Closing the Treatment Gap for Lumbar Disc Herniation Patients with Large Annular Defects: A Systematic Review of Techniques and Outcomes in this High-risk Population

Joshua Ammerman, William C Watters, Jason A Inzana, Gene Carragee, Michael W Groff, Joshua Ammerman, William C Watters, Jason A Inzana, Gene Carragee, Michael W Groff

Abstract

Lumbar disc herniation (LDH) is one of the most common spinal pathologies and can be associated with debilitating pain and neurological dysfunction. Discectomy is the primary surgical intervention for LDH and is typically successful. Yet, some patients experience recurrent LDH (RLDH) after discectomy, which is associated with worse clinical outcomes and greater socioeconomic burden. Large defects in the annulus fibrosis are a significant risk factor for RLDH and present a critical treatment challenge. It is essential to identify reliable and cost-effective treatments for this at-risk population. A systematic review of the PubMed and Embase databases was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to identify studies describing the treatment of LDH patients with large annular defects. The incidence of large annular defects, measurement technique, RLDH rate, and reoperation rate were compiled and stratified by surgical technique. The risk of bias was scored for each study and for the identification of RLDH and reoperation. Study heterogeneity and pooled estimates were calculated from the included articles. Fifteen unique studies describing 2,768 subjects were included. The pooled incidence of patients with a large annular defect was 44%. The pooled incidence of RLDH and reoperation following conventional limited discectomy in this population was 10.6% and 6.0%, respectively. A more aggressive technique, subtotal discectomy, tended to have lower rates of RLDH (5.8%) and reoperation (3.8%). However, patients treated with subtotal discectomy reported greater back and leg pain associated with disc degeneration. The quality of evidence was low for subtotal discectomy as an alternative to limited discectomy. Each report had a high risk of bias and treatments were never randomized. A recent randomized controlled trial with 550 subjects examined an annular closure device (ACD) and observed significant reductions in RLDH and reoperation rates (>50% reduction). Based on the available evidence, current discectomy techniques are inadequate for patients with large annular defects, leaving a treatment gap for this high-risk population. Currently, the strongest evidence indicates that augmenting limited discectomy with an ACD can reduce RLDH and revision rates in patients with large annular defects, with a low risk of device complications.

Keywords: annular closure device; fragmentectomy; large annular defect; limited discectomy; lumbar disc herniation; lumbar discectomy; recurrent herniation; reoperation; revision surgery; subtotal discectomy.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared financial relationships, which are detailed in the next section.

Figures

Figure 1. Flowchart of article identification for…
Figure 1. Flowchart of article identification for inclusion in the systematic review according to PRISMA guidelines
Figure 2. Forest plot of large annular…
Figure 2. Forest plot of large annular defect incidence
Results from the random effects model were used based on the significant heterogeneity (I2 = 97%).
Figure 3. Unpaired meta-analysis of the RLDH…
Figure 3. Unpaired meta-analysis of the RLDH rates
Rates are reported per month, so multiplication by 24 months yields the pooled two-year RLDH rates. Abbreviations: limited discectomy (LD); subtotal discectomy (SD); annular closure device (ACD).
Figure 4. Unpaired meta-analysis of the reoperation…
Figure 4. Unpaired meta-analysis of the reoperation rates
Rates are reported per month, so multiplication by 24 months yields the two-year pooled reoperation rates. Abbreviations: limited discectomy (LD); subtotal discectomy (SD); annular closure device (ACD).

References

    1. Population-based trends in volumes and rates of ambulatory lumbar spine surgery. Gray DT, Deyo RA, Kreuter W, Mirza SK, Heagerty PJ, Comstock BA, Chan L. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2006;31:1957–1963.
    1. Economic impact of improving outcomes of lumbar discectomy. Sherman J, Cauthen J, Schoenberg D, Burns M, Reaven NL, Griffith SL. Spine J. 2010;10:108–116.
    1. Surgery versus prolonged conservative treatment for sciatica. Peul WC, van Houwelingen HC, van den Hout WB, et al. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:2245–2256.
    1. Surgical vs nonoperative treatment for lumbar disk herniation: the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT): a randomized trial. Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, et al. JAMA. 2006;296:2441–2450.
    1. Is sequestrectomy a viable alternative to microdiscectomy? A systematic review of the literature. Fakouri B, Shetty NR, White TC. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473:1957–1962.
    1. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of management strategies for sciatica: systematic review and economic model. Lewis R, Williams N, Matar HE, et al. Health Technol Assess. 2011;15:1–578.
    1. The cost effectiveness of surgical versus nonoperative treatment for lumbar disc herniation over two years: evidence from the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) Tosteson AN, Skinner JS, Tosteson TD, et al. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2008;33:2108–2115.
    1. Surgical versus nonoperative treatment for lumbar disc herniation: four-year results for the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) Weinstein JN, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD, et al. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2008;33:2789–2800.
    1. What is the rate of revision discectomies after primary discectomy on a national scale? Virk SS, Diwan A, Phillips FM, Sandhu H, Khan SN. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017;475:2752–2762.
    1. Response rate does not affect patient-reported outcome after lumbar discectomy. Elkan P, Lagerback T, Moller H, Gerdhem P. Eur Spine J. 2018;27:1538–1546.
    1. Risk factors for reoperation in patients treated surgically for intervertebral disc herniation: a subanalysis of eight-year SPORT data. Leven D, Passias PG, Errico TJ, et al. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015;97:1316–1325.
    1. Reoperation for recurrent intervertebral disc herniation in the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial: analysis of rate, risk factors and outcome. Abdu RW, Abdu WA, Pearson AM, Zhao W, Lurie JD, Weinstein JN. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2017;42:1106–1114.
    1. Recurrent versus primary lumbar disc herniation surgery: patient-reported outcomes in the Swedish Spine Register Swespine. Fritzell P, Knutsson B, Sanden B, Stromqvist B, Hagg O. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473:1978–1984.
    1. Post-lumbar discectomy reoperations that are associated with poor clinical and socioeconomic outcomes can be reduced through use of a novel annular closure device: results from a 2-year randomized controlled trial. [May;2018 ];Klassen PD, Hsu WK, Martens F, Inzana JA, van den Brink WA, Groff MW, Thomé C. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2018 10:349–357.
    1. Treatment of recurrent lumbar disc herniation with or without fusion in workers' compensation subjects. O'Donnell JA, Anderson JT, Haas AR, Percy R, Woods ST, Ahn UM, Ahn NU. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2017;42:864–870.
    1. Association of annular defect width after lumbar discectomy with risk of symptom recurrence and reoperation: systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. Miller LE, McGirt MJ, Garfin SR, Bono CM. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2018;43:308–315.
    1. Clinical outcomes after lumbar discectomy for sciatica: the effects of fragment type and anular competence. Carragee EJ, Han MY, Suen PW, Kim D. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85:102–108.
    1. A prospective cohort study of close interval computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging after primary lumbar discectomy: factors associated with recurrent disc herniation and disc height loss. McGirt MJ, Eustacchio S, Varga P, et al. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009;34:2044–2051.
    1. Preoperative risk factors for recurrent lumbar disk herniation in L5-S1. Kim KT, Lee DH, Cho DC, Sung JK, Kim YB. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2015;28:571–577.
    1. Zhou BW, Wang K, Hong X, et al. Int J Clin Exp Med. Vol. 9. Kun; Hong, Xin; Wang, Yuntao; Zhuang, Suyang; Gao, Zengxin; Bao, Junping; Wu: 2016. Adjacent level disc degeneration: a prognostic factor for recurrent lumbar disc herniation after transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy in 409 cases; pp. 21854–21859.
    1. Risk factors for recurrent lumbar disc herniation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Huang W, Han Z, Liu J, Yu L, Yu X. Medicine (Baltimore) 2016;95:2378.
    1. Recurrent disc herniation and long-term back pain after primary lumbar discectomy: review of outcomes reported for limited versus aggressive disc removal. McGirt MJ, Ambrossi GL, Datoo G, et al. Neurosurgery. 2009;64:338–344.
    1. A prospective controlled study of limited versus subtotal posterior discectomy: short-term outcomes in patients with herniated lumbar intervertebral discs and large posterior anular defect. Carragee EJ, Spinnickie AO, Alamin TF, Paragioudakis S. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2006;31:653–657.
    1. An evidence-based review of the literature on the consequences of conservative versus aggressive discectomy for the treatment of primary disc herniation with radiculopathy. Watters WC 3rd, McGirt MJ. Spine J. 2009;9:240–257.
    1. The importance of preserving disc structure in surgical approaches to lumbar disc herniation. Mochida J, Nishimura K, Nomura T, Toh E, Chiba M. . Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1996;21:1556–1563.
    1. Long-term clinical outcome of the lumbar microdiscectomy and fragmentectomy: A prospective study. Boyaci S, Aksoy K. Neurosurg Q. 2016;26:109–115.
    1. Challenges and strategies in the repair of ruptured annulus fibrosus. [May;2019 ];Guterl CC, See EY, Blanquer SB, et al. Eur Cell Mater. 2013 25:1–21.
    1. Prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled study of anular repair in lumbar discectomy: two-year follow-up. Bailey A, Araghi A, Blumenthal S, Huffmon GV, Anular Repair Clinical Study Group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2013;38:1161–1169.
    1. Annular closure in lumbar microdiscectomy for prevention of reherniation: a randomized clinical trial. Thomé C, Klassen PD, Bouma GJ, et al. Spine J. 2018;18:2278–2287.
    1. The clinical application of "jetting suture" technique in annular repair under microendoscopic discectomy: A prospective single-cohort observational study. Qi L, Li M, Si H, Wang L, Jiang Y, Zhang S, Li L. Medicine (Baltimore) 2016;95:4503.
    1. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. [May;2019 ];Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. PLoS Med. 2009 6:1000097.
    1. Methodological index for nonrandomized studies (MINORS)- development and validation of a new instrument. Slim K, Nini E, Forestier D, Kwiatkowski F, Panis Y, Chipponi J. . ANZ J Surg. 2003;73:712–716.
    1. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. BMJ. 2003;327:557–560.
    1. Bone-anchored annular closure following lumbar discectomy reduces risk of complications and reoperations within 90 days of discharge. [May;2019 ];Klassen PD, Bernstein DT, Kohler HP, Arts MP, Weiner B, Miller LE, Thomé C. J Pain Res. 2017 10:2047–2055.
    1. Reherniation and failure after lumbar discectomy: a comparison of fragment excision alone versus subtotal discectomy. Wera GD, Dean CL, Ahn UM, Marcus RE, Cassinelli EH, Bohlman HH, Ahn NU. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2008;21:316–319.
    1. Clinical outcomes after posterior dynamic transpedicular stabilization with limited lumbar discectomy: Carragee classification system for lumbar disc herniations. [May;2019 ];Kaner T, Sasani M, Oktenoglu T, Cosar M, Ozer AF. SAS J. 2010 4:92–97.
    1. Lumbar microdiscectomy versus sequesterectomy/free fragmentectomy: a long-term (2 y) retrospective study of the clinical outcome. Fakouri B, Patel V, Bayley E, Srinivas S. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2011;24:6–10.
    1. Primary limited lumbar discectomy with an annulus closure device: one-year clinical and radiographic results from a prospective, multi-center study. Lequin MB, Barth M, Thomé C, Bouma GJ. Korean J Spine. 2012;9:340–347.
    1. The high-risk discectomy patient: prevention of reherniation in patients with large anular defects using an anular closure device. Bouma GJ, Barth M, Ledic D, Vilendecic M. Eur Spine J. 2013;22:1030–1036.
    1. A novel approach to the surgical treatment of lumbar disc herniations: indications of simple discectomy and posterior transpedicular dynamic stabilization based on carragee classification. Ozer AF, Keskin F, Oktenoglu T, Suzer T, Ataker Y, Gomleksiz C, Sasani M. Adv Orthop. 2013;2013:270565.
    1. The effect of short (2-weeks) versus long (6-weeks) post-operative restrictions following lumbar discectomy: a prospective randomized control trial. Bono CM, Leonard DA, Cha TD, Schwab JH, Wood KB, Harris MB, Schoenfeld AJ. Eur Spine J. 2017;26:905–912.
    1. Performance of an annular closure device in a 'real-world', heterogeneous, at-risk, lumbar discectomy population. Kursumovic A, Rath S. Cureus. 2017;9:0.
    1. A multicenter, prospective, randomized study protocol to demonstrate the superiority of a bone-anchored prosthesis for anular closure used in conjunction with limited discectomy to limited discectomy alone for primary lumbar disc herniation. Klassen PD, Hes R, Bouma GJ, et al. Int J Clin Trials. 2016;3:120–131.
    1. Dynesys dynamic stabilization-related facet arthrodesis. Fay LY, Chang PY, Wu JC, et al. Neurosurg Focus. 2016;40:0.
    1. Changes of facet joints after dynamic stabilization: continuous degeneration or slow fusion? Yeh MY, Kuo CH, Wu JC, et al. World Neurosurg. 2018;113:45–50.
    1. Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: current strategies in diagnosis and treatment. Thomé C, Borm W, Meyer F. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2008;105:373–379.
    1. Morphology and clinical relevance of vertebral endplate changes following limited lumbar discectomy with or without bone-anchored annular closure. Kursumovic A, Kienzler JC, Bouma GJ, et al. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2018;15:1386–1394.
    1. Effectiveness of an annular closure device in a "real-world" population: stratification of registry data using screening criteria from a randomized controlled trial. Kursumovic A, Rath SA. Med Devices (Auckl) 2018;11:193–200.
    1. Cost-effectiveness of a bone-anchored annular closure device versus conventional lumbar discectomy in treating lumbar disc herniations. Ament J, Yang Z, Thaci B, Kulubya E, Hsu W, Bouma G, Kim KD. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2018;44:5–16.
    1. Sequestrectomy versus conventional microdiscectomy for the treatment of a lumbar disc herniation: a systematic review. Azarhomayoun A, Chou R, Shirdel S, Lakeh MM, Vaccaro AR, Rahimi-Movaghar V. Medicine (Baltimore) 2015;40:1330–1339.

Source: PubMed

3
Tilaa