Back to Journals » Journal of Pain Research » Volume 13

Clinical Implications of Vertebral Endplate Disruptions After Lumbar Discectomy: 3-Year Results from a Randomized Trial of a Bone-Anchored Annular Closure Device

Authors Kuršumović A, Bouma G, Miller LE, Assaker R, Van de Kelft E, Hes R, Kienzler JC

Received 8 August 2019

Accepted for publication 7 March 2020

Published 31 March 2020 Volume 2020:13 Pages 669—675

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/JPR.S226480

Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single anonymous peer review

Peer reviewer comments 2

Editor who approved publication: Dr E Alfonso Romero-Sandoval


Adisa Kuršumović,1 Gerrit Joan Bouma,2 Larry E Miller,3 Richard Assaker,4 Erik Van de Kelft,5 Robert Hes,6 Jenny C Kienzler7

1Department of Neurosurgery, Donauisar Klinikum Deggendorf, Deggendorf, Germany; 2Department of Neurosurgery, OLVG-West and Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; 3Miller Scientific, Johnson City, TN, USA; 4Department of Neurosurgery, Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire de Lille, Lille, France; 5Department of Neurosurgery, AZ Nikolaas, Sint-Niklaas and University of Antwerp, Antwerpen, Belgium; 6Department of Neurosurgery, AZ Klina, Brasschaat, Belgium; 7Department of Neurosurgery, Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland

Correspondence: Adisa Kuršumović
Department of Neurosurgery, Donauisar Klinikum Deggendorf, Deggendorf, Germany
Email kursumovic@hotmail.com

Objective: Vertebral endplate disruptions (VEPD) are common findings on imaging after lumbar surgery. The objective of this study was to explore the clinical implications of VEPD development following lumbar discectomy with or without implant with a bone-anchored annular closure device (ACD).
Methods: This was a multicenter randomized controlled trial of patients with large postsurgical annular defects after limited lumbar discectomy who were randomized to additionally receive an ACD or no additional treatment. VEPD were identified on computed tomography and confirmed by an imaging core laboratory. Clinical outcomes included recurrent herniation, reoperation, Oswestry Disability Index, leg pain, and back pain. Patient follow-up in this study was 3 years.
Results: In the ACD group (n=272), the risk of reoperation was lower in patients with vs without VEPD (8% vs 24%, p< 0.01), but no other clinical outcomes differed when stratified by VEPD prevalence or size. In the Control group (n=278), the risk of symptomatic reherniation was higher in patients with VEPD (41% vs 23%, p< 0.01) and patients with the largest VEPD had the highest reoperation rates. Patient-reported outcomes were not associated with VEPD prevalence or size in the Control group.
Conclusion: VEPD had no significant influence on patient-reported outcomes at 3 years after lumbar discectomy. VEPD increased the risk of recurrence in patients treated with lumbar discectomy only, but had no negative influence in patients treated with the ACD.

Keywords: annular closure, disc herniation, lumbar discectomy, randomized controlled trial, sciatica, vertebral endplate
 

Creative Commons License This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.

Download Article [PDF]  View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]