Tubular microdiscectomy

Techniques, complication avoidance, and review of the literature

Aaron J. Clark, Michael M. Safaee, Nickalus R. Khan, Matthew T. Brown, Kevin Foley

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE Microendoscopic discectomy is a minimally invasive surgery technique that was initially described in 1997. It allows surgeons to work with 2 hands through a small-diameter, operating table-mounted tubular retractor, and to apply standard microsurgical techniques in which a small skin incision and minimal muscle dissection are used. Whether the surgeon chooses to use an endoscope or a microscope for visualization, the technique uses the same type of retractor and is thus called tubular microdiscectomy. The goal in this study was to review the current literature, examine the level of evidence supporting tubular microdiscectomy, and describe surgical techniques for complication avoidance. METHODS The authors performed a systematic PubMed review using the terms "microdiscectomy trial," "tubular and open microdiscectomy," "microendoscopic open discectomy," and "minimally invasive open microdiscectomy OR microdiskectomy." Of 317 references, 10 manuscripts were included for analysis based on study design, relevance, and appropriate comparison of open to tubular discectomy. RESULTS Similar and very favorable clinical outcomes can be expected from tubular and standard microdiscectomy. Studies have demonstrated equivalent operating times for both procedures, with lower blood loss and shorter hospital stays associated with tubular microdiscectomy. Furthermore, postoperative analgesic usage has been shown to be significantly lower after tubular microdiscectomy. Overall rates of complications are no different for tubular and standard microdiscectomy. CONCLUSIONS Prospective randomized trials have been used to evaluate outcomes of common minimally invasive lumbar spine procedures. For lumbar discectomy, Level I evidence supports equivalently good outcomes for tubular microdiscectomy compared with standard microdiscectomy. Likewise, Level I data indicate similar safety profiles and may indicate lower blood loss for tubular microdiscectomy. Future studies should examine the comparative value of these procedures.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article numberE7
JournalNeurosurgical focus
Volume43
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 1 2017

Fingerprint

Diskectomy
Operating Tables
Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures
Manuscripts
Endoscopes
PubMed
Analgesics
Dissection
Length of Stay
Spine
Hand
Safety
Muscles
Skin
Surgeons

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Surgery
  • Clinical Neurology

Cite this

Tubular microdiscectomy : Techniques, complication avoidance, and review of the literature. / Clark, Aaron J.; Safaee, Michael M.; Khan, Nickalus R.; Brown, Matthew T.; Foley, Kevin.

In: Neurosurgical focus, Vol. 43, No. 2, E7, 01.08.2017.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Clark, Aaron J. ; Safaee, Michael M. ; Khan, Nickalus R. ; Brown, Matthew T. ; Foley, Kevin. / Tubular microdiscectomy : Techniques, complication avoidance, and review of the literature. In: Neurosurgical focus. 2017 ; Vol. 43, No. 2.
@article{a568c318edcf457485fc608f25011254,
title = "Tubular microdiscectomy: Techniques, complication avoidance, and review of the literature",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE Microendoscopic discectomy is a minimally invasive surgery technique that was initially described in 1997. It allows surgeons to work with 2 hands through a small-diameter, operating table-mounted tubular retractor, and to apply standard microsurgical techniques in which a small skin incision and minimal muscle dissection are used. Whether the surgeon chooses to use an endoscope or a microscope for visualization, the technique uses the same type of retractor and is thus called tubular microdiscectomy. The goal in this study was to review the current literature, examine the level of evidence supporting tubular microdiscectomy, and describe surgical techniques for complication avoidance. METHODS The authors performed a systematic PubMed review using the terms {"}microdiscectomy trial,{"} {"}tubular and open microdiscectomy,{"} {"}microendoscopic open discectomy,{"} and {"}minimally invasive open microdiscectomy OR microdiskectomy.{"} Of 317 references, 10 manuscripts were included for analysis based on study design, relevance, and appropriate comparison of open to tubular discectomy. RESULTS Similar and very favorable clinical outcomes can be expected from tubular and standard microdiscectomy. Studies have demonstrated equivalent operating times for both procedures, with lower blood loss and shorter hospital stays associated with tubular microdiscectomy. Furthermore, postoperative analgesic usage has been shown to be significantly lower after tubular microdiscectomy. Overall rates of complications are no different for tubular and standard microdiscectomy. CONCLUSIONS Prospective randomized trials have been used to evaluate outcomes of common minimally invasive lumbar spine procedures. For lumbar discectomy, Level I evidence supports equivalently good outcomes for tubular microdiscectomy compared with standard microdiscectomy. Likewise, Level I data indicate similar safety profiles and may indicate lower blood loss for tubular microdiscectomy. Future studies should examine the comparative value of these procedures.",
author = "Clark, {Aaron J.} and Safaee, {Michael M.} and Khan, {Nickalus R.} and Brown, {Matthew T.} and Kevin Foley",
year = "2017",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.3171/2017.5.FOCUS17202",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "43",
journal = "Neurosurgical Focus",
issn = "1092-0684",
publisher = "American Association of Neurological Surgeons",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Tubular microdiscectomy

T2 - Techniques, complication avoidance, and review of the literature

AU - Clark, Aaron J.

AU - Safaee, Michael M.

AU - Khan, Nickalus R.

AU - Brown, Matthew T.

AU - Foley, Kevin

PY - 2017/8/1

Y1 - 2017/8/1

N2 - OBJECTIVE Microendoscopic discectomy is a minimally invasive surgery technique that was initially described in 1997. It allows surgeons to work with 2 hands through a small-diameter, operating table-mounted tubular retractor, and to apply standard microsurgical techniques in which a small skin incision and minimal muscle dissection are used. Whether the surgeon chooses to use an endoscope or a microscope for visualization, the technique uses the same type of retractor and is thus called tubular microdiscectomy. The goal in this study was to review the current literature, examine the level of evidence supporting tubular microdiscectomy, and describe surgical techniques for complication avoidance. METHODS The authors performed a systematic PubMed review using the terms "microdiscectomy trial," "tubular and open microdiscectomy," "microendoscopic open discectomy," and "minimally invasive open microdiscectomy OR microdiskectomy." Of 317 references, 10 manuscripts were included for analysis based on study design, relevance, and appropriate comparison of open to tubular discectomy. RESULTS Similar and very favorable clinical outcomes can be expected from tubular and standard microdiscectomy. Studies have demonstrated equivalent operating times for both procedures, with lower blood loss and shorter hospital stays associated with tubular microdiscectomy. Furthermore, postoperative analgesic usage has been shown to be significantly lower after tubular microdiscectomy. Overall rates of complications are no different for tubular and standard microdiscectomy. CONCLUSIONS Prospective randomized trials have been used to evaluate outcomes of common minimally invasive lumbar spine procedures. For lumbar discectomy, Level I evidence supports equivalently good outcomes for tubular microdiscectomy compared with standard microdiscectomy. Likewise, Level I data indicate similar safety profiles and may indicate lower blood loss for tubular microdiscectomy. Future studies should examine the comparative value of these procedures.

AB - OBJECTIVE Microendoscopic discectomy is a minimally invasive surgery technique that was initially described in 1997. It allows surgeons to work with 2 hands through a small-diameter, operating table-mounted tubular retractor, and to apply standard microsurgical techniques in which a small skin incision and minimal muscle dissection are used. Whether the surgeon chooses to use an endoscope or a microscope for visualization, the technique uses the same type of retractor and is thus called tubular microdiscectomy. The goal in this study was to review the current literature, examine the level of evidence supporting tubular microdiscectomy, and describe surgical techniques for complication avoidance. METHODS The authors performed a systematic PubMed review using the terms "microdiscectomy trial," "tubular and open microdiscectomy," "microendoscopic open discectomy," and "minimally invasive open microdiscectomy OR microdiskectomy." Of 317 references, 10 manuscripts were included for analysis based on study design, relevance, and appropriate comparison of open to tubular discectomy. RESULTS Similar and very favorable clinical outcomes can be expected from tubular and standard microdiscectomy. Studies have demonstrated equivalent operating times for both procedures, with lower blood loss and shorter hospital stays associated with tubular microdiscectomy. Furthermore, postoperative analgesic usage has been shown to be significantly lower after tubular microdiscectomy. Overall rates of complications are no different for tubular and standard microdiscectomy. CONCLUSIONS Prospective randomized trials have been used to evaluate outcomes of common minimally invasive lumbar spine procedures. For lumbar discectomy, Level I evidence supports equivalently good outcomes for tubular microdiscectomy compared with standard microdiscectomy. Likewise, Level I data indicate similar safety profiles and may indicate lower blood loss for tubular microdiscectomy. Future studies should examine the comparative value of these procedures.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85026819828&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85026819828&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3171/2017.5.FOCUS17202

DO - 10.3171/2017.5.FOCUS17202

M3 - Article

VL - 43

JO - Neurosurgical Focus

JF - Neurosurgical Focus

SN - 1092-0684

IS - 2

M1 - E7

ER -