4.1 Review

Revision Surgery for Real Recurrent Lumbar Disk Herniation A Systematic Review

期刊

CLINICAL SPINE SURGERY
卷 29, 期 3, 页码 111-118

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000365

关键词

real recurrent lumbar disk herniation; revision surgery; incidence; interval; complication; clinical outcome

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Study Design: A systematic review. Objective: To systematically review the previous literature regarding revision surgery for real recurrent lumbar disk herniation. Summary of Background Data: Real recurrent lumbar disk herniation means the presence of herniated disk material at the same level and side as the primary disk herniation. If conservative treatment fails, revision surgery, a major concern, is indicated. It is important for both patients and spine surgeons to understand epidemiology trends and outcomes of revision surgery for real recurrent lumbar disk herniation (real-RLDH). Methods: The electronic databases PubMed, the Cochrane library, and EMBASE were queried for English articles regarding revision surgery for real-RLDH, published between January 1980 and May 2014. The incidence, interval between primary and revision surgery, risk factors, surgery type, complications, and clinical outcomes of revision surgery for real-RLDH were summarized. Results: The reported incidence of revision surgery, specifically for real-RLDH, lies between 1.4% and 11.4%. The complication rate is reported between 0% and 34.6%, with dural tear being the most common complication. Previous studies revealed that satisfactory or successful clinical outcome was achieved in 60%-100% of patients after revision surgery for real-RLDH. Several studies reported similar clinical outcomes between primary and revision surgery. Conclusions: The incidence of revision surgery for real-RLDH is relatively low. It is essential to pay careful attention to prevent a dural tear. Patients may expect clinical outcomes similar to those following primary discectomy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据