Aim: The aim is to assess the accuracy of post-contrast imaging in identifying recurrent disc prolapse (RDP).

Material and methods: 246 revision discectomies performed between January 1994 and June 2004 were considered. Of these, for 192 LIRDs, post-contrast scans (95 CTs and 97 MRIs) within 6 months of operation, and adequate operation records were available. Original scan reports and scan interpretation of an independent observer were taken into account.

Results: Of 95 post-contrast CTs, 88 showed RDP (29 large-contained, 12 large-sequestrated, 39 moderate-contained, and 8 small-contained), 2 hypertrophic epidural scar (HES), and 5 lateral recess stenosis but no RDP or HES. From operation records, 30 of these 88 were found to have HES, but no RDP. Also, operation records confirmed presence of RDP in 21 of 29 large-contained (72.4%), 10 of 12 large-sequestrated (83.3%), 16 of 39 moderate-contained (41%) and 2 of 8 small-contained (25%). Of the 5 which did not show RDP, 2 (40%) were found to have RDP (1 moderate-contained and 1 large-contained) during operation.

Of 97 post-contrast MRIs, 85 showed RDP (18 large-contained, 22 large-sequestrated, 26 moderate-contained,4 moderate-sequestrated,13 small-contained, and 2 small-sequestrated), 5 HES, and 7 lateral recess stenosis but no RDP or HES. From operation records, 31 of these 85 were found to have HES, but no RDP. Also, operation records confirmed presence of RDP in 10 of 18 large-contained (55.6%), 19 of 22 large-sequestrated (86.4%), 8 of 26 moderate-contained (30.8%), 4 of 4 moderate-sequestrated (100%), 6 of 13 small-contained (46.2%) and 1 of 2 small-sequestrated (50%). Of the 7 which did not show RDP, 1 (14.3%) was found to have moderate-contained RDP during operation.

Conclusion: Accuracy of post-contrast scans is proportional to the size of RDP. MRI has high accuracy for sequestrated RDP.

Aim: The aim is to correlate intra-operative findings such as epidural fibrosis (EF), size and type of disc fragment, lateral recess stenosis and dural tear with postoperative residual radiculopathy (RR) and residual low back pain (RLBP).

Material and Methods: 246 revision discectomies performed between January 1994 and June 2004 were considered, of which adequate records were available for 215 (201 ipsilateral and 14 contralateral). Of 201 LIRDs, 85 were at L5S1, 101 at L45, 10 at L5S1+L45, 3 at L34 and 2 at L23 level. Patients who had had fusion or instrumentation in addition to LIRD were excluded. For 201 LIRDs average follow-up was 18.5 months (range −1 to 96 months) and 100 LIRDs had a minimum of 12 months’ follow-up.

Results: Of the 179 first-time LIRDs, 65 (36.3%) had significant RR, 73 (40.8%) significant RLBP, 3 (1.7%) cauda equina syndrome, 2 (1.1%) infective discitis, and 1 (0.6%) foot-drop. Of the 21 second-time LIRDs, 15 (71.4%) had significant RR, 17 (81%) significant RLBP, 2 (9.5%) infective discitis and 1 (4.8%) cauda equina syndrome. EF was classified as abundant, moderate and scant. Incidence of RR and RLBP was proportional to amount of EF and size of hypertrophic scarred ‘disc’ bulge, but it correlated poorly with size of ‘soft’ disc prolapse. Lateral recess decompression in addition to LIRD did not significantly alter the incidence of RR and RLBP.

25 (12.4%) patients who had dural tear had worse results.

Conclusions: Large proportion of LIRDs result in significant residual symptoms. Second-time LIRDs have higher complication rates and even poorer outcomes.

Objective: This is a prospective study by an independent observer in which outcomes of 118 anterior lumbar interbody fusions (ALIF), done for discogram-concordant axial low back pain, were evaluated. Aims of the study were to assess overall functional and comprehensive outcomes, predictors of outcome, and whether ALIF alone can be recommended for low back pain.

Design: The functional and patient perception assessment was based on a self-evaluation back pain questionnaire, which consisted of Oswestry Disability Index, Pain Chart, Numerical Rating Scales (NRS) for back pain and leg pain and SF-36-Version II. The comprehensive outcomes were categorised as satisfactory (excellent, good or improved) and unsatisfactory (fair, poor, unimproved or worse).

Results: Overall, we had 61% satisfactory outcomes. Average percentage change in ODI, NRS and SF-36 PCS scores was statistically quite significant. However, patients who had previous posterolateral fusion at the same level had satisfactory outcome in 81%. Incidence of non-union was higher in two-level fusions than one-level fusions, and cases that developed non-unions had unsatisfactory outcome.

Conclusions: ALIF alone can be recommended for discogram-concordant axial low back pain. Radiographic evidence of spondylosis, lysis or listhesis, level of fusion, number of levels fused, floating/non-floating type of fusion, and previous back surgery did not affect the outcome. Cases in which the middle column was stabilised (such as those with (a) intervertebral cages extending up to the posterior longitudinal ligament and (b) previous posterolateral fusion at the same level), and hence biomechanically stable, showed better outcomes. Placement of intervertebral implants mainly in the anterior column lead to distraction of the disc anteriorly, resulting in compression of back wall of the disc and facet joints, and narrowing of intervertebral foramina and spinal canal at that level, thus compromising the outcome.

We studied 45 patients with 46 fractures of the scaphoid who presented sequentially over a period of 21 months. MRI enabled us to relate the pattern of the fracture to the blood supply of the scaphoid. Serial MRI studies of the four main patterns showed that each followed a constant sequence during healing and failure to progress normally predicted nonunion.