ndoscopic Approach Technique for Recurrent Lumbar Prolapsed Disc

Abstract

Patients characteristics: Age at presentation ranged between 23 and 78 years with a male to female ratio of 1.5 to 1. The level treated more was L4-L5. In all cases, we performed transforaminal route access, except for two, where an interlaminar approach was necessary because of the disc fragment location. Twenty-six cases had been operated previously by microsurgical access and the remaining by an endoscopic technique. In one case the disc had recurred for a second time, requiring open revision surgery. Results: Median operative time was 52 minutes (range 44 to 79 minutes). After a median follow up of 15 months (range 15-24 months) 93% of patients were pain-free. Pain by VAS ranged from a mean value of 6.3 at admission to 1.9 at 15 months of follow-up. ODI scores went from a mean preoperative value of 59.8% to 14.6% at the same followup. Four patients experienced transient paresthesia along the dermatomeric distribution of the involved nerve, while 3 had an intraoperative dural tear. One patient had to undergo new revision surgery for a disc recurrence. No late adverse events occurred. Conclusions: Endoscopic discectomy might be a valuable procedure for recurrent lumbar disk prolapse treatment. Our results showed good outcomes with only a few transient complications and less postoperative pain. Also, iatrogenic mechanical instability might be avoided with this technique