Comparison of microdiscectomy and microdiscectomy with cage interbody fusion in lumbar–sacral disc herniation

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.25305/unj.341960

Keywords:

lumbar–sacral disc herniation, microdiscectomy, microdiscectomy with cage interbody fusion

Abstract

Objective: To optimize the selection of surgical treatment strategy for patients with lumbar and lumbosacral disc herniation by performing a comparative analysis of the outcomes of microdiscectomy and microdiscectomy with interbody cage fusion in order to improve treatment results.

Materials and methods: The study included 200 patients with lumbar and lumbosacral disc herniation treated at the Romodanov Neurosurgery Institute of the National Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine between 2015 and 2022. Neurological status was assessed based on the severity of pain syndrome, the presence of segmental instability was determined. Magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, and radiographic findings were evaluated. The following surgical techniques were used: microdiscectomy for lumbar and lumbosacral      disc herniation.

Results: Microdiscectomy with interbody cage fusion eliminated manifestations of instability and provided more effective stabilization of the lumbosacral spine compared with microdiscectomy alone. The recurrence rate of disc herniation after microdiscectomy with cage fusion lower (3%) compared with microdiscectomy alone (9%). In the group treated with microdiscectomy and cage fusion, a more pronounced reduction in pain intensity (–82%) and a greater decrease in the Oswestry Disability Index (–81%) were observed, indicating higher effectiveness of the stabilization technique. According to the Macnab and Prolo scales, excellent and good outcomes were recorded more frequently in the microdiscectomy with cage fusion group than in the microdiscectomy group (91% vs 78% and 91% vs. 77%, respectively). The Wilcoxon test confirmed a high level of within-group improvement (p<0.001), while the t-test demonstrated statistically significant differences between the groups.

Conclusions: The lumbosacral segment with an implanted cage is more stable and withstands greater mechanical loads during motion, reduces the recurrence rate of disc herniation, and decreases pain severity. Microdiscectomy with interbody cage fusion may be considered in carefully selected patients with signs of segmental instability as an approach that combines decompression and stabilization and is associated with better long-term clinical outcomes.

References

1. Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, Tosteson AN, Hanscom B, Skinner JS, Abdu WA, Hilibrand AS, Boden SD, Deyo RA. Surgical vs nonoperative treatment for lumbar disk herniation: the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT): a randomized trial. JAMA. 2006 Nov 22;296(20):2441-50. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]

2. Deyo RA, Mirza SK. CLINICAL PRACTICE. Herniated Lumbar Intervertebral Disk. N Engl J Med. 2016 May 5;374(18):1763-72. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

3. Peul WC, van Houwelingen HC, van den Hout WB, Brand R, Eekhof JA, Tans JT, Thomeer RT, Koes BW; Leiden-The Hague Spine Intervention Prognostic Study Group. Surgery versus prolonged conservative treatment for sciatica. N Engl J Med. 2007 May 31;356(22):2245-56. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

4. Hoang R, Song J, Tiao J, Ngan A, Hoang T, J Corvi J, K Namiri N, Chaudhary S, K Cho S, C Hecht A, Essig D, Virk S, D Katz A. Patient Factors Associated with Recurrent Herniation and Revision Surgery following Lumbar Microdiscectomy. Spine Surg Relat Res. 2024 Oct 5;9(2):244-250. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]

5. Caspar W, Campbell B, Barbier DD, Kretschmmer R, Gotfried Y. The Caspar microsurgical discectomy and comparison with a conventional standard lumbar disc procedure. Neurosurgery. 1991 Jan;28(1):78-86; discussion 86-7. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

6. Ebeling U, Kalbarcyk H, Reulen HJ. Microsurgical reoperation following lumbar disc surgery. Timing, surgical findings, and outcome in 92 patients. J Neurosurg. 1989 Mar;70(3):397-404. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

7. McGirt MJ, Ambrossi GL, Datoo G, Sciubba DM, Witham TF, Wolinsky JP, Gokaslan ZL, Bydon A. Recurrent disc herniation and long-term back pain after primary lumbar discectomy: review of outcomes reported for limited versus aggressive disc removal. Neurosurgery. 2009 Feb;64(2):338-44; discussion 344-5. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

8. Ahn Y, Lee U, Kim WK, Keum HJ. Five-year outcomes and predictive factors of transforaminal full-endoscopic lumbar discectomy. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018 Nov;97(48):e13454. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]

9. Prolo DJ, Oklund SA, Butcher M. Toward uniformity in evaluating results of lumbar spine operations. A paradigm applied to posterior lumbar interbody fusions. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1986 Jul-Aug;11(6):601-6. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

10. Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB. The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000 Nov 15;25(22):2940-52; discussion 2952. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

11. Lei F, Yanfang L, Shangxing W, Weihao Y, Wei L, Jing T. Spinal Fusion Versus Repeat Discectomy for Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. World Neurosurg. 2023 May;173:126-135.e5. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

12. Mobbs RJ, Phan K, Malham G, Seex K, Rao PJ. Lumbar interbody fusion: techniques, indications and comparison of interbody fusion options including PLIF, TLIF, MI-TLIF, OLIF/ATP, LLIF and ALIF. J Spine Surg. 2015 Dec;1(1):2-18. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]

Published

2026-03-29

How to Cite

Slynko, I. I., & Chamata, R. V. (2026). Comparison of microdiscectomy and microdiscectomy with cage interbody fusion in lumbar–sacral disc herniation. Ukrainian Neurosurgical Journal, 32(1), 106–112. https://doi.org/10.25305/unj.341960

Issue

Section

Original articles