Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T00:12:18.428Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bowel Injury following Lumbar Discectomy using Minimally Invasive Retractors

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2014

Aleksa Cenic ,
Niv Sne ,
Michael Lisi ,
Allan Okrainac  and
Kesava Reddy
Aleksa Cenic
Affiliation:
Division of Neurosurgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Niv Sne
Affiliation:
Department of General Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Michael Lisi
Affiliation:
Department of General Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Allan Okrainac
Affiliation:
Department of General Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Kesava Reddy
Affiliation:
Division of Neurosurgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Prevalence of symptomatic lumbar disc herniation is 1-3% in the adult population. When conservative therapy (e.g., physiotherapy, anti-inflammatories, epidural injections, etc.) fails, open microsurgical discectomy is regarded as the treatment of choice.With this procedure, the incidence of injury to visceral bowel is reported to be 3.8 per 10,000 cases. With the recent advent of tubular retractor systems, an increasing number of surgeons are using this minimally invasive procedure to replace traditional open microsurgical discectomy. The advantages include a smaller skin incision and a muscle splitting rather than muscle incising technique. As a result post-operative pain, blood loss and length of hospital stay may decrease significantly. Multiple studies have compared the two surgical techniques with regards to their clinical outcomes. The results of these studies reveal equal if not superior clinical outcomes with the minimally invasive technique. Despite the success of the minimally invasive microdiscectomy, none of the studies reported any intraoperative complications using this novel technique.

Type
Peer Reviewed Letter
Information
Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences , Volume 34 , Issue 4 , November 2007 , pp. 485 - 487
Copyright
Copyright © The Canadian Journal of Neurological 2007

References

1. Andersson, G. Epidemiology of spinal disorders. In: Frymoyer, JW, Ducker, TB, Hadler, NM, Kostuik, JP, Weinstein, JN, Whitecloud, TS, eds. The adult spine: principles and practice. New York, NY: Raven Press, 1997:93–141.Google Scholar
2. Smith, EB, DeBord, JR, Hanigan, WC. Intestinal injury after lumbar discectomy. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1991 Jul;173(1):22–4.Google Scholar
3. Palmer, S. Use of a tubular retractor system in microscopic lumbar discectomy: 1 year prospective results in 135 patients. Neurosurg Focus. 2002 Aug 15;13(2):E5.Google Scholar
4. Perez-Cruet, MJ, Foley, KT, Isaacs, RE, Rice-Wyllie, L, Wellington, R, Smith, MM, et al. Microendoscopic lumbar discectomy: technical note. Neurosurgery. 2002 Nov;51(5 Suppl):S129–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Nakagawa, H, Kamimura, M, Uchiyama, S, Takahara, K, Itsubo, T, Miyasaka, T. Microendoscopic discectomy (MED) for lumbar disc prolapse. J Clin Neurosci. 2003 Mar;10(2):231–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Schizas, C, Tsiridis, E, Saksena, J. Microendoscopic discectomy compared with standard microsurgical discectomy for treatment of uncontained or large contained disc herniations. Neurosurgery. 2005 Oct;57(4 Suppl):357–60.Google Scholar
7. Muramatsu, K, Hachiya, Y, Morita, C. Postoperative magnetic resonance imaging of lumbar disc herniation: comparison of microendoscopic discectomy and Love’s method. Spine. 2001 Jul 15;26(14):1599–605.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Kollbrunner, F. Large intestine stenosis after laminectomy. [Article in German] Gastroenterologia. 1959;92:239–51.Google Scholar
9. Smith, RA, Estridge, MN. Bowel perforation following lumbar-disc surgery. Report of a case with a review of the literature. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1964 Jun;46:826–8.Google Scholar
10. Birkeland, IW Jr, Taylor, TK. Bowel injuries coincident to lumbar disk surgery: a report of four cases and a review of the literature. J Trauma. 1970 Feb;10(2):163–8.Google Scholar
11. Shaw, ED, Scarborough, JT, Beals, RK. Bowel injury as a complication of lumbar discectomy. A case report and review of the literature. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1981 Mar;63(3):478–80.Google Scholar
12. Schwartz, AM, Brodkey, JS. Bowel perforation following microsurgical lumbar discectomy. A case report. Spine. 1989 Jan;14(1):104–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Goodkin, R, Laska, LL. Vascular and visceral injuries associated with lumbar disc surgery: medicolegal implications. Surg Neurol. 1998 Apr;49(4):358–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Hoff-Olsen, P, Wiberg, J. Small bowel perforation as a complication of microsurgical lumbar diskectomy. A case report and brief review of the literature. Am J Forensic Med Pathol. 2001 Sep;22(3):319–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Houten, JK, Frempong-Boadu, AK, Arkovitz, MS. Bowel injury as a complication of microdiscectomy: case report and literature review. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2004 Jun;17(3):248–50.Google Scholar
16. Harbison, SP. Major vascular complications of intervertebral disc surgery. Ann Surg. 1954 Sep;140(3):342–8.Google Scholar
17. Dixon, JM, Lumsden, AB, Piris, J. Small bowel perforation. J R Coll Surg Edinb. 1985 Feb;30(1):43–6.Google Scholar