• Chinese Med J Peking · Jan 2013

    Randomized Controlled Trial

    Efficacy evaluation for the treatment of unstable lumbar disc herniation by traditional and modified lamina osteotomy replantation.

    • Hong-hai Xu, Xiao-qing Wang, Yue-lin Zhang, Xiong Guo, Zong-zhi Liu, Zhen-qun Luo, Qiang Ma, Qing-yang Zou, Cong Liu, and Hai-bo Fang.
    • Department of Orthopaedics, the Third Affiliated Hospital (Shanxi Provincial Pepople's Hospital), Medical College of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shanxi 710061, China.
    • Chinese Med J Peking. 2013 Jan 1;126(15):2840-5.

    BackgroundThe traditional lamina osteotomy replantation method is prone to nerve root injury and low back pain recurrence. Our team has proposed a modified approach that improves the osteotomy site and its fixation procedure. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy of traditional and modified lamina replantation methods in treating unstable lumbar disc herniation.MethodsFrom March 2008 to August 2011, 124 patients with unstable lumbar disc herniation were enrolled and randomly divided into the following two groups according to random digital table: group A (traditional group) consisting of 61 patients who underwent traditional laminectomy replantation, and group B (modified group) consisting of 63 patients who underwent modified lamina replantation. Both surgeries were performed by the same surgeons. The two groups had no significant difference in gender, age, symptoms, time of onset and the prominent segment. Visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswertry disability index (ODI), and Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores, operative time, blood loss, complication rate, radiographic healing rates, and low back pain recurrence rates were compared between the two groups.ResultsThere were 121 patients followed up for more than one year, and the follow-up rate was 97.6%. Nerve injury occurred in two patients (3.3%) in the modified group and 12 patients (20.0%) in the traditional group. Dural injury occurred in one patient (1.6%) in the modified group and seven patients (11.7%) in the traditional group. Pseudarthrosis occurred in two patients in the modified group and in 18 patients in the traditional group with 1-year fusion rates of 96.7% and 70.0%, respectively. Recurrence of lower back pain after one year was noted in three patients (4.9%) in the modified group, and in 15 (25.0%) in the traditional group. Leg pain recurrence was noted in one patient (1.6%) in the modified group and in three cases (5.0%) in the traditional group. The one-year healing rates of nerve injury, dural injury, replantation lamina and low back pain recurrence rates after one year were significantly different (P < 0.05) between the two groups. At two weeks, three months, six months and one year postoperatively, both groups had significant improvement in VAS, ODI, and JOA scores from their preoperative values (P < 0.05). No significant difference was detected between the short term postoperative scores between groups A and B (P > 0.05). However, a significant difference was found one year later (P < 0.05).ConclusionsCompared to the traditional approach, the modified technique for lamina replantation showed lower rates of dural and nerve damage, a higher lamina healing rate, a lower back pain recurrence rate, and better clinical scores. It is a safe and effective operation for lumbar spine surgery.

      Pubmed     Free full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.