Abstract
Purpose
To present the pathophysiology, biology, clinical presentation, diagnosis, and current treatment options for lumbar disc herniation.
Methods
A thorough literature search was undertaken in PubMed and Google Scholar to summarize the current knowledge and future perspectives on lumbar disc herniation.
Results
Several changes in the biology of the intervertebral disc are thought to contribute to disc herniation; nevertheless, the exact inciting event leading to disc herniation is yet to be discovered. Non-operative treatments have stood the test of time as the first-line treatment for most patients with lumbar disc herniation; however, operative treatment remains the current gold standard, with minimally invasive endoscopic microdiscectomy techniques showing best results with respect to postoperative pain and function.
Conclusions
The exact event leading to disc herniation remains unclear. Non-operative treatments should be the first-line treatment for most patients with lumbar disc herniation. Operative treatment remains the current gold standard, with minimally invasive endoscopic microdiscectomy techniques showing best results with respect to postoperative pain and function. Regenerative medicine is promising.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Low back pain is extremely common, being experienced by approximately 70% of people at some point in their life [1]. Sciatica (low back-related leg pain) is one of the commonest variations of low back pain; approximately 5% of males and 2.5% of females will experience sciatica at some time in their lifetime [2]. Nonetheless, low back pain and sciatica represent symptoms rather than specific diagnoses, and within the vast differential, the most common source is intervertebral degeneration leading to degenerative disc disease and lumbar disc herniation [2, 3].
Lumbar disc herniation with the presence of sciatica represents a historically well-known disease. The process of understanding it has been rather long, passing from the beliefs of early societies that supernatural demonic forces would vex individuals with crippling pain, to the more naturalistic and critical view of the ancient Greeks (Hippocrates) and Egyptians who suspected a relationship between lumbar spinal pathology and leg symptoms, up to the early twentieth century, where the concept of disc herniation was introduced by Georg Schmorl [4]. Currently, according to the recommendations of the combined task forces of the North American Spine Society, the American Society of Spine Radiology and the American Society of Neuroradiology, “herniated disc” is the best general term to denote displacement of disc material and localized displacement of nucleus, cartilage, fragmented apophyseal bone, or fragmented annular tissue beyond the intervertebral disc space [5].
Pathophysiology
The nucleus pulposus (NP; the inner element of disc) is a site of collagen secretion and contains numerous proteoglycans (PG) that facilitate water retention, creating hydrostatic pressure to resist axial compression of the spine; it is primarily composed of type II collagen that accounts for 20% of its overall dry weight. In contrast, low amount of PG are found in the annulus fibrosus (AF: the outer element of disc) that is composed of primarily concentric type I collagen fibres, accounting for 70% of its dry weight [6,7,8,9]. When compressive forces are applied across the disc space, the pressure within NP is increased, leading to a more flatten-shaped nucleus that pushes against the circumferential positioned annular fibers and places them under tension. In this setting, the AF disperses stresses and maintains the NP within the center of the disc [10]. If the AF is disorganized, the soft nucleus can be pushed through and becomes herniated [11]. To be considered herniated, disc material must be displaced from its normal location and not simply represent an acquired growth beyond the edges of the apophyses, as is the case when connective tissues develop in gaps between osteophytes or when annular tissue is displaced behind one vertebra as an adaptation to subluxation. Herniation, therefore, can only occur in association with disruption of the normal AF or, as in the case of intravertebral herniation (Schmorl node), a defect in the vertebral body end plate [5]. Afterwards, the disc may be “protruded,” “extruded,” “sequestrated,” or even “migrated”.
Disc protrusion is present if the greatest dimension between the edges of the disc material presenting beyond the disc space is less than the distance between the edges of the base of that disc material that extends outside the disc space. The base is defined as the width of the disc material at the outer margin of the disc space of origin, where disc material displaced beyond the disc space is continuous with the disc material within the disc space. Disc extrusion is present when, in at least one plane, any one distance between the edges of the disc material beyond the disc space is greater than the distance between the edges of the base of the disc material beyond the disc space. Disc sequestration is a subtype of extrusion where no continuity exists between the disc material beyond the disc space and that within the disc space. Disc migration is extruded disc material that is displaced away from the site of extrusion, regardless of continuity with the disc [5]. For disc herniation to occur, the nucleus must be fluid enough or “dynamic”. Therefore, older individuals with dehydrated discs are less prone to herniation, whereas younger patients that have a well-hydrated nucleus are more likely to herniate [11].
Biology
Several changes in the biology of the intervertebral disc are thought to contribute to disc herniation, nevertheless the exact inciting event leading to disc herniation is yet to be discovered [11]. Some authors believe that an acute traumatic episode leads to displacement of the disc, although this is most likely related to force imparted onto a previously degenerated disc that has developed a focal AF weakness [11]. However, the traumatic cause of disc herniation has been questioned scientifically, particularly with the increased availability of genetic information [12]. Degenerative changes that weaken the AF facilitate herniation of NP material; these changes can result from reduced water retention in the NP [8, 13, 14], increased percent of type I collagen in the NP and inner AF [15], degradation of collagen and extracellular matrix (ECM) materials [16], and upregulation of systems of degradation such as apoptosis, matrix metalloproteinase (MMP) expression, and inflammatory pathways [6, 17]. A recent pilot study showed that there is a linear direct correlation between the expression of aquaporin-1 (AQP1; transmembrane protein responsible largely for water molecule transport across the membrane) and the T2 signal intensity in patients’ MRIs, thus implying that a decreased AQP1 expression leads to decreased water content in the intervertebral discs [18].
A field of ongoing research is the single-nucleotide polymorphisms that are associated with intervertebral disc degeneration. It is hypothesized that up to 74% of disc degeneration is due to genetic factors [17], and a plethora of genes encoding structural proteins (collagen I, IX, and XI), structural support proteins (vitamin D receptors), cytokines (interleukin-1a and interleukin-6), matrix metalloproteinases (MMP-1, MMP-2, MMP-3, MMP-9, MMP-14), apoptotic factors (tumour necrosis factor [TNF]-related apoptosis-inducing ligand and caspase-9), growth factors (growth differentiation factor 5), and pain mediators (cyclooxygenase 2) have been found to contribute in the aetiology of disc degeneration and herniation [17].
Nonetheless, disc herniation does not arise only in aged or degenerated discs; the cases of disc herniation that cannot be attributed to degeneration can be attributed to spinal overloading [6]. Specifically, it has been implied that in some patients a more focal degenerative process in the AF along with a relatively healthy state of the NP, can lead to fissuring of the AF and extrusion of the pressurized NP tissue [19, 20]. Recent scientific evidence from caprine lumbar spines showed that prolonged static axial overloading primes the lumbar intervertebral disc for posterolateral herniation that may be the basis of low back pain and herniation in people leading a sedentary and sitting life style [20].
The idea of low-grade bacterial infection leading to disc degeneration and herniation may sound new, however, it has been introduced almost two decades ago [21]. Although previous investigators have attributed the presence of microorganisms in intraoperative disc specimens to contamination rather than true infection [22,23,24], the presence of bacteria in discs has been confirmed; reports showed the presence of bacteria ranging from 13.5 to 45% of disc material obtained from surgery [21, 25,26,27,28,29]. Coscia et al. [28] reported a significant association of disc herniation with bacterial outgrowth; in 169 intra-operative disc specimens they found that 20% of discs were positive for P. acnes (45% of cultured discs), and 18% of discs were positive for coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (40% of cultured discs). Similarly, a recent systematic review showed that the median percentage of culture positive spinal disc material samples was 22%, with a pooled estimate of the proportion with positive culture being 34%; P. acnes was also the most prevalent microorganism (45% of cultured discs) followed by coagulase-negative staphylococci (14% of positive cultures) [30]. The study however, identified moderate evidence for a relationship between bacterial presence and low back pain or disc herniation, and modest evidence for causation, while no differentiation was found between contamination and infection [30]. Therefore, the question contamination or infection of discs has to be answered, in addition to the clarification of the exact mechanism by which P. acnes induces disc degeneration, herniation, or Modic changes.
Disc inflammation leads to disc degeneration or herniation by local chronic inflammation and production of inflammatory factors. Recently, Yuan et al. [31], quantified a series of cytokines and neutrophils in P. acnes-positive and bacteria-free disc specimens. They showed that latent infection of P. acnes was associated with chronic inflammation in degenerated intervertebral discs, as increased levels of cytokines and accumulation of neutrophils were evident in P. acnes-positive discs, especially in the samples that showed visible bacteria in histology [31]. Moreover, the significantly increased levels of cytokines were more indicative of the original growth of P. acnes in degenerated intervertebral discs rather than contamination [31]. Rajasekaran et al. [32] used proteomics (LC–MS/MS) to identify even at femtomole levels proteins that reflect bacterial presence as well as dynamic host defense responses, and 16S rDNA analyses (PCR) to authenticate presence of bacteria in the discs. PCR confirmed the presence of P. acnes in 18 of 22 disc samples, while LC–MS/MS identified molecules (host defense response proteins) that are expressed only during host–pathogen reaction. The authors concluded a highly compelling evidence for the tissue having infection [32], and proposed a hypothesis, unifying the mechanical and infective hypothesis, where endplate breaks and low grade infection both can lead one to each other, accelerating inflammation, and leading eventually to disc degeneration and herniation [32].
Clinical presentation and diagnosis
The primary signs and symptoms of lumbar disc herniation include radicular pain, sensory abnormalities, and weakness in the distribution of one or more lumbosacral nerve roots [6, 30, 33]. Patients report increased pain when sitting, which is known to increase disc pressure in nearly 40% of cases [32]. The affected dermatome varies based on the level of herniation as well as the herniation type: in paracentral herniations, the transversing nerve root is affected, while in far lateral herniations, the exiting nerve root is affected. Pain that is relieved with sitting and forward flexion is more consistent with lumbar spinal stenosis, as the latter motion increases disc pressure by 100–400% [6]. Physical examination should include a complete neurologic assessment, and sciatic or femoral nerve root tension tests including the Lasègue (classic, rebound, crossed and differential), Braggard, flip, Deyerle, Mendel-Bechterew, Fajersztajn, and Milgram tests. In a questionnaire survey among spine surgeons [34], the classic Lasègue test (straight leg raising test) and neurological evaluation for muscle weakness were most frequently performed by 92.9% and 94.0% of the responders, respectively. The crossed leg raising test, on the other hand, was the least performed technique with 36.1% stating that they either “sometimes” or “never” assessed it [34].
The Lumbar Disc Herniation with Radiculopathy Work Group of the North American Spine Society’s (NASS) Evidence-Based Guideline Development Committee [35] recommended manual muscle testing, sensory testing, and classic and crossed Lasègue test as the gold standard for clinical diagnosis of lumbar disc herniation (grade of recommendation: A). The Committee found insufficient evidence to make a recommendation for or against the use of the cough impulse test, Bell test, hyperextension test, femoral nerve stretch test, slump test, lumbar range of motion, or absence of reflexes in diagnosing lumbar disc herniation with radiculopathy (grade of recommendation: I). A recent meta-analysis concluded that initial screening by the classic Lasègue test in conjunction with three of the following four symptoms in a nerve root distribution is sufficient for clinical diagnosis of lumbar disc herniation with radiculopathy: dermatomal pain, sensory deficits, reflex deficits, and/or motor weakness [36].
Radiographs are the first imaging modality for the work-up of the patients with low back pain, and should be obtained only after several weeks (6–12 weeks) in the absence of neurological compromise [6]. In addition to standard anteroposterior (AP) and lateral views, flexion and extension views has been recommended to be obtained in order to evaluate the role of spinal instability in the patient’s symptoms [6]. Compensatory scoliosis, narrowed intervertebral space and presence of traction osteophytes are findings suggestive of lumbar disc herniation.
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the most commonly ordered test to evaluate patients with sciatica, with a diagnostic accuracy of 97% and high inter-observer reliability [6, 35]. Often, MRI is performed prior to radiographs; however, in a meta-analysis of 20 studies evaluating the MRI of asymptomatic people, the reported disc abnormalities at any level were reduction in signal intensity (20–83%), disc bulges (10–81%), disc protrusion (3–63%), disc extrusion (0–24%), disc narrowing (3–56%), and AF tears (6–56%) [37, 38]. Therefore, MRI should not be ordered at initial presentation of patients with a suspected acute disc herniation without symptoms and signs of neurological compromise; these patients frequently improve after a six week course of physical therapy and medication, and MRI is likely an unnecessary financial and utilization burden in the initial presentation [37, 38]. Additionally, over time both symptomatic and asymptomatic disc herniations will decrease in size in MRI, while the finding of disc disease in MRI does not correlate with the likelihood of chronic pain or the future need for surgery [37, 38]. A herniated disc on imaging studies must be correlated with objective clinical findings, otherwise it may be presumed to be an asymptomatic herniation. In contrast, in patients with a history and clinical findings consistent with lumbar disc herniation with radiculopathy, MRI is recommended as an appropriate noninvasive test to confirm the presence of lumbar disc herniation (grade of recommendation: A) [35]. Recently, the use of open MRI-G-scan that allows the acquisition of lumbosacral spine images not only in the supine but also in the upright position has been shown useful for the detection of hidden protrusions and/or herniated discs already present in the supine position [39]. Diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) MRI has been widely used to image the central nervous, but it has been also proven useful for the evaluation and visualization of peripheral nerves, such as detecting microstructural changes in the nerve roots in patients with disc herniation [6, 40,41,42]. In particular, significant changes in the quantitative diffusion values of the DTI MRI were indicative of damaged nerve microstructure in patients with lumbar discs herniation and radiculopathy [42].
Advances in axial imaging and computed tomography (CT) including multidetector CT (MDCT) have brought the diagnostic level of CT to be nearly equal to that of MRI [43]. Specifically, in patients with a history and clinical findings consistent with lumbar disc herniation with radiculopathy, CT scan, myelography, and/or CT myelography are recommended as appropriate tests to confirm the presence of lumbar disc herniation as an alternative to MRI (Grade of recommendation: A) [35]. For instance, in cases where MRI is not available or possible such as in patients with pacemakers, claustrophobia and/or intractable back pain, a CT myelography could be performed. The drawbacks include an invasive technique that requires the assistance of a trained radiologist, and risk for complications including post-spinal headache, radiation exposure, and meningitis [6].
Recent data on nerve conduction studies have shown that there is only fair to insufficient evidence to support their use in lumbar disc herniation. Only cross-sectional imaging is considered the diagnostic test of choice in disc herniation with radiculopathy, while the use of NCS should be limited to confirm the presence of comorbid conditions [35]. More specifically, somatosensory-evoked potentials are suggested only as an adjunct to cross-sectional imaging to confirm the presence of nerve root compression, but are not specific to the level of nerve root compression or the diagnosis of lumbar disc herniation with radiculopathy [35]. Similarly, fair evidence exists regarding electromyography (EMG), NCS and F waves that are suggested to have limited efficacy in the diagnosis of lumbar disc herniation with radiculopathy, and although H reflexes can be helpful in the diagnosis of an S1 radiculopathy, they are not specific to the diagnosis of lumbar disc herniation [35]. Motor-evoked potentials, extensor digitorum brevis reflex, thermal quantitative sensory testing, and liquid crystal thermography studies have shown insufficient evidence for a recommendation for or against their use in the diagnosis of lumbar disc herniation with radiculopathy [35].
Non-operative treatment
Non-operative treatment is the first-line treatment for most patients with lumbar disc herniation [6, 44]. It aims primarily at pain reduction using drugs, physical therapy/exercises, spinal manipulation, traction (manual or mechanical), epidural steroid injections, as well as other not particularly widespread modalities such as bracing, electrical stimulation, transcutaneous electrical stimulation, acupuncture, herbal supplementation, and bee-venom pharmacopuncture [6, 35].
Drugs
NSAIDs have the principal role in pain management of disc herniation, although, in the acute setting, short-term narcotic use such as a single dose of a morphine-derivative analgesic can be useful. In the acute setting, a tapering dosage regimen of oral steroids can be helpful in decreasing inflammation-generated pain from nerve root irritation [11]. Muscle relaxants are also frequently prescribed, and in spite of what implied by the drug class name, these medications have more significant sedative effect rather than direct muscular effect [11]. Truly antispasmodic medications such as baclofen or cyclobenzaprine can have a more direct effect on muscle spasms [11]. Various other regimens have been proposed, such as single infusion of IV glucocorticosteroids, 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor inhibitors, gabapentin, agmatine, and sulfate amitriptyline [45,46,47,48]; however, the 2014 NASS guidelines [35] does not make a recommendation for or against the use of any of the above, due to lack of sufficient evidence. Similarly, tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) inhibitors (adalimumab, infliximab) are not suggested to provide benefit in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation (fair evidence, level II studies) [35, 49]. Of these biological agents, the transforaminal injection of etanercept (TNF-α inhibitor) achieved significant three to six month improvement in both worst leg pain and worst back pain scores in a placebo controlled randomized trial; however, there was no dose-dependent response associated with this injection nor a comparison population to corticosteroid injections [50].
Physical therapy/exercises
Traditionally, physical therapy has been thought to improve symptoms related to lumbar disc herniation, with a high effectiveness on sciatica [34]. However, recent data are quite opposite [51,52,53]. In a 2010 prospective randomized controlled trial by Thackeray et al. [52], the therapeutic outcomes of physical therapy after selective nerve root blocks and of selective nerve root blocks alone in people with low back pain and sciatica due to disc herniation are studied. The authors concluded that physical therapy interventions were no more beneficial than nerve root blocks alone [52]. Six years later, Thackeray et al. [53], using data from the Spine Patient Outcome Research Trial (SPORT), evaluated the profile of patients who received physical therapy and those who did not, among patients receiving non-operative treatment within six weeks of enrollment. They showed no difference in the outcomes between the two groups within the first six weeks, while compared with other non-operative treatments standard care physical therapy was not associated with a significant difference in pain, disability, or need for surgery within one year [53]. A recent systematic review that included all treatment strategies for sciatica did not support the effectiveness of physical therapy [51]. The NASS work group suggested that there is no reliable evidence to make a recommendation for or against the use of physical therapy/structured exercise programs as stand-alone treatments; however, it was the work group’s opinion that a limited course of structured exercise is an option for patients with mild-to-moderate symptoms from lumbar disc herniation with radiculopathy [35].
Epidural steroid injections
A meta-analysis that included all treatment strategies for sciatica concluded that epidural injections were superior to intradiscal injections, percutaneous discectomy, traction, physical therapy/exercises, radio frequency treatment, and chemonucleolysis in terms of overall response or overall recovery [51]. With pain as the outcome, epidural injections showed significantly superior results when compared to placebo; when considering overall recovery as the outcome of interventions, there was a statistically significant improvement following epidural injections compared with placebo or standard treatment [51]. According to recent guidelines, there is good evidence (level I) in favor of contrast-enhanced fluoroscopy-guided transformaninal epidural steroid injections for short-term (2–4 weeks) pain relief in a proportion of patients with lumbar disc herniation with radiculopathy [35, 54]. Interlaminar epidural steroid injections may also be considered for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation, although with a poor quality evidence to support their use [35, 55]. Additionally, the existing evidence is unreliable to recommend for or against the effectiveness of one injection approach (interlaminar, transforaminal, or caudal) over another in the delivery of epidural steroids [35, 56]. Moreover, there is no evidence with respect to the optimal frequency or quantity of injections, neither sufficient data for their 1-year efficacy [35]. If to be used, current evidence indicates that performing injections in the lateral decubitus position provides patients with better relief at follow-up compared to prone positioning [57].
Alternative medicine
There is a wide spectrum of choices ranging from spinal manipulation and traction to acupuncture and complementary medicine (bee-venom pharmacopuncture and herbal supplementation) for patients who are not interested for conventional treatments [58, 59]. A Korean study suggested that acupuncture, herbal medicine with a variety of herbs, bee-venom pharmacopuncture and Chuna therapy (Korean spinal manipulation) represent safe alternatives to conventional treatment for lumbar disc herniation; according to their findings, patients showed five year improvement in pain, functional disability, quality of life, and neurological impairment [59]. However, it is quite certain that there is great bias in this series, due to lack of a control group, and the inherent high spontaneous resorption rate (above 60%) of disc hernias that may be responsible for the study’s good results [6]. Traction therapy presented satisfying short-term outcome according to Isner-Horobeti et al. [58], with decreased opiate consumption and reduced disability scores noted for the patients. However, the rather small sample size (17 patients) and the extremely brief follow-up period (2 weeks) do not allow for recommendations. Spinal manipulation has been proved an option for pain relief in patients with lumbar disc herniation with radiculopathy, however, also with poor evidence [35, 60].
Regenerative medicine
The ideal treatment for intervertebral disc degeneration should aim to resolve nociceptive disc pain, slow, or reverse catabolic metabolism within the disc, and to restore partially or completely disc tissue [61]. These issues have been attempted to be dealt with by promising novel therapies including gene therapy, tissue engineering, cell-based therapy and growth factor delivery [61]. As up to 74% of disc degeneration is hypothesized to result from genetic causes, anabolic factors such as TGF-b, BMP-2, BMP-7, or IGF-1, and gene regulators such as SOX-9 and LMP-1 have showed to modulate the metabolic activity of disc cells, increasing proteoglycans disc content [62]. Therefore, if gene expression of disc cells was to be modified in a way that anabolic factors and gene regulators would be produced, gene therapy could play a role in the management of disc degeneration and herniation [61]. Tissue engineering approaches such as suitable scaffolds for stem cells or growth factors have been tested in vitro and in vivo with promising results [63, 64]. Preclinical studies of gene therapy approaches showed several side effects, making necessary the development of safer systems of transfection and transduction prior to clinical application, while preclinical studies of tissue engineering techniques are cost-effective and still far from possible clinical application [61].
Stem cell therapy or autologous growth factor injection is more attractive due to low harvest site morbidity, favourable modulation of cells, and easier clinical application [61]. In fact, Basso et al. [61], reviewed clinical trials of regenerative medicine approaches for disc degeneration, and found four studies with mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) intradiscal injection (47 patients) [65,66,67,68] and three studies with platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection (57 patients) [61, 69, 70]. No adverse effect or complications following intradiscal injection of MSCs and PRP occurred, while an improvement in clinical scores was demonstrated in all studies [61, 65,66,67,68,69,70]. However, with the exception of Tuakli-Wosornu et al. [70], who performed a prospective double-blind randomized controlled study [autologous PRP group vs contrast agent group (control)], randomized clinical trials analyzing MSCs and PRP are missing. More powered high-quality studies are necessary to confirm the promising preclinical and clinical preliminary results for regenerative medicine approaches to assist in the non-operative management of intervertebral disc disease.
Interventional spinal procedures
Intradiscal ozone therapy for lumbar disc herniation is a cost-effective and rather safe procedure, with a complication rate estimated around 0.1% [71,72,73]. Good results have been reported both in the short- and long-term (5–10 years) with a success rate ranging from 70 to 90%, and a significant herniation volume reduction in up to 96% of cases [74,75,76]. It can be combined with peri-ganglionic and epidural steroid/anaesthetic injection, producing a cumulative effect enhancing the overall outcome of treatment [71, 73]. Plasma disc decompression/nucleoplasty, intradiscal high-pressure saline injection, and percutaneous electrothermal disc decompression [35] have also been reported for selected cases such as contained disc herniations (plasma decompression) or extrusions and sequestrations (saline injection) [77,78,79,80]. However, these studies provide level IV therapeutic evidence, and there is still insufficient data regarding its use in disc herniation with radiculopathy [35].
Operative treatment
Altered bladder function and progressive muscle weakness/progressive neurological deficits are the only absolute indications for lumbar discectomy, which are nevertheless rare and most commonly associated with cauda equina syndrome [11, 81]. The relative indications for surgery vary among surgeons and patients, and discectomy, in its many shapes and forms, can produce symptomatic relief only in appropriately selected patients [11]. The heterogeneity regarding this matter is shown in a recent survey among 817 spine surgeons, where severity of pain and/or disability (55.3%) was considered to be the most import indication for surgery, followed by failure of conservative treatment (50.6%), typical radiculopathy with neurological deficits (43.0%), and duration of complaints (36.2%) [34]. The extent of disc herniation and patients’ preferences were less important indications [34]. Ideal timing for operative treatment is also a matter of great importance, but similarly an agreement cannot be easily reached; 46.1% of surgeons regard a period of four to eight weeks of conservative treatment as the minimum period before deciding to perform surgery, 23% of surgeons regard a period of eight to 12 weeks, 11.3% a period greater than 12 weeks, and 19.5% of surgeons perform surgery within four weeks of conservative treatment with a fifth of them performing surgery within two weeks [34]. In general, the typical indication for surgery is to provide more rapid relief of pain and disability in the minority of patients whose recovery is unacceptably slow after a minimum period of conservative treatment of six to 12 weeks [11, 81]; imaging identification of compressive pathology that is concordant with the patient’s physical signs and symptoms is definitely a prerequisite [11].
Various operative techniques have been described for disc herniation including open discectomy (paracentral approach, and Wiltse approach for far lateral herniation), mini-open discectomy, microdiscectomy, and percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy via interlaminar, transforaminal, posterolateral, and transiliac approaches [6, 82,83,84,85]. In all cases, discectomy has proved a reliable treatment provided the surgical indications, patients’ selection and associated abnormalities such as spinal instability and canal narrowing, and technique are respected, as re-operations are always difficult [85].
Open vs. endoscopic discectomy
Open discectomy was initially introduced in 1929 and later modified in 1938 to the technique practiced today; it is regarded since then as a standard operative treatment for lumbar disc herniation [86, 87]. In 1977, the microscope was introduced in the procedure, further refining the procedure into a minimally invasive open microdiscectomy [86,87,88]. In the last decades, various endoscopic techniques were developed to perform discectomy under direct view and local anaesthesia [89]; the use of an endoscope, endoscope sheath, and cannula assembly, a working channel scope, or use of an oval cannula has been reported in the literature in the 1990s [86], while full endoscopic transforaminal and intralaminar operations under continuous visualization were more recently described [90, 91].
Various studies and meta-analyses have been published during the last decades comparing and analyzing the different surgical procedures, in an attempt to determine the superiority of one technique over another [87,88,89, 92,93,94,95,96]. Cong et al. [89] analyzed randomized controlled clinical trials (nine studies, 1092 patients) comparing endoscopic with open discectomy for the treatment of symptomatic lumbar disc herniation; patient satisfaction status was significantly better in endoscopic group, while no significant difference was found regarding the complication rate, and primary beneficial clinical outcomes. The length of hospital stay was significantly shorter, and the blood loss volume was significantly lower in the endoscopic group, while no difference was found in the operating time, recurrences rate, and re-operation rate [89]. Ruan et al. [96] in another meta-analysis compared percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy with open microdiscectomy for lumbar disc herniation (seven studies, 1389 patients). Function was not different between groups, complication and re-operation rates, although both higher in the endoscopic group, were not significantly different between groups; however, operating time and hospital stay were significantly higher in the open microdiscectomy group [96]. Li et al. [87] analyzed randomized and non-randomized controlled clinical studies (seven studies, 1301 patients) comparing standard discectomy procedures (open discectomy, partial laminectomy, hemilaminectomy and open microdiscectomy) with endoscopic discectomy. Pain score after surgery, post-operative mean disability period, operating time, blood loss, and hospital stay were significantly higher in the discectomy group, while complication, recurrence and re-operation rates were not different between groups [87]. Phan et al. [95] in a large meta-analysis (23 studies, 28,487 patients) compared endoscopic discectomy and microendoscopic discectomy with open discectomy and found a higher rate of patients’ satisfaction, less post-operative pain and shorter hospital stay for endoscopic procedures, without any difference with respect to complication, recurrence and reoperation rates between the groups [95]. Feng et al. [93] published a Bayesian-framework network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (29 studies, 3146 patients) to compare seven operative treatments for patients with lumbar disc herniation. They found best success and complication rate for endoscopic discectomy, and best re-operation rate for standard open microsurgical discectomy [93].
In 2018, four meta-analyses have been published so far, comparing discectomy techniques. Li et al. [94] published a meta-analysis (10 studies, 804 patients) to compare microendoscopic discectomy with conventional microdiscectomy. They found no difference between the two techniques with respect to any of the examined variables [94]. Ding et al. [92] in another meta-analysis (17 studies, 1390 patients) compared fenestration discectomy with percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy. They found no difference with respect to post-operative pain and complications; however, operating time, blood loss, and hospital stay were significantly lower in the percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy group [92]. Similar results were reported by Zhang et al. [88] and Alvi et al. [86] in respective meta-analyses (nine studies, 1527 patients [88]; 14 studies, 1707 patients [86]); a significant difference was found only for hospital stay for endoscopic discectomy groups, without any differences in pain, complication, and re-operation rates at short and long term.
Conclusion
Lumbar disc herniation is a common entity that causes symptoms of sciatica and possible foot pain, numbness, or weakness. The exact event leading to disc herniation remains unclear. Non-operative treatments with drugs, spinal manipulation, physical therapy/exercises, epidural steroid injections, and possibly alternative treatments should be the first-line treatment for most patients with lumbar disc herniation; however, there is not a strong evidence for the effect of these treatments. Regenerative medicine is promising. Operative treatment remains the current gold standard, with minimally invasive endoscopic microdiscectomy techniques showing best results with respect to post-operative pain and function, without any difference with respect to complications and re-operations compared to the standard discectomy techniques.
References
Hoy D, Brooks P, Blyth F, Buchbinder R (2010) The epidemiology of low back pain. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 24(6):769–781. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.berh.2010.10.002
Konstantinou K, Dunn KM (2008) Sciatica: review of epidemiological studies and prevalence estimates. Spine 33(22):2464–2472. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e318183a4a2
Martin BI, Deyo RA, Mirza SK, Turner JA, Comstock BA, Hollingworth W, Sullivan SD (2008) Expenditures and health status among adults with back and neck problems. Jama 299(6):656–664. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.299.6.656
Truumees E (2015) A history of lumbar disc herniation from Hippocrates to the 1990s. Clin Orthop Relat Res 473(6):1885–1895. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-014-3633-7
Fardon DF, Williams AL, Dohring EJ, Murtagh FR, Gabriel Rothman SL, Sze GK (2014) Lumbar disc nomenclature: version 2.0: recommendations of the combined task forces of the North American Spine Society, the American Society of Spine Radiology and the American Society of Neuroradiology. Spine J 14(11):2525–2545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2014.04.022
Amin RM, Andrade NS, Neuman BJ (2017) Lumbar disc herniation. Curr Rev Muscoskelet Med 10(4):507–516. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-017-9441-4
Kadow T, Sowa G, Vo N, Kang JD (2015) Molecular basis of intervertebral disc degeneration and herniations: what are the important translational questions? Clin Orthop Relat Res 473(6):1903–1912. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-014-3774-8
Kalb S, Martirosyan NL, Kalani MY, Broc GG, Theodore N (2012) Genetics of the degenerated intervertebral disc. World Neurosurg 77(3–4):491–501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2011.07.014
Kepler CK, Ponnappan RK, Tannoury CA, Risbud MV, Anderson DG (2013) The molecular basis of intervertebral disc degeneration. Spine J 13(3):318–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2012.12.003
Garfin SR, Eismont FJ, Bell GR, Bono CM, Fischgrund J (2017) Lumbar disk herniations. In: Rothman-Simeone and Herkowitz’s The Spine. 7th edn. Elsevier, Philadelphia, PA
Herkowitz HN, Garfin SR, Eismont FJ, Bell GR, Balderston RA (2011 Lumbar disk herniations. In: Rothman-Simeone The Spine. 6th edn. Saunders
Zhang Y, Sun Z, Liu J, Guo X (2008) Advances in susceptibility genetics of intervertebral degenerative disc disease. Int J Biol Sci 4(5):283–290
Brayda-Bruno M, Tibiletti M, Ito K, Fairbank J, Galbusera F, Zerbi A, Roberts S, Wachtel E, Merkher Y, Sivan SS (2014) Advances in the diagnosis of degenerated lumbar discs and their possible clinical application. Eur Spine J 23(Suppl 3):S315–S323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-013-2960-9
Colombier P, Clouet J, Hamel O, Lescaudron L, Guicheux J (2014) The lumbar intervertebral disc: from embryonic development to degeneration. Joint Bone Spine 81(2):125–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbspin.2013.07.012
Adams MA (2015) Mechanical properties of aging soft tissues. In pp 7–35. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-03970-1
Mayer JE, Iatridis JC, Chan D, Qureshi SA, Gottesman O, Hecht AC (2013) Genetic polymorphisms associated with intervertebral disc degeneration. Spine J 13(3):299–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2013.01.041
Martirosyan NL, Patel AA, Carotenuto A, Kalani MY, Belykh E, Walker CT, Preul MC, Theodore N (2016) Genetic alterations in intervertebral disc disease. Front Surg 3:59. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2016.00059
Hoffman H, Choi AW, Chang V, Kimball J, SV A, Virani R, Kim B, Niu T, Lu DC (2017) Aquaporin-1 expression in herniated human lumbar intervertebral discs. Glob Spine J 7(2):133–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/2192568217694007
Lama P, Le Maitre CL, Dolan P, Tarlton JF, Harding IJ, Adams MA (2013) Do intervertebral discs degenerate before they herniate, or after? Bone Joint J 95-B(8):1127–1133. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.95B8.31660
Paul CP, de Graaf M, Bisschop A, Holewijn RM, van de Ven PM, van Royen BJ, Mullender MG, Smit TH, Helder MN (2017) Static axial overloading primes lumbar caprine intervertebral discs for posterior herniation. PLoS One 12(4):e0174278. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174278
Stirling A, Worthington T, Rafiq M, Lambert PA, Elliott TS (2001) Association between sciatica and propionibacterium acnes. Lancet 357(9273):2024–2025. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(00)05109-6
Ben-Galim P, Rand N, Giladi M, Schwartz D, Ashkenazi E, Millgram M, Dekel S, Floman Y (2006) Association between sciatica and microbial infection: true infection or culture contamination? Spine 31(21):2507–2509. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000238657.13263.b2
Rigal J, Thelen T, Byrne F, Cogniet A, Boissiere L, Aunoble S, Le Huec JC (2016) Prospective study using anterior approach did not show association between modic 1 changes and low grade infection in lumbar spine. Eur Spine J 25(4):1000–1005. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4396-5
Wedderkopp N, Thomsen K, Manniche C, Kolmos HJ, Secher Jensen T, Leboeuf Yde C (2009) No evidence for presence of bacteria in modic type I changes. Acta Radiol 50(1):65–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/02841850802524485
Agarwal V, Golish SR, Alamin TF (2011) Bacteriologic culture of excised intervertebral disc from immunocompetent patients undergoing single level primary lumbar microdiscectomy. J Spinal Disord Tech 24(6):397–400. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0b013e3182019f3a
Albert HB, Sorensen JS, Christensen BS, Manniche C (2013) Antibiotic treatment in patients with chronic low back pain and vertebral bone edema (Modic type 1 changes): a double-blind randomized clinical controlled trial of efficacy. Eur Spine J 22(4):697–707. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-013-2675-y
Capoor MN, Ruzicka F, Machackova T, Jancalek R, Smrcka M, Schmitz JE, Hermanova M, Sana J, Michu E, Baird JC, Ahmed FS, Maca K, Lipina R, Alamin TF, Coscia MF, Stonemetz JL, Witham T, Ehrlich GD, Gokaslan ZL, Mavrommatis K, Birkenmaier C, Fischetti VA, Slaby O (2016) Prevalence of propionibacterium acnes in intervertebral discs of patients undergoing lumbar microdiscectomy: a prospective cross-sectional study. PLoS One 11(8):e0161676. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0161676
Coscia MF, Denys GA, Wack MF (2016) Propionibacterium acnes, coagulase-negative Staphylococcus, and the “biofilm-like” intervertebral disc. Spine 41(24):1860–1865. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001909
Georgy M, Stern M, Murphy K (2017) What is the role of the bacterium Propionibacterium acnes in type 1 modic changes? A Review of the Literature. Can Assoc Radiol J 68(4):419–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carj.2017.07.004
Urquhart DM, Zheng Y, Cheng AC, Rosenfeld JV, Chan P, Liew S, Hussain SM, Cicuttini FM (2015) Could low grade bacterial infection contribute to low back pain? A systematic review. BMC Med 13:13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0267-x
Yuan Y, Chen Y, Zhou Z, Jiao Y, Li C, Zheng Y, Lin Y, Xiao J, Chen Z, Cao P (2017) Association between chronic inflammation and latent infection of Propionibacterium acnes in non-pyogenic degenerated intervertebral discs: a pilot study. Eur Spine J. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5363-5
Rajasekaran S, Tangavel C, Aiyer SN, Nayagam SM, Raveendran M, Demonte NL, Subbaiah P, Kanna R, Shetty AP, Dharmalingam K (2017) ISSLS PRIZE IN CLINICAL SCIENCE 2017: is infection the possible initiator of disc disease? An insight from proteomic analysis. Eur Spine J 26(5):1384–1400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-4972-3
Chen Z, Cao P, Zhou Z, Yuan Y, Jiao Y, Zheng Y (2016) Overview: the role of Propionibacterium acnes in nonpyogenic intervertebral discs. Int Orthop 40(6):1291–1298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-016-3115-5
Gadjradj PS, Arts MP, van Tulder MW, Rietdijk WJR, Peul WC, Harhangi BS (2017) Management of symptomatic lumbar disk herniation: an international perspective. Spine 42(23):1826–1834. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000002294
Kreiner DS, Hwang SW, Easa JE, Resnick DK, Baisden JL, Bess S, Cho CH, DePalma MJ, Dougherty P II, Fernand R, Ghiselli G, Hanna AS, Lamer T, Lisi AJ, Mazanec DJ, Meagher RJ, Nucci RC, Patel RD, Sembrano JN, Sharma AK, Summers JT, Taleghani CK, Tontz WL Jr, Toton JF, North American Spine S (2014) An evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of lumbar disc herniation with radiculopathy. Spine J 14(1):180–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2013.08.003
Petersen T, Laslett M, Juhl C (2017) Clinical classification in low back pain: best-evidence diagnostic rules based on systematic reviews. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 18(1):188. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-017-1549-6
Donnally CJI, Dulebohn SC (2017) Lumbar degenerative disk disease, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK448134, Accessed 25 July 2018
Donnally CJI, Dulebohn SC (2017) Lumbosacral disc injuries, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK448072, Accessed 25 July 2018
Splendiani A, Perri M, Grattacaso G, Di Tunno V, Marsecano C, Panebianco L, Gennarelli A, Felli V, Varrassi M, Barile A, Di Cesare E, Masciocchi C, Gallucci M (2016) Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the lumbar spine with dedicated G-scan machine in the upright position: a retrospective study and our experience in 10 years with 4305 patients. Radiol Med 121(1):38–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-015-0570-9
Eguchi Y, Ohtori S, Orita S, Kamoda H, Arai G, Ishikawa T, Miyagi M, Inoue G, Suzuki M, Masuda Y, Andou H, Takaso M, Aoki Y, Toyone T, Watanabe A, Takahashi K (2011) Quantitative evaluation and visualization of lumbar foraminal nerve root entrapment by using diffusion tensor imaging: preliminary results. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 32(10):1824–1829. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A2681
Dallaudiere B, Lincot J, Hess A, Balbi V, Cornelis F, Larbi A, Laissy JP, Cotten A, Schouman-Claeys E (2014) Clinical relevance of diffusion tensor imaging parameters in lumbar disco-radicular conflict. Diagn Interv Imaging 95(1):63–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diii.2013.08.019
Wu W, Liang J, Ru N, Zhou C, Chen J, Wu Y, Yang Z (2016) Microstructural changes in compressed nerve roots are consistent with clinical symptoms and symptom duration in patients with lumbar disc herniation. Spine 41(11):E661–E666. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001354
Notohamiprodjo S, Stahl R, Braunagel M, Kazmierczak PM, Thierfelder KM, Treitl KM, Wirth S, Notohamiprodjo M (2017) Diagnostic accuracy of contemporary multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) for the detection of lumbar disc herniation. Eur Radiol 27(8):3443–3451. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4686-7
Jacobs WC, van Tulder M, Arts M, Rubinstein SM, van Middelkoop M, Ostelo R, Verhagen A, Koes B, Peul WC (2011) Surgery versus conservative management of sciatica due to a lumbar herniated disc: a systematic review. Eur Spine J 20(4):513–522. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-010-1603-7
Finckh A, Zufferey P, Schurch MA, Balague F, Waldburger M, So AK (2006) Short-term efficacy of intravenous pulse glucocorticoids in acute discogenic sciatica. A randomized controlled trial. Spine 31(4):377–381. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000199917.04145.80
Kanayama M, Hashimoto T, Shigenobu K, Oha F, Yamane S (2005) New treatment of lumbar disc herniation involving 5-hydroxytryptamine2A receptor inhibitor: a randomized controlled trial. J Neurosurg Spine 2(4):441–446. https://doi.org/10.3171/spi.2005.2.4.0441
Kasimcan O, Kaptan H (2010) Efficacy of gabapentin for radiculopathy caused by lumbar spinal stenosis and lumbar disk hernia. Neurol Med Chir 50(12):1070–1073
Keynan O, Mirovsky Y, Dekel S, Gilad VH, Gilad GM (2010) Safety and efficacy of dietary agmatine sulfate in lumbar disc-associated radiculopathy. An open-label, dose-escalating study followed by a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Pain Med 11(3):356–368. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-4637.2010.00808.x
Korhonen T, Karppinen J, Paimela L, Malmivaara A, Lindgren KA, Bowman C, Hammond A, Kirkham B, Jarvinen S, Niinimaki J, Veeger N, Haapea M, Torkki M, Tervonen O, Seitsalo S, Hurri H (2006) The treatment of disc-herniation-induced sciatica with infliximab: one-year follow-up results of FIRST II, a randomized controlled trial. Spine 31(24):2759–2766. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000245873.23876.1e
Freeman BJ, Ludbrook GL, Hall S, Cousins M, Mitchell B, Jaros M, Wyand M, Gorman JR (2013) Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, trial of transforaminal epidural etanercept for the treatment of symptomatic lumbar disc herniation. Spine 38(23):1986–1994. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000435140.61593.4c
Lewis RA, Williams NH, Sutton AJ, Burton K, Din NU, Matar HE, Hendry M, Phillips CJ, Nafees S, Fitzsimmons D, Rickard I, Wilkinson C (2015) Comparative clinical effectiveness of management strategies for sciatica: systematic review and network meta-analyses. Spine J 15(6):1461–1477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2013.08.049
Thackeray A, Fritz JM, Brennan GP, Zaman FM, Willick SE (2010) A pilot study examining the effectiveness of physical therapy as an adjunct to selective nerve root block in the treatment of lumbar radicular pain from disk herniation: a randomized controlled trial. Phys Ther 90(12):1717–1729. https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20090260
Thackeray A, Fritz JM, Lurie JD, Zhao W, Weinstein JN (2017) Nonsurgical treatment choices by individuals with lumbar intervertebral disc herniation in the United States: associations with long-term outcomes. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 96(8):557–564. https://doi.org/10.1097/PHM.0000000000000685
Ghahreman A, Ferch R, Bogduk N (2010) The efficacy of transforaminal injection of steroids for the treatment of lumbar radicular pain. Pain Med 11(8):1149–1168. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-4637.2010.00908.x
Manchikanti L, Singh V, Falco FJ, Cash KA, Pampati V (2010) Evaluation of the effectiveness of lumbar interlaminar epidural injections in managing chronic pain of lumbar disc herniation or radiculitis: a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial. Pain Phys 13(4):343–355
Manchikanti L, Pampati V, Benyamin RM, Hirsch JA (2017) Cost utility analysis of lumbar interlaminar epidural injections in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation, central spinal stenosis, and axial or discogenic low back pain. Pain Phys 20(4):219–228
Altun I, Yuksel KZ (2017) Impact of position on efficacy of caudal epidural injection for low back pain and radicular leg pain due to central spinal stenosis and lumbar disc hernia. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 60(2):205–210. https://doi.org/10.3340/jkns.2016.0405.007
Isner-Horobeti ME, Dufour SP, Schaeffer M, Sauleau E, Vautravers P, Lecocq J, Dupeyron A (2016) High-force versus low-force lumbar traction in acute lumbar sciatica due to disc herniation: a preliminary randomized trial. J Manip Physiol Ther 39(9):645–654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmpt.2016.09.006
Shin JS, Lee J, Lee YJ, Kim MR, Ahn YJ, Park KB, Shin BC, Lee MS, Ha IH (2016) Long-term course of alternative and integrative therapy for lumbar disc herniation and risk factors for surgery: a prospective observational 5-year follow-up study. Spine 41(16):E955–E963. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001494
McMorland G, Suter E, Casha S, du Plessis SJ, Hurlbert RJ (2010) Manipulation or microdiskectomy for sciatica? A prospective randomized clinical study. J Manip Physiol Ther 33(8):576–584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmpt.2010.08.013
Basso M, Cavagnaro L, Zanirato A, Divano S, Formica C, Formica M, Felli L (2017) What is the clinical evidence on regenerative medicine in intervertebral disc degeneration? Musculoskelet Surg 101(2):93–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12306-017-0462-3
Paul R, Haydon RC, Cheng H, Ishikawa A, Nenadovich N, Jiang W, Zhou L, Breyer B, Feng T, Gupta P, He TC, Phillips FM (2003) Potential use of Sox9 gene therapy for intervertebral degenerative disc disease. Spine 28(8):755–763
Mercuri J, Addington C, Pascal R 3rd, Gill S, Simionescu D (2014) Development and initial characterization of a chemically stabilized elastin-glycosaminoglycan-collagen composite shape-memory hydrogel for nucleus pulposus regeneration. J Biomed Mater Res A 102(12):4380–4393. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.35104
Tsaryk R, Gloria A, Russo T, Anspach L, De Santis R, Ghanaati S, Unger RE, Ambrosio L, Kirkpatrick CJ (2015) Collagen-low molecular weight hyaluronic acid semi-interpenetrating network loaded with gelatin microspheres for cell and growth factor delivery for nucleus pulposus regeneration. Acta Biomater 20:10–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2015.03.041
Mochida J, Sakai D, Nakamura Y, Watanabe T, Yamamoto Y, Kato S (2015) Intervertebral disc repair with activated nucleus pulposus cell transplantation: a three-year, prospective clinical study of its safety. Eur Cells Mater 29:202–212 discussion 212
Orozco L, Soler R, Morera C, Alberca M, Sanchez A, Garcia-Sancho J (2011) Intervertebral disc repair by autologous mesenchymal bone marrow cells: a pilot study. Transplantation 92(7):822–828. https://doi.org/10.1097/TP.0b013e3182298a15
Pettine K, Suzuki R, Sand T, Murphy M (2016) Treatment of discogenic back pain with autologous bone marrow concentrate injection with minimum two year follow-up. Int Orthop 40(1):135–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-015-2886-4
Yoshikawa T, Ueda Y, Miyazaki K, Koizumi M, Takakura Y (2010) Disc regeneration therapy using marrow mesenchymal cell transplantation: a report of two case studies. Spine 35(11):E475–E480. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181cd2cf4
Levi D, Horn S, Tyszko S, Levin J, Hecht-Leavitt C, Walko E (2016) Intradiscal platelet-rich plasma injection for chronic Discogenic low Back pain: preliminary results from a prospective trial. Pain Med 17(6):1010–1022. https://doi.org/10.1093/pm/pnv053
Tuakli-Wosornu YA, Terry A, Boachie-Adjei K, Harrison JR, Gribbin CK, LaSalle EE, Nguyen JT, Solomon JL, Lutz GE (2016) Lumbar intradiskal platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections: a prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled study. PM R 8(1):1–10; quiz 10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmrj.2015.08.010
Giurazza F, Guarnieri G, Murphy KJ, Muto M (2017) Intradiscal O2O3: rationale, injection technique, short- and long-term outcomes for the treatment of low back pain due to disc herniation. Can Assoc Radiol J 68(2):171–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carj.2016.12.007
Muto M, Giurazza F, Silva RP, Guarnieri G (2016) Rational approach, technique and selection criteria treating lumbar disk herniations by oxygen-ozone therapy. Int Neuroradiol 22(6):736–740. https://doi.org/10.1177/1591019916659266
Perri M, Marsecano C, Varrassi M, Giordano AV, Splendiani A, di Cesare E, Masciocchi C, Gallucci M (2016) Indications and efficacy of O2-O3 intradiscal versus steroid intraforaminal injection in different types of disco vertebral pathologies: a prospective randomized double-blind trial with 517 patients. Radiol Med 121(6):463–471. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-015-0598-x
Buric J, Rigobello L, Hooper D (2014) Five and ten year follow-up on intradiscal ozone injection for disc herniation. Int J Spine Surg 8. doi:https://doi.org/10.14444/1017
Dall'Olio M, Princiotta C, Cirillo L, Budai C, de Santis F, Bartolini S, Serchi E, Leonardi M (2014) Oxygen-ozone therapy for herniated lumbar disc in patients with subacute partial motor weakness due to nerve root compression. Interv Neuroradiol 20(5):547–554. https://doi.org/10.15274/INR-2014-10078
Lehnert T, Naguib NN, Wutzler S, Nour-Eldin NE, Bauer RW, Kerl JM, Vogl TJ, Balzer JO (2012) Analysis of disk volume before and after CT-guided intradiscal and periganglionic ozone-oxygen injection for the treatment of lumbar disk herniation. J Vasc Interv Radiol 23(11):1430–1436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2012.07.029
Cohen SP, Williams S, Kurihara C, Griffith S, Larkin TM (2005) Nucleoplasty with or without intradiscal electrothermal therapy (IDET) as a treatment for lumbar herniated disc. J Spinal Disord Tech 18(Suppl):S119–S124
Gerszten PC, Smuck M, Rathmell JP, Simopoulos TT, Bhagia SM, Mocek CK, Crabtree T, Bloch DA, Group SS (2010) Plasma disc decompression compared with fluoroscopy-guided transforaminal epidural steroid injections for symptomatic contained lumbar disc herniation: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. J Neurosurg Spine 12(4):357–371. https://doi.org/10.3171/2009.10.SPINE09208
Kanai A (2009) Treatment of lumbar disk herniation by percutaneous intradiscal high-pressure injection of saline. Pain Med 10(1):76–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-4637.2008.00546.x
Schaufele MK (2008) Single level lumbar disc herniations resulting in radicular pain: pain and functional outcomes after treatment with targeted disc decompression. Pain Med 9(7):835–843. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-4637.2008.00516.x
Gibson JN, Waddell G (2007) Surgical interventions for lumbar disc prolapse: updated Cochrane review. Spine 32(16):1735–1747. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3180bc2431
Bai J, Zhang W, Wang Y, An J, Zhang J, Sun Y, Ding W, Shen Y (2017) Application of transiliac approach to intervertebral endoscopic discectomy in L5/S1 intervertebral disc herniation. Eur J Med Res 22(1):14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40001-017-0254-0
Choi KC, Kim JS, Lee DC, Park CK (2017) Outcome of decompression alone for foraminal/extraforaminal entrapment of L5 nerve root through Wiltse Paraspinal approach. Clin Spine Surg 30(9):E1220–E1226. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000000486
Tonosu J, Oshima Y, Shiboi R, Hayashi A, Takano Y, Inanami H, Koga H (2016) Consideration of proper operative route for interlaminar approach for percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy. J Spine Surg 2(4):281–288. https://doi.org/10.21037/jss.2016.11.05
Benzakour T, Hefti A, Lemseffer M, Benzakour A (2010) Long-term outcome of discectomy in the discal lumboradiculalgia (376 cases). E-mémoires de l'Académie Nationale de. Chirurgie 9(1):61–66
Alvi MA, Kerezoudis P, Wahood W, Goyal A, Bydon M (2018) Operative approaches for lumbar disc herniation: a systematic review and multiple treatment meta-analysis of conventional and minimally invasive surgeries. World Neurosurg 114(391–407):e392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2018.02.156
Li X, Han Y, Di Z, Cui J, Pan J, Yang M, Sun G, Tan J, Li L (2016) Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for lumbar disc herniation. J Clinneurosci 33:19–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2016.01.043
Zhang B, Liu S, Liu J, Yu B, Guo W, Li Y, Liu Y, Ruan W, Ning G, Feng S (2018) Transforaminal endoscopic discectomy versus conventional microdiscectomy for lumbar discherniation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg Res 13(1):169. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-018-0868-0
Cong L, Zhu Y, Tu G (2016) A meta-analysis of endoscopic discectomy versus open discectomy for symptomatic lumbar disk herniation. Eur Spine J 25(1):134–143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-3776-6
Ruetten S, Komp M, Godolias G (2005) An extreme lateral access for the surgery of lumbar disc herniations inside the spinal canal using the full-endoscopic uniportal transforaminal approach-technique and prospective results of 463 patients. Spine 30(22):2570–2578
Ruetten S, Komp M, Godolias G (2006) A new full-endoscopic technique for the interlaminar operation of lumbar disc herniations using 6-mm endoscopes: prospective 2-year results of 331 patients. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 49(2):80–87. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2006-932172
Ding W, Yin J, Yan T, Nong L, Xu N (2018) Meta-analysis of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy vs. fenestration discectomy in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation. Orthopade 47(7):574–584. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-018-3528-5
Feng F, Xu Q, Yan F, Xie Y, Deng Z, Hu C, Zhu X, Cai L (2017) Comparison of 7 surgical interventions for lumbar disc herniation: a network meta-analysis. Pain Physician 20(6):E863–E871
Li X, Chang H, Meng X (2018) Tubular microscopes discectomy versus conventional microdiscectomy for treating lumbar disk herniation: systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine 97(5):e9807. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000009807
Phan K, Xu J, Schultz K, Alvi MA, Lu VM, Kerezoudis P, Maloney PR, Murphy ME, Mobbs RJ, Bydon M (2017) Full-endoscopic versus micro-endoscopic and open discectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes and complications. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 154:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2017.01.003
Ruan W, Feng F, Liu Z, Xie J, Cai L, Ping A (2016) Comparison of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy versus open lumbar microdiscectomy for lumbar disc herniation: a meta-analysis. Int J Surg 31:86–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.05.061
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Benzakour, T., Igoumenou, V., Mavrogenis, A.F. et al. Current concepts for lumbar disc herniation. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 43, 841–851 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-4247-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-4247-6