Randomized clinical trial comparing lumbar percutaneous hydrodiscectomy with lumbar open microdiscectomy for the treatment of lumbar disc protrusions and herniations

Authors

  • Alexandre Fogaça Cristante Universidade de São Paulo; Instituto de Ortopedia e Traumatologia do Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da; Departamento Ortopedia e Traumatologia; Divisão de Cirurgia de Coluna Vertebral
  • Ivan Diasda Rocha Universidade de São Paulo; Instituto de Ortopedia e Traumatologia do Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da; Departamento Ortopedia e Traumatologia; Divisão de Cirurgia de Coluna Vertebral
  • Raphael MartusMarcon Universidade de São Paulo; Instituto de Ortopedia e Traumatologia do Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da; Departamento Ortopedia e Traumatologia; Divisão de Cirurgia de Coluna Vertebral
  • Tarcísio Eloy Pessoade Barros Filho Universidade de São Paulo; Instituto de Ortopedia e Traumatologia do Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da; Departamento Ortopedia e Traumatologia; Divisão de Cirurgia de Coluna Vertebral

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.6061/clinics/2016(05)06

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Hydrodiscectomy is a new technique used for percutaneous spinal discectomy that employs a high-intensity stream of water for herniated disc ablation and tissue aspiration. No previous clinical study has examined the effects of percutaneous hydrodiscectomy. The aim of this study is to evaluate the outcomes of hydrodiscectomy compared to open microdiscectomy regarding pain, function, satisfaction, complications and recurrence rates. METHODS: In this randomized clinical trial, patients referred to our tertiary hospital for lumbar back pain were recruited and included in the study if they had disc protrusion or small herniation in only one level, without neurological deficits and with no resolution after six weeks of conservative treatment. One group underwent open microdiscectomy, and the other group underwent percutaneous microdiscectomy via hydrosurgery. Function was evaluated using the Oswestry Disability Index and pain was assessed using a visual analog scale. Evaluations were performed preoperatively, and then during the first week and at one, three, six and twelve months postoperatively. Personal satisfaction was verified. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01367860. RESULTS: During the study period, 20 patients were included in each arm and 39 completed one-year of follow-up (one patient died of unrelated causes). Both groups exhibited equal improvement on the visual analog scale and Oswestry evaluations after treatment, without any significant differences. The improvement in the lumbar visual analog scale score was not significant in the hydrodiscectomy group (p=0.138). The rates of infection, pain, recurrence and satisfaction were similar between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Percutaneous hydrodiscectomy was demonstrated to be as effective as open microdiscectomy for reducing pain. The rates of complications and recurrence of herniation were similar between groups. Patient satisfaction with the treatment was also similar between groups.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2016-05-01

Issue

Section

Clinical Sciences

How to Cite

Randomized clinical trial comparing lumbar percutaneous hydrodiscectomy with lumbar open microdiscectomy for the treatment of lumbar disc protrusions and herniations . (2016). Clinics, 71(5), 276-280. https://doi.org/10.6061/clinics/2016(05)06