Abstract

Abstract:
Background: disc prolapse is thought to cause one-third of all back pain, in which the spongy interior matrix of an intervertebral disc in the spine is drying out compressing the thecal sac and nerve roots. Traditional discectomy involves removing a portion of an intervertebral disc. TLIF is atechnique that is used to achive disc resection, decompression and circumferential arthrodesis in the lumbar spine, it fuses the anterior and posterior sections through a posterior unilateral approach.
Aim: In this study, we aim to review cases of massive single level lumber disc prolapse treated surgically either with traditional discectomy or (TLIF) and compared their outcomes regarding pain, deficits, instability, complications, blood loss, hospitalization and cost.
Methods: study included 43 patients presented with symptomatic, single level, massive lumbar disc prolapse at different levels were designed in to 2 groups: (Group A: 23 patients were treated with open TLIF) and (Group B: 20 patients were treated traditional discectomy).
Results: The outcomes of 43 patients were assessed and followed up at 12 months postoperatively. The results was appeared to be significantly better in open TLIF than traditional discectomy in a term of both low back and radicular leg pain and mechanical instability, while significantly better in traditional discectomy than open TLIF in a term of intraoperative complications and blood loss, hospitalization stay and cost, there was no significant difference between the two types of surgery in the term of neurological deficits. The overall success rate in open TLIF was (91.3%), while (70%) in traditional discectomy.
Conclusion: Both open TLIF and traditional discectomy were effective in treatment of patients with massive single level lumber disc prolapse.