparison of acute hospital charges after tubular versus open microdiskectomy. World Neurosurg 2013; 80 (1–2): 208-212
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Bhatia PS, Chhabra HS, Mohapatra B, Nanda A, Sangodimath G, Kaul R. Microdiscectomy or tubular discectomy: is any of them a better option for management of lumbar disc prolapse. J Craniovertebr Junction Spine 2016; 7 (03) 146-152
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Perez-Cruet MJ, Foley KT, Isaacs RE. et al. Microendoscopic lumbar discectomy: technical note. Neurosurgery 2002; 51 (05) S129-S136
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Atlas SJ, Tosteson TD, Blood EA, Skinner JS, Pransky GS, Weinstein JN. The impact of workers' compensation on outcomes of surgical and nonoperative therapy for patients with a lumbar disc herniation: SPORT. Spine 2010; 35 (01) 89-97
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Mayer T, McMahon MJ, Gatchel RJ, Sparks B, Wright A, Pegues P. Socioeconomic outcomes of combined spine surgery and functional restoration in workers' compensation spinal disorders with matched controls. Spine 1998; 23 (05) 598-605 , discussion 606
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar