Search

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to elucidate the feasibility of microendoscopic discectomy (MED) for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation in elderly patients over the age of 65. Methods: The elderly group consisted of 44 patients (27 men and 17 women; mean age, 69.6 years; mean follow-up, 27.7 months) with sciatic pain caused by lumbar disc herniation who were treated using MED. The younger group was comprised of 44 sex-matched patients younger than 65 years. The younger group also had lumbar disc herniation treated with MED and served as the control group. The clinical outcomes were evaluated using the Japanese Orthopaedic Association score for low back pain (JOA score). Results: The results revealed that the good surgical outcomes achieved in the younger group were also achieved in the elderly group (JOA scores: 14.8 ± 4.1 in the younger group before surgery versus 13.0 ± 3.2 in the elderly group; 26.0 ± 2.4 at follow-up versus 25.5 ± 2.7; recovery rates of JOA scores: 78.3 ± 17.8% versus 77.9 ± 16.6%, respectively). The mean surgical time was 78.3 ± 31.0 min in the elderly group and 69.2 ± 22.9 min (P=0.12) in the younger group; the blood loss was 33.9 ± 71.9 cc and 28.0 ± 37.8 cc (P=0.63), respectively. Complications included a dural tear in two elderly patients, and postoperative discitis and hematoma in one elderly patient each: all of these complications were managed successfully. Conclusion: The results of this study demonstrated that MED is a feasible minimally invasive surgical option for elderly patients with lumbar disc herniation.

Introduction: The purpose of this study is to elucidate the feasibility of microendoscopic discectomy (MED) for the treatment of recurrent lumbar disc herniation. Methods: Thirty-six patients with recurrent lumbar disc herniation were treated using MED (30 men and six women; mean age: 45.7 years, range: 26–80 years; mean follow-up: 24.4 months, range: 12–52 months; mean duration between the primary and revision surgery: 65.9 months, range: 1–320 months) (recurrent group). Sex- and age-matched patients with primary lumbar disc herniation treated by MED served as the control group (primary group). The clinical outcomes were evaluated using the Japanese Orthopaedic Association score for low back pain and questionnaires regarding MED. Results: The average Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores before surgery and at the final follow-up were significantly lower in the recurrent group than in the primary group (10.8 ± 3.4 versus 15.0 ± 4.0 before surgery, P=0.001 and 25.4 ± 2.6 versus 26.8 ± 1.9 at follow-up, P=0.013), while the average recovery rates were not significantly different between the two groups (80.3 ± 14.1% versus 84.5 ± 14.6, P=0.22). The surgical time was significantly longer for the recurrent group than for the primary group (83.0 ± 41.8 min versus 67.1 ± 18.1 min,P=0.042). Of the 18 questionnaire respondents, 17 answered that postoperative pain was milder after MED than after a standard discectomy. Conclusion: MED is a feasible surgical option for recurrent lumbar disc herniation, yielding surgical outcomes comparable to those obtained in primary lumbar disc herniation.