Display options
Cite
Evaniew N, Bogle A, Soroceanu A, et al. Minimally Invasive Tubular Lumbar Discectomy Versus Conventional Open Lumbar Discectomy: An Observational Study From the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network. Global Spine J. 2021;21925682211029863doi: 10.1177/21925682211029863.
Evaniew, N., Bogle, A., Soroceanu, A., Jacobs, W. B., Cho, R., Fisher, C. G., Rampersaud, Y. R., Weber, M. H., Finkelstein, J. A., Attabib, N., Kelly, A., Stratton, A., Bailey, C. S., Paquet, J., Johnson, M., Manson, N. A., Hall, H., McIntosh, G., & Thomas, K. C. (2021). Minimally Invasive Tubular Lumbar Discectomy Versus Conventional Open Lumbar Discectomy: An Observational Study From the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network. Global spine journal, 21925682211029863. https://doi.org/10.1177/21925682211029863
Evaniew, Nathan, et al. "Minimally Invasive Tubular Lumbar Discectomy Versus Conventional Open Lumbar Discectomy: An Observational Study From the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network." Global spine journal vol. (2021): 21925682211029863. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/21925682211029863
Evaniew N, Bogle A, Soroceanu A, Jacobs WB, Cho R, Fisher CG, Rampersaud YR, Weber MH, Finkelstein JA, Attabib N, Kelly A, Stratton A, Bailey CS, Paquet J, Johnson M, Manson NA, Hall H, McIntosh G, Thomas KC. Minimally Invasive Tubular Lumbar Discectomy Versus Conventional Open Lumbar Discectomy: An Observational Study From the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network. Global Spine J. 2021 Jul 09;21925682211029863. doi: 10.1177/21925682211029863. Epub 2021 Jul 09. PMID: 34238046.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Global Spine J. 2021 Jul 09;21925682211029863. doi: 10.1177/21925682211029863. Epub 2021 Jul 09.

Minimally Invasive Tubular Lumbar Discectomy Versus Conventional Open Lumbar Discectomy: An Observational Study From the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network.

Global spine journal

Nathan Evaniew, Andrew Bogle, Alex Soroceanu, W Bradley Jacobs, Roger Cho, Charles G Fisher, Y Raja Rampersaud, Michael H Weber, Joel A Finkelstein, Najmedden Attabib, Adrienne Kelly, Alexandra Stratton, Christopher S Bailey, Jerome Paquet, Michael Johnson, Neil A Manson, Hamilton Hall, Greg McIntosh, Kenneth C Thomas

Affiliations

  1. University of Calgary Spine Program, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
  2. Combined Neurosurgery and Orthopaedic Spine Program, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
  3. Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
  4. Division of Orthopaedics, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
  5. Canada East Spine Centre, Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada.
  6. Northern Ontario School of Medicine, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada.
  7. Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
  8. Department of Surgery, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
  9. Department of Orthopaedics, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Quebec, Quebec, Canada.
  10. Department of Surgery, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
  11. Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network, Markdale, Ontario, Canada.

PMID: 34238046 DOI: 10.1177/21925682211029863

Abstract

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the effectiveness of minimally invasive (MIS) tubular discectomy in comparison to conventional open surgery among patients enrolled in the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network (CSORN).

METHODS: We performed an observational analysis of data that was prospectively collected. We implemented Minimum Clinically Important Differences (MCIDs), and we adjusted for potential confounders with multiple logistic regression. Adverse events were collected according to the Spinal Adverse Events Severity (SAVES) protocol.

RESULTS: Three hundred thirty-nine (62%) patients underwent MIS tubular discectomy and 211 (38%) underwent conventional open discectomy. There were no significant differences between groups for improvement of leg pain and disability, but the MIS technique was associated with reduced odds of achieving the MCID for back pain (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.99,

CONCLUSIONS: Open and MIS techniques yielded similar improvements of leg pain and disability at up to 12 months of follow-up, but MIS patients were less likely to experience improvement of associated back pain. Small differences favored MIS for operating time, blood loss, and adverse events but may have limited clinical importance.

Keywords: disc herniation; discectomy; lumbar

Publication Types