Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Interbody Fusion Versus Microdiscectomy Without Fusion for Recurrent Lumbar Disk Herniation: A Prospective Comparative Study

Objective:The objective of this study was to compare the clinical outcome of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) versus standard revision diskectomy for recurrent lumbar disk herniation (RLDH).Background:RLDH is the most common cause of redo surgery after a microdiscectomy. Commonly, in patients without evidence of spinal instability, many surgeons would simply redo microdiscectomy, while others proceed to a redo microdiscectomy with arthrodesis. According to the literature, there is no evidence of what the best management of an RLDH would be.Methods:This study involved 90 patients who underwent lumbar microdiscectomy in the past and were now experiencing a new lumbar disk herniation for the first time. The patients were divided into two groups, each with 45 patients: group A received standard revision microdiscectomy, whereas group B received revision microdiscectomy with MIS TLIF.The Japanese Orthopaedic Association score, operating time, blood loss, duration of hospital stay, costs, and complications were all prospectively recorded in a database and examined. Back and leg discomfort were measured using the visual analog scale.Methods:This study involved 90 patients who underwent lumbar microdiscectomy in the past and were now experiencing a new lumbar disk herniation for the first time. The patients were divided into two groups, each with 45 patients: group A received standard revision microdiscectomy, whereas group B received revision microdiscectomy with MIS TLIF.The Japanese Orthopaedic Association score, operating time, blood loss, duration of hospital stay, costs, and complications were all prospectively recorded in a database and examined. Back and leg discomfort were measured using the visual analog scale.Results:The mean total postoperative Japanese Orthopaedic Association score across the groups exhibited no statistically significant difference, nor did the preoperative clinical and epidemiological data. Although postoperative leg pain was comparable in both groups, postoperative lower back pain in group A was much worse than that in group B. Additional revision surgery was necessary for six individuals in group A. Group A had higher rates of dural rupture and postoperative neurological impairment. Group A experienced much less intraoperative blood loss, longer operation times, and postoperative hospital stays.Conclusion:In patients with RLDH, revision microdiscectomy is effective. In comparison with conventional microdiscectomy, MIS TLIF reduces intraoperative risk of dural rupture or neural injury, postoperative incidence of mechanical instability or recurrence, and postoperative lower back pain.Study design:Prospective, randomized, multicenter, comparative study.