Dispositivos interespinosos en discectomías lumbares primarias. ¿Favorecen la recurrencia de la hernia de discos? [Interspinous device in primary lumbar discectomy. Does it favor the recurrence of disc herniation?]

Joint Halley Guimbard Pérez, Mariano Pomba, Gustavo Alejandro González, Nicolás Ortiz

Resumen


Objetivo: Evaluar si la colocación de los dispositivos interespinosos siliconados tipo DIAM favorecen una tasa más alta de recidiva de la hernia discal homolateral clínica y por imágenes comparada con la discectomía pura.

Materiales y Métodos: Se realizó un estudio prospectivo, observacional, aleatorizado desde mayo de 2009 hasta mayo de 2013, en nuestro Centro. Se evaluó a 123 pacientes, 3 se perdieron en el seguimiento; l muestra incluyó 120 sujetos. Todos fueron operados por el mismo equipo quirúrgico. Se formaron dos grupos: grupo A: discectomía más colocación de dispositivo interespinoso siliconado, 30 pacientes (16 mujeres y 14 hombres), con mayor frecuencia L4-L5 (27 pacientes, 90%) y grupo B: discectomías puras, 90 pacientes (53 mujeres y 37 hombres) con más frecuencia L4 y L5 (72 pacientes, 80%).

Resultados: Seis de los pacientes del grupo A (20%) tuvieron una recidiva clínica y por imágenes, y 3 (10%) fueron operados nuevamente; en el grupo B, hubo 4 recidivas discales (4,4%), uno fue operado nuevamente (1,1%). Se hallaron diferencias significativas en las tasas de recidiva y reintervención entre los grupos (p = 0,0073 y p = 0,0188, respectivamente).

Conclusiones: Los beneficios de los dispositivos interespinosos para tratar el canal estrecho lumbar secundario a hernia de disco son controvertidos, pero en nuestro estudio, se halló una diferencia significativa según el grupo. Al mantener el movimiento del segmento y cambiar ligeramente las cargas fisiológicas aumentarían la tasa de recidiva discal; no obstante, son necesarios estudios con mayor evidencia científica para corroborar estas tendencias.

 

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate if discectomy with placement of an interspinous silicon DIAM spacer is associated with a different rate of clinical and radiographic ipsilateral disc herniation recurrence than discectomy alone.

Methods: A prospective, observational,randomized study was performed from May 2009 to May 2013 at XXXXX. Of the 123 patients included in the study, 3 were lost to follow-up, leaving 120 patients for data analysis. All patients were operated on by the same surgical team. Patients received one of two types of treatment. Group A consisted of 30 patients (16 women and 14 ment) who underwent discectomy with placement of an interspinous silicone DIAM spacer. Group B was composed of 90 patients (53 women and 37 men) who received discectomy alone.

Results: Discectomy at L4-L5 was the most common level, occurring in 90% (27) Group A patients and 80% (72) Group B patients. Group A demonstrated clinical and radiographic disc herniation recurrence in 6/30 (20%) of patients. Disc herniation recurrence developed in 4/90 (4.4%) Group B patients. One patient underwent reoperation (1.1%). Both recurrence and reoperation was significantly higher in Group A (p = 0.007 and p = 0.019, respectively).

Conclusions: The benefits of interespinosos devices for the treatment of the lumbar spinal stenosis secondary to herniated disc while they are controversial in the present study showed significant difference according to the Group. In this study, patients that underwent discectomy and interspinous spaceer placement had higher reoperation and recurrence rates than discectomy patients that did not receive an interspinous spacer. Interspinous spacers may increase the rate of disc herniation by maintaining movement at the level of prior disc herniation and changing the physiologic load. More studies are needed to corroborate and evaluate these trends.


Palabras clave


Discectomía lumbar pura; dispositivos interespinosos; recidiva discal. Lumbar discectomy; interspinous spacer; disc herniation recurrence

Texto completo:

PDF PDF (English)

Cantidad de visitas / Visitor counter
Resumen - 158
PDF - 0 PDF (English) - 0

Referencias


Fandiño J, Botana C, Viladrich A, Gomez-Bueno J. Reoperation after lumbar disc surgery: results in 130 cases. Acta Neurochir Wien 1993;122:102-4. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01446994

Jackson RK. The long-term effects of wide laminectomy for lumbar disc excision: A review of 130 patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1971;53:609-16. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.53B4.609

O’Sullivan MG, Connolly AE, Buckley TF. Recurrent lumbar disc protrusion. Br J Neurosurg 1990;4:319-25. https://doi.org/10.3109/02688699008992741

Deyo RA, Martin BI, Kreuter W, Jarvik JG, Angier H, Mirza SK. Revision surgery following operations for lumbar stenosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011;93:1979-86. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.J.01292

Ciol MA, Deyo RA, Howell E, Kreif S. An assessment of surgery for spinal stenosis: time trends, geographic variations, complications, and reoperations. J Am Soc Geriatr 1996;44:285-90. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.1996.tb00915.x

Korovessis P, Repantis T, Zacharatos S, Zafiropoulos A. Does Wallis implant reduce adjacent segment degeneration above lumbosacral instrumented fusion? Eur Spine J 2009;18:830-40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-009-0976-y

Lafage V, Gangnet N, Sénégas J, Lavaste F, Skalli W. New interspinous implant evaluation using an in vitro biomechanical study combined with a finite-element analysis. Spine 2007;32:1706-14. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3180b9f429

Strömqvist B, Berg S, Gerdhem P. X-Stop versus decompressive surgery for lumbar neurogenic intermittent claudication: randomized controlled trial with 2-year follow-up. Spine 2013;38(17):1436-42. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31828ba413

Senegas J. Minimally invasive dynamic stabilization of the lumbar motion segment with an interspinous implant. En: Mayer HM (ed.). Minimally invasive spine surgery. Berlin: Springer; 2006, cap. 49. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-29490-2_49, Online ISBN 978-3-540-29490-0

Kong DS, Kim ES, Eoh W. One-year outcome evaluation after interspinous implantation for degenerative spinal stenosis with segmental instability. J Korean Med Sci 2007; 22:330-5. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2007.22.2.330

Kuchta J, Sobottke R, Eysel P, Simons P. Two-year results of interspinous spacer (X-Stop) implantation in 175 patients with neurologic intermittent claudication due to lumbar spinal stenosis. Eur Spine J 2009;18:823-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-009-0967-z

Trautwein FT, Lowery GL, Wharton ND, Hipp JA, Chomiak RJ. Determination of the in vivo posterior loading environment of the Coflex interlaminar-interspinous implant. Spine J 2010;10(3):244-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2009.10.010

Martínez Quiñones JV, Aso J, Consolini F, Arregui R. Long-term outcomes of lumbar microdiscectomy in a working class simple. Neurocirugía (Astur) 2011;22(3):235-44. http://scielo.isciii.es/pdf/neuro/v22n3/clinica3.pdf




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15417/issn.1852-7434.2019.84.2.755

Enlaces refback

  • No hay ningún enlace refback.




URL de la licencia: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/deed.es

Registro de la Propiedad Intelectual Nº 22171081 (en línea).

ISSN 1852-7434 (en línea).

Esta Revista está bajo una Licencia Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-Compartir Obras Derivadas Igual 4.0 Internacional. (CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0)