Correlation between Disc Imaging Observations and Clinical Efficacy after Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy: A 1-Year Follow-up Study

Abstract

Objective: The connection between alterations in the disc structure following percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) and symptoms in patients postsurgery has not been reported yet. The purpose of the present study was to discuss the potential correlation between the changes in the morphological characteristics of various reference surfaces of the intervertebral disc after percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) and clinical outcomes, to identify the morphological parameters that affect efficacy and provide an evidence-based foundation for assessing postoperative efficacy.

Methods: From October 2019 to October 2021, after percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD), 98 individuals were enrolled. MRI DICOM data of the lumbar spine were obtained before and after surgery, specifically around 3 months. The morphological parameters of the operated and adjacent segments of the discs were measured using T2-weighted images from three reference planes. Outcomes were assessed using the Oswestry disability index (ODI), visual analogue pain scores for the back and leg (VAS-back/VAS-leg), Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores, and recovery rates. Postoperative changes in disc parameters and outcomes were compared between patients with different severity and types of LDH based on the MSU staging. Patients completed the questionnaire during outpatient follow-up appointments 3, 6, and 12 months after the surgery. The follow-up period was 14.69 ± 4.21 months, ranging from 12 to 24 months.

Results: Parameters such as area and circumference of intervertebral discs in the cross-section were not associated with the change in the efficacy index. Postoperatively, a negative correlation between the variation of the disc height, disc height index, and protrusion distance and the difference in VAS scores for low back pain at 3 and 6 months was observed among the two sagittal change parameters. Differences between changes in disc imaging parameters and postoperative efficacy were not statistically significant between various types of lumbar disc herniation.

Conclusion: For the patients after percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy, the changes in parameters such as disc area and circumference in the cross-sectional plane are not associated with efficacy, and the changes in disc height and herniation distance in the sagittal plane provide a morphologic basis for the assessment of short-term postoperative efficacy. In addition, the changes in disc morphologic parameters and postoperative efficacy do not differ between various types of lumbar disc herniation.

Keywords

Clinical outcomes / Disc morphological changes / Lumbar disc herniation (LDH) / Magnetic resonance imaging / Minimally invasive / Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD)

References

[1] HaroH, EbataS, InoueG, Kaito T, KomoriH, OhbaT, et al. Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) clinical practice guidelines on the management of lumbar disc herniation, third edition-secondary publication. J Orthop Sci. 2022;27(1):31–78.

[2] GadjradjPS, ArtsMP, van TulderMW, RietdijkWJR, PeulWC, HarhangiBS. Management of symptomatic lumbar disk herniation: an international perspective. Spine. 2017;42(23):1826–1834.

[3] JuCI, LeeSM. Complications and Management of Endoscopic Spinal Surgery. Neurospine. 2023;20(1):56–77.

[4] GadjradjPS, Broulikova HM, van DongenJM, RubinsteinSM, DepauwPR, VleggeertC, et al. Cost-effectiveness of full endoscopic versus open discectomy for sciatica. Br J Sports Med. 2022;56(18):1018–1025.

[5] LiuX, YuanS, TianY, Wang L, GongL, ZhengY, et al. Comparison of percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy, microendoscopic discectomy, and microdiscectomy for symptomatic lumbar disc herniation: minimum 2-year follow-up results. J Neurosurg Spine. 2018;28(3):317–325.

[6] GadjradjPS, Harhangi BS, AmelinkJ, van SusanteJ, KamperS, van TulderM, et al. Percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy versus open microdiscectomy for lumbar disc herniation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine. 2021;46(8):538–549.

[7] ThoméC, Kuršumovic A, KlassenPD, BoumaGJ, Bostelmann R, MartensF, et al. Effectiveness of an annular closure device to prevent recurrent lumbar disc herniation: a secondary analysis with 5 years of follow-up. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(12):e2136809.

[8] HeoJH, KimCH, ChungCK, Choi Y, SeoYG, KimDH, et al. Quantity of disc removal and radiological outcomes of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy. Pain Physician. 2017;20(5):E737–E746.

[9] EkedahlH, Jönsson B, AnnertzM, FrobellRB. Accuracy of clinical tests in detecting disk herniation and nerve root compression in subjects with lumbar radicular symptoms. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2018;99(4):726–735.

[10] ChenX, SandhuHS, Vargas CastilloJ, DiwanAD. The association between pain scores and disc height change following discectomy surgery in lumbar disc herniation patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Spine J. 2021;30(11):3265–3277.

[11] AkedaK, YamadaT, InoueN, Nishimura A, SudoA. Risk factors for lumbar intervertebral disc height narrowing: a population-based longitudinal study in the elderly. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2015;16:344.

[12] MysliwiecLW, Cholewicki J, WinkelpleckMD, EisGP. MSU classification for herniated lumbar discs on MRI: toward developing objective criteria for surgical selection. Eur Spine J. 2010;19(7):1087–1093.

[13] AgochukwuNQ, Wittmann D, BoileauNR, DunnRL, MontieJE, KimT, et al. Validity of the patient-reported outcome measurement information system (PROMIS) sexual interest and satisfaction measures in men following radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37(23):2017–2027.

[14] EunSS, LeeSH, SabalLA. Long-term follow-up results of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy. Pain Physician. 2016;19(8):E1161–E1166.

[15] JarebiM, AwafA, LefrancM, Peltier J. A matched comparison of outcomes between percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy and open lumbar microdiscectomy for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation: a 2-year retrospective cohort study. Spine J. 2021;21(1):114–121.

[16] KangTW, ParkSY, OhH, LeeSH, ParkJH, Suh SW. Risk of reoperation and infection after percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy and open lumbar discectomy: a nationwide population-based study. Bone Jt J. 2021;103(8):1392–1399.

[17] PanM, LiQ, LiS, MaoH, MengB, Zhou F, et al. Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy: indications and complications. Pain Physician. 2020;23(1):49–56.

[18] GadjradjPS. Full-endoscopic lumbar disc surgery: the new gold standard? (PhD academy award). Br J Sports Med. 2022;56:1253–1254.

[19] ConstantC, HomWW, NehrbassD, Carmel EN, AlbersCE, DemlMC, et al. Comparison and optimization of sheep in vivo intervertebral disc injury model. JOR Spine. 2022;5(2):e1198.

[20] ChuG, ShiC, LinJ, WangS, WangH, Liu T, et al. Biomechanics in annulus fibrosus degeneration and regeneration. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2018;1078:409–420.

[21] PeredoAP, Gullbrand SE, SmithHE, MauckRL. Putting the pieces in place: mobilizing cellular players to improve annulus fibrosus repair. Tissue Eng, Part B. 2021;27(4):295–312.

[22] DunsmuirRA, NisarS, CruickshankJA, LoughenburyPR. No correlation identified between the proportional size of a prolapsed intravertebral disc with disability or leg pain. Bone Jt J. 2022;104(6):715–720.

[23] McGirtMJ, Eustacchio S, VargaP, VilendecicM, Trummer M, GorensekM, et al. 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. Spine. 2009;34(19):2044–2051.

[24] FujitaM, Kitagawa T, HirahataM, InuiT, KawanoH, IwaiH, et al. Comparative study between full-endoscopic discectomy and microendoscopic discectomy for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation. Medicina. 2020;56(12):710.

[25] WangH, ZhouX, LiX, XuZ, MengQ, Wang J, et al. Risk factors for short-term and long-term low back pain after transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy. J Pain Res. 2023;16:3505–3517.

[26] KursumovicA, MuirJM, AmmermanJ, Bostelmann R. The disability Cascade: a preventable consequence of the loss of disc height following lumbar microdiscectomy. Cureus. 2019;11(7):e5169.

[27] ZhongD, KeZY, ChenQ, Liu Y, LinL, WangY. A clinical nomogram for predicting the residual low back pain after percutaneous endoscopic surgery for lumbar disc herniation. Int Orthop. 2023;47(3):819–830.

[28] KimHS, PaudelB, JangJS, Lee K, OhSH, JangIT. Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for all types of lumbar disc Herniations (LDH) including severely difficult and extremely difficult LDH cases. Pain Physician. 2018;21(4):E401–E408.

[29] MaoL, ZhuB, WuXT. One-stage percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for symptomatic double-level contiguous adolescent lumbar disc herniation. Orthop Surg. 2021;13(5):1532–1539.

[30] ZhouZ, NiHJ, ZhaoW, Gu GF, ChenJ, ZhuYJ, et al. Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy via transforaminal approach combined with interlaminar approach for L4/5 and L5/S1 two-level disc herniation. Orthop Surg. 2021;13(3):979–988.

[31] FengP, KongQ, ZhangB, Liu J, MaJ, HuY. Percutaneous full endoscopic lumbar discectomy for symptomatic adjacent segment disease after lumbar fusion in elderly patients. Orthop Surg. 2023;15(7):1749–1755.

[32] DewingCB, Provencher MT, RiffenburghRH, KerrS, ManosRE. The outcomes of lumbar microdiscectomy in a young, active population: correlation by herniation type and level. Spine. 2008;33(1):33–38.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2024 2024 The Authors. Orthopaedic Surgery published by Tianjin Hospital and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.