The outcome of surgery for recurrent lumbar disc herniation is debatable. Some studies show results that are comparable with those of primary discectomy, whereas others report worse outcomes. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcome of revision lumbar discectomy with that of primary discectomy in the same cohort of patients who had both the primary and the recurrent herniation at the same level and side. A retrospective analysis of prospectively gathered data was undertaken in 30 patients who had undergone both primary and revision surgery for late recurrent lumbar disc herniation. The outcome measures used were visual analogue scales for lower limb (VAL) and back (VAB) pain and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). There was a significant improvement in the mean VAL and ODI scores (both p < 0.001) after primary discectomy. Revision surgery also resulted in improvements in the mean VAL (p < 0.001), VAB (p = 0.030) and ODI scores (p < 0.001). The changes were similar in the two groups (all p > 0.05). Revision discectomy can give results that are as good as those seen after primary surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:90–4

We present a review of 553 patients who underwent surgery for intractable sciatica ascribed to prolapsed lumbar intervertebral disc. One surgeon in one institution undertook or supervised all the operations over a period of 16 years.

The total number of primary discectomies included in the study was 531, of which 42 subsequently required a second operation for recurrent sciatica, giving a revision rate of 7.9%. Factors associated with reoperation were analysed. A contained disc protrusion was almost three times more likely to need revision surgery, compared with extruded or sequestrated discs. Patients with primary protrusions had a significantly greater straight-leg raise and reduced incidence of positive neurological findings compared with those with extruded or sequestrated discs. These patients should therefore be selected out clinically and treated by a more enthusiastic conservative programme, since they are three times more likely to require revision surgery.

Aims. Lumbar disc prolapse is a frequent indication for surgery. The few available long-term follow-up studies focus mainly on repeated surgery for recurrent disease. The aim of this study was to analyze all reasons for additional surgery for patients operated on for a primary lumbar disc prolapse. Methods. We retrieved data from the Swedish spine register about 3,291 patients who underwent primary surgery for a lumbar disc prolapse between January 2007 and December 2008. These patients were followed until December 2020 to record all additional lumbar spine operations and the reason for them. Results. In total, 681 of the 3,291 patients (21%) needed one or more additional operations. More than three additional operations was uncommon (2%; 15/906). Overall, 906 additional operations were identified during the time period, with a mean time to the first of these of 3.7 years (SD 3.6). The most common reason for an additional operation was recurrent disc prolapse (47%; 426/906), followed by spinal stenosis or degenerative spondylolisthesis (19%; 176/906), and segmental pain (16%; 145/906). The most common surgical procedures were revision discectomy (43%; 385/906) and instrumented fusion (22%; 200/906). Degenerative spinal conditions other than disc prolapse became a more common reason for additional surgery with increasing length of follow-up. Most patients achieved the minimally important change (MIC) for the patient-reported outcomes after the index surgery. After the third additional spinal operation, only 20% (5/25) achieved the MIC in terms of leg pain, and 29% (7/24) in terms of the EuroQol five-dimension index questionnaire visual analogue scale. Conclusion. More than one in five patients operated on for a lumbar disc prolapse underwent further surgery during the 13-year follow-up period. Recurrent disc prolapse was the most common reason for additional surgery, followed by spinal stenosis and segmental pain. This study shows that additional operations after primary disc surgery are needed more frequently than previously reported, and that the outcome profoundly deteriorates after the second additional operation. The findings from this study can be used in the shared decision-making process. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(5):627–632

Aim. To compare outcomes of revision lumbar discectomy to primary surgery in the same patient cohort. Methods. Prospective outcome data in 36 patients who underwent primary and subsequent revision surgery for lumbar disc herniation between 1995 and 2009. Outcome measures used were Visual Analogue Scores for back (VAB) and leg pain (VAL), the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Low Back Outcome Score (LBO). 5 early recurrences within 3 months were excluded. Results. Complete data was available in 31 patients 13F;18M. The average age was 39 years at index and 45 years at revision. Average interval between surgery of 39 months (range 6-122). Mean Pre op ODI 54 and VAL 73 primary procedure, final follow up of primary procedure ODI 33, VAL 43; prior to revision ODI 57, VAL 75; at last FU ODI 32 and VAL 40. There was no statistical difference between outcomes. In the primary discectomy group there was a statistically significant improvement in the VAL, ODI and LBO scores (P<0.05), with no significant improvement in the VAB (P=0.67). In the revision group there was a statistical significant improvement in all the outcomes (P<0.05). Overall, 45% of patients felt their outcome from revision discectomy was better/much better with 54% of patients rating their treatment as either good/excellent. Conclusion. Primary discectomy produced significant improvement in leg pain, ODI and LBO. Revision discectomy did the same, but also a significant improvement in VAB scores. There was no statistically significant difference in comparing the preoperative and postoperative scores for both procedures. Revision discectomy is a procedure which yields clinically significant and patient perceived improvements in spinal outcome measures with an unexplained improvement in VAB scores as compared to the primary procedure. This may challenge the belief of some surgeons in the need for fusion at the time of revision

Aims

To identify the incidence and risk factors for five-year same-site recurrent disc herniation (sRDH) after primary single-level lumbar discectomy. Secondary outcome was the incidence and risk factors for five-year sRDH reoperation.

Aim. To assess the safety of day case lumbar decompressive surgery. Method. Retrospective study of 233 consecutive patients undergoing DCLDS who were identified from a prospective electronic database. Results. Between Jan 2011 and April 2014, 131 open and 102 microscopic surgeries were done in patients with mean age of 46 (16–88) years and male: female ratio of 136 (59%):97 (41%). Inclusion criteria were no known anesthetic reaction, ASA grade I or II, BMI <35, less than 30 minutes travel time and responsible home carer. Patients were discharged after clinical assessment with cauda equina advice and emergency contact number. 215 (92%) procedures were single level, of which 188(87%) unilateral and 27 (13%) were bilateral procedures. 18 (8%) procedures were multiple levels, of which 12(67%) unilateral and 6 (33%) were bilateral procedures. Majority, 107 (50%), 97 (45%) procedures were done at L5/S1 and L4/L5 levels respectively and rest 11(5%) at higher level. The 7 day and 30 day re-presentation figures were 7 (3%) & 15(6.4%) as following: Pain (n=3), Medication (n=2), Wound issues (n=5), Infection (n=2), Headache (n=2), ?VTE (n=1). Eleven were sent home and 4 (1.7%) were admitted with 2 requiring further surgery, one revision discectomy and one wound washout. No cauda equina or compressive haematoma were encountered. Conclusion. This study demonstrates that open and microscopic lumbar discectomy at single or multiple levels can be performed safely as a day case procedure. The representation rate to the ED can be potentially reduced by better advice and pain management. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: No funding obtained

Minimal clinically important differences (MCID) in the scores of patient-reported outcome measures allow clinicians to assess the outcome of intervention from the perspective of the patient. There has been significant variation in their absolute values in previous publications and a lack of consistency in their calculation.

The purpose of this study was first, to establish whether these values, following spinal surgery, vary depending on the surgical intervention and their method of calculation and secondly, to assess whether there is any correlation between the two external anchors most frequently used to calculate the MCID.

We carried out a retrospective analysis of prospectively gathered data of adult patients who underwent elective spinal surgery between 1994 and 2009. A total of 244 patients were included. There were 125 men and 119 women with a mean age of 54 years (16 to 84); the mean follow-up was 62 months (6 to 199) The MCID was calculated using three previously published methods.

Our results show that the value of the MCID varies considerably with the operation and its method of calculation. There was good correlation between the two external anchors. The global outcome tool correlated significantly better.

We conclude that consensus needs to be reached on the best method of calculating the MCID. This then needs to be defined for each spinal procedure. Using a blanket value for the MCID for all spinal procedures should be avoided.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:366–71.

We have treated 15 patients with massive lumbar disc herniations non-operatively. Repeat MR scanning after a mean 24 months (5 to 56) showed a dramatic resolution of the herniation in 14 patients. No patient developed a cauda equina syndrome.

We suggest that this condition may be more benign than previously thought.