Purpose and background. Low back pain (LBP), a leading cause of chronic disability, is associated with high and disproportionate socioeconomic costs. Clinical assessment and triage via the NHS 111 service aims to reduce pressure on the urgent and emergency care system. Studies show that many attend the emergency department (ED) against advice, when they could be better managed elsewhere. The aim of this research was to explore how patients with LBP perceive and interact with NHS 111, and how this may have influenced their decision to attend ED. Methods and Results. This was a secondary analysis of a cross-sectional, qualitative dataset of 47 patients (26M:21F, aged 23–79 years) purposively sampled with LBP, who attended 1 of 4 EDs in the UK in 2021, (during the pandemic). The participants took part in online, semi-structured interviews, mean duration 45-minutes (range 23–156 minutes), within six weeks of their ED visit. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed. Three key themes were identified: purpose, process and performance. The themes showed mixed understanding and low awareness of the purpose of NHS 111, despite its strong triage role. Long waits for call backs however, sometimes resulted in patients attending ED, along with previous negative perspectives and experiences. Conclusion. This research suggests enhanced visibility and knowledge of NHS 111 would increase its use by people with LBP. Further exploration comparing outcomes of callers to NHS 111 with those who seek care elsewhere, could help evaluate how NHS 111 can best help people with LBP and prevent unnecessary ED attendance. No conflicts of interest.  . Sources of funding. Funding for primary data: Health Education England & National Institute of Health and Care Research (ICA-CDRF-2018-04-ST2-040)

Background. Clinical guidelines recommend epidural steroid injection (ESI) as a treatment option for severe disc-related sciatica, but there is considerable uncertainty about its effectiveness. Currently, we know very little about factors that might be associated with good or poor outcomes from ESI. The aim of this systematic review was to synthesize and appraise the evidence investigating prognostic factors associated with outcomes following ESI for patients with imaging confirmed disc-related sciatica. Methods. The search strategy involved the electronic databases Medline, Embase, CINAHL Plus, PsycINFO and reference lists of eligible studies. Selected papers were quality appraised independently by two reviewers using the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool. Between study heterogeneity precluded statistical pooling of results. Results. 2726 citations were identified; 11 studies were eligible. Overall study quality was low with all judged to have moderate or high risk of bias. Forty-five prognostic factors were identified but were measured inconsistently. The most commonly assessed prognostic factors were related to pain and function (n=7 studies), imaging features (n=6 studies), health and lifestyle (n=5 studies), patient demographics (n=4 studies) and clinical assessment findings (n=4 studies). No prognostic factor was found to be consistently associated with outcomes following ESI. Most studies found no association or results that conflicted with other studies. Conclusions. There is little, and low quality, evidence to guide practice in terms of factors that predict outcomes in patients following ESI for disc-related sciatica. The results can help inform some of the decisions about potential prognostic factors that should be assessed in future well-designed prospective cohort studies. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: This study is supported by Health Education England and the National Institute for Health Research (HEE/ NIHR ICA Programme Clinical Lectureship, Dr Siobhan Stynes, NIHR300441). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health and Social Care

Background. Guidelines recommend epidural steroid injections (ESI) for treating severe disc-related sciatica based on trial data showing modest reductions in leg pain, disability and surgery avoidance. Despite their widespread use, there is no clear evidence about which patients are more likely to benefit from ESI. The aim of this study was to generate consensus on potential predictors of outcome following ESI for disc-related sciatica to include in data collection in a future cohort study. Methods. A list of potential predictors of outcome following ESI was generated from existing literature and a consensus meeting with seven experts. Items were subsequently presented in a two-round on-line modified Delphi study to generate consensus among experts on which items are agreed as potential predictors of outcome from ESI (consensus defined as 70% agreement with ranking of remaining items). Results. An initial list of 53 items was generated and 90 experts were invited from seven countries to participate in the on-line Delphi study. Response rates were 48% (n=44) and 73% (n=33) for round 1 and 2 respectively. Twenty-eight additional items suggested by participants in round 1 were included in round 2. Of the 81 items, 14 reached consensus; across domains of medication use, previous surgery, pain intensity, psychosocial factors, imaging findings and type of injection. Highest ranked of remaining items included work-related and clinical assessment items. Conclusion. Based on expert consensus, items that can be routinely collected in clinical practice were identified as potential predictors of outcomes following ESI. These will be tested in a future multicentre cohort study. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: This study is supported by Health Education England and the National Institute for Health Research (HEE/ NIHR ICA Programme Clinical Lectureship, Dr Siobhan Stynes, NIHR300441). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health and Social Care

Aims. Diagnosis of cauda equina syndrome (CES) remains difficult; clinical assessment has low accuracy in reliably predicting MRI compression of the cauda equina (CE). This prospective study tests the usefulness of ultrasound bladder scans as an adjunct for diagnosing CES. Methods. A total of 260 patients with suspected CES were referred to a tertiary spinal unit over a 16-month period. All were assessed by Board-eligible spinal surgeons and had transabdominal ultrasound bladder scans for pre- and post-voiding residual (PVR) volume measurements before lumbosacral MRI. Results. The study confirms the low predictive value of ‘red flag’ symptoms and signs. Of note ‘bilateral sciatica’ had a sensitivity of 32.4%, and a positive predictive value (PPV) of only 17.2%, and negative predictive value (NPV) 88.3%. Use of a PVR volume of ≥ 200 ml was a demonstrably more accurate test for predicting cauda equina compression on subsequent MRI (p < 0.001). The PVR sensitivity was 94.1%, specificity 66.8%, PPV 29.9% and NPV 98.7%. The PVR allowed risk-stratification with 13% patients deemed ‘low-risk’ of CES. They had non-urgent MRI scans. None of the latter scans showed any cauda equina compression (p < 0.006) or individuals developed subsequent CES in the intervening period. There were considerable cost-savings associated with the above strategy. Conclusion. This is the largest reported prospective evaluation of suspected CES. Use of the PVR volume ≥ 200 ml was considerably more accurate in predicting CES. It is a useful adjunct to conventional clinical assessment and allows risk-stratification in managing suspected CES. If adopted widely it is less likely incomplete CES would be missed. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(6):677–682

Background. Low back-related leg pain (LBLP) is clinically diagnosed as referred leg pain or sciatica. Within the spectrum of LBLP there may be unrecognised subgroups of patients. This study aimed to identify and describe clusters of LBLP patients using latent class analysis (LCA). Methods. The study population were 609 LBLP primary care consulters. Variables from clinical assessment were included in the LCA. Characteristics of the statistically identified clusters were described and compared to the clinically defined groups of LBLP patients. Results. A five cluster solution was optimal. Cluster one (n=104) had mild leg pain severity, no clinical signs suggestive of sciatica and more anxiety. Cluster two (n=122), three (n=188) and four (n=69) represented mild, moderate and severe sciatica in terms of response to clinical assessment items, pain severity and impact on function. Cluster five (n=126) was more difficult to define based on response to clinical assessment items (below knee pain and possible neural tension) and had a similar severe profile to cluster four in terms of high pain, disability, psychosocial factors, work impact and risk of poor outcome; but had longer duration pain and more comorbidities. Cluster three consistently mirrored the profile of the overall group of patients with a clinical diagnosis of sciatica. Cluster one mirrored the referred leg pain group. Conclusion. This is the first study that used LCA to classify LBLP patients, including sciatica. These clusters could represent more homogenous groups that may require different treatment approaches. Further work will describe the clinical course and longer term outcomes of these clusters. No conflicts of interest. S Stynes is supported by an NIHR/CNO Clinical Doctoral Research Fellowship (CDRF-2010-055). Dr Konstantinou is supported by a HEFCE/NIHR Senior Clinical Lectureship. Professor Hay is a NIHR Senior Investigator

Aims

Developmental cervical spinal stenosis (DcSS) is a well-known predisposing factor for degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) but there is a lack of consensus on its definition. This study aims to define DcSS based on MRI, and its multilevel characteristics, to assess the prevalence of DcSS in the general population, and to evaluate the presence of DcSS in the prediction of developing DCM.

Background. Criticisms about overuse of MRI in low back pain are well documented. Yet, with the exception of suspicion of serious pathology, little is known about factors that influence clinicians' preference for MRI. We investigated the factors associated with physiotherapists' preference for MRI for patients consulting with benign low back and leg pain (LBLP) including sciatica. Methods. Data were collected from 607 primary care patients consulting with LBLP and assessed by 7 physiotherapists, in the ATLAS cohort study. Following clinical assessment, physiotherapists documented whether he/she wanted the patient to have an MRI. Factors potentially associated with clinicians' preference for imaging were selected a priori, from patient characteristics and clinical assessment findings. A mixed-effect logistic regression model examined the associations between these factors and physiotherapists' preference for MRI. Results. Physiotherapists expressed a preference for MRI in 32% (196/607) of patients, of whom 22 did not have a clinical diagnosis of sciatica (radiculopathy). Factors associated with preference for MRI included; clinical diagnosis of sciatica (OR 4.23: 95% CI 2.29,7.81), greater than 3 months pain duration (OR 2.61: 95% CI 1.58,4.30), high pain intensity (OR 1.24: 95%CI 1.11,1.37), patient's low expectation of improvement (OR 2.40: 95% 1.50,3.83), physiotherapist's confidence in the diagnosis (OR 1.19: 95% CI 1.07,1.33) with greater confidence associated with higher probability of preference for MRI. Conclusion. A clinical diagnosis of sciatica and longer symptom duration were most strongly associated with physiotherapists' preference for MRI. Given current best practice guidelines, these appear to be justifiable reasons for wanting patients to have an MRI. Conflicts of interest: None. Funding. SE was supported through an NIHR internship linked to an NIHR Research Professorship awarded to NEF (RP-01-015). NEF is an NIHR Senior Investigator. KK is supported through a HEFCE Senior Clinical Lecturer award. The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NIHR, NHS or the Department of Health

Aims

Patients with cauda equina syndrome (CES) require emergency imaging and surgical decompression. The severity and type of symptoms may influence the timing of imaging and surgery, and help predict the patient’s prognosis. Categories of CES attempt to group patients for management and prognostication purposes. We aimed in this study to assess the inter-rater reliability of dividing patients with CES into categories to assess whether they can be reliably applied in clinical practice and in research.

Aims

Gram-negative infections are associated with comorbid patients, but outcomes are less well understood. This study reviewed diagnosis, management, and treatment for a cohort treated in a tertiary spinal centre.

Purposes of the study and background. Clinical assessment of spinal function is a routine part of low back pain (LBP) assessment, yet there is no clear consensus on what constitutes ‘spinal dysfunction’ and how this informs treatment. This study's aims to develop a spinal function classification framework by gaining expert academic and clinical consensus on (i) spinal function assessment tests (ii) encountered LBP motor control/movement impairment (MCI/MI) sub-types (iii) their characteristics and (iii) exercises and feedback for each sub-type. Methods and Results. An online 2-round Delphi-survey of 4 world-leading academic experts and 36 clinical physiotherapists world-wide was employed. A five-point response scale was used to rate level of agreement on 174 items with a priori consensus defined by a ≠>80% level of agreement (LOA). Out of 15 spinal function assessment tests, 5 reached consensus with forward bend and sitting/standing tests highest scoring. 7 MCI/MI sub-types reached consensus as clinically encountered. 12 out of 128 of posture/movement descriptors within the 7 sub-types reached consensus. 7 exercises gained consensus in being considered as ‘important’ or ‘very important’ with exercises involving sitting, standing, forward bend scoring highest. Consensus was reached on MCI/MI sub-type specific exercises, compensation strategies and feedback to remedy these compensations. Conclusion. Academic and clinical expert consensus derived list of movement/posture descriptors, assessment tests and exercises considered clinically important provides a first to date, spinal function assessment classification framework for non-specific LBP. This offers a conceptual model for developing technologies (e.g. wearable sensors) to harness clinically useful information relating to spinal function, exercise performance and feedback for effective implementation of exercise therapies for non-specific LBP. No conflicts of interest. Sources of Funding: Health and Care Research Wales, RCBC Postdoctoral Research Fellowship

Background:. Identification of nerve root involvement (NRI) in patients with low back-related leg pain (LBLP) can be challenging. Diagnostic models have mainly been developed in secondary care with conflicting reference standards and predictor selection. This study aims to ascertain which cluster of items from clinical assessment best identify NRI in primary care consulters with LBLP. Methods:. Cross-sectional data on 395 LBLP consulters were analysed. Potential NRI indicators were seven clinical assessment items. Two definitions of NRI formed the reference standards: (i) high confidence (≥80%) NRI clinical diagnosis (ii) high confidence (≥80%) NRI clinical diagnosis with confirmatory magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings. Multivariable logistic regression models were constructed and compared for both reference standards. Model performances were summarised using the Hosmer-Lemeshow statistic and area under the curve (AUC). Bootstrapping assessed internal validity. Results:. NRI clinical diagnosis model retained five items. The model with MRI in the reference standard retained six items. Four items remained in both models: below knee pain, leg pain worse than back pain, positive neural tension tests, neurological deficit (myotome, reflex or sensory). NRI clinical diagnosis model was well calibrated (p=0.17) and discrimination was AUC 0.96 (95%CI: 0.93, 0.98). Performance measures for clinical diagnosis plus confirmatory MRI model showed good discrimination (AUC 0.83, 95% CI: 0.78, 0.86) but poor calibration (p=0.01). Bootstrapping revealed minimal overfitting in both models. Conclusion:. A cluster of items identified NRI in LBLP consulters. These criteria could be used clinically and in research to improve accuracy of identification and homogeneity of this subgroup of low back pain patients

Aims

The aim of the study was to determine if there was a direct correlation between the pain and disability experienced by patients and size of their disc prolapse, measured by the disc’s cross-sectional area on T2 axial MRI scans.

This review provides a concise outline of the advances made in the care of patients and to the quality of life after a traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI) over the last century. Despite these improvements reversal of the neurological injury is not yet possible. Instead, current treatment is limited to providing symptomatic relief, avoiding secondary insults and preventing additional sequelae. However, with an ever-advancing technology and deeper understanding of the damaged spinal cord, this appears increasingly conceivable. A brief synopsis of the most prominent challenges facing both clinicians and research scientists in developing functional treatments for a progressively complex injury are presented. Moreover, the multiple mechanisms by which damage propagates many months after the original injury requires a multifaceted approach to ameliorate the human spinal cord. We discuss potential methods to protect the spinal cord from damage, and to manipulate the inherent inhibition of the spinal cord to regeneration and repair. Although acute and chronic SCI share common final pathways resulting in cell death and neurological deficits, the underlying putative mechanisms of chronic SCI and the treatments are not covered in this review.

Purposes of study and background. The study aim is to evaluate the efficacy of dynamic MRI scanning in identifying radiological causes of positional sciatica over a 5-year period. Summary of methods used and the results. We describe the results of a prospective series of patients who completed open MRI scanning, indicated for lower back pain and positional sciatica. 40 open MRI scans were requested between March 2012 and March 2017. 31 patients were intolerant to conventional MRI Scanning due to either claustrophobia or the inability to lie flat. 9 patients were identified as having positional sciatica. All patients completed the Oswestry Disability Index as part of their clinical assessment. The MRI images and radiology report were reviewed to identify surgically relevant causes. Dynamic foraminal narrowing and a progressive disc protrusion were identified in 2 patients who presented with positional sciatica. 23% of patients who were scanned had positional sciatica. 5% of patients indicated for open MRI scanning demonstrated surgically relevant changes on dynamic MRI scanning. 22% of those with positional sciatica demonstrated surgically relevant pathology on dynamic scanning. Conclusion. The total number of patients having indications for open MRI scans over a 5- year period is low. Dynamic MRI scanning is effective in identifying surgically relevant causes in those patients presenting with positional sciatica. Conflicts of Interest: None. Sources of funding: None

Introduction. Monitoring of scoliosis is traditionally done with radiographs, which can be associated with an increased risk of cancer secondary to multiple exposures over many years. This study investigated whether the findings from surface topography can be used to monitor scoliosis curves and how much this method affects outcome scores in patients with scoliosis. This study therefore had two subsets: (1) to investigate whether lateral asymmetry (LA) from ISIS2 surface topography can predict radiographic Cobb angle, providing an alternative non-invasive means of monitoring patients with scoliosis (LA and Cobb subset); and (2) to establish the relationships between the magnitude of the deformity in scoliosis, measured by Cobb angle on radiograph and volumetric asymmetry (VA) with the ISIS2 surface topography, and the patient perception of self-image and mental health, measured with SRS-22 scores (Cobb, VA, and SRS subset). Methods. In the LA and Cobb subset, 72 untreated patients with scoliosis (77 curves) with a Cobb angle of 55° or less were included in the study. They had clinical assessment, Cobb angle measurement taken from a standard radiograph, and surface topography done on the same day. A comparison of Cobb angle and LA was done. In the Cobb, VA, and SRS subset, 89 untreated patients with scoliosis were included in the study. They had clinical assessment, Cobb angle measurement of radiograph, and surface topography done on the same day along with SRS-22 questionnaires. A comparison correlation of SRS scores for function, pain, self-image, and mental health against Cobb angle and VA was undertaken. All statistical analysis was done with software R. Results. In the LA and Cobb subset, for Cobb angle less than 55° on radiograph, ISIS2 was able to predict the Cobb angle within 13°. In the VA, Cobb, and SRS subset, Cobb angle contributed only about 10% to self-image, whereas VA contributed 14%. Cobb angle contributed about 6·2% to mental health, whereas VA contributed 8·6%. Conclusions. Cobb angles display poor reliability, with estimates ranging from 3° to 10°. Even so, the 95% CIs on the prediction of Cobb angle from ISIS2 LA are too wide to use it alone to monitor spinal curvature. Whether or not LA is capable of monitoring change in curvature will be investigated as more longitudinal data are built up. VA correlates better with both mental health and self-image than does Cobb angle, but the correlation is still poor. Neither Cobb angle nor VA can be used to predict patient's self-image or mental health. We are pursuing this study further to look at other parameters that may affect SRS-22 such as sex, age, type of deformity, waist asymmetry, and shoulder asymmetry

Purpose of study and background. Neuropathic pain is a challenging pain syndrome to manage. Low back-related leg pain (LBLP) is clinically diagnosed as either sciatica or referred leg pain and sciatica is often assumed to be neuropathic. Our aim was to describe the prevalence and characteristics of neuropathic pain in LBLP patients. Methods. Analysis of cross-sectional data from a prospective, primary care cohort of 609 LBLP patients. Patients completed questionnaires, and received clinical assessment including MRI. Neuropathic characteristics (NC) were measured using the self-report version of the Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs scale (SLANSS; score of ≥12 indicates pain with NC). Results. 52% of the patients diagnosed with sciatica and 39% of those diagnosed with referred leg pain presented with pain with NC. Irrespective of LBLP diagnosis, patients with NC reported significantly worse leg pain (mean 5.8 vs 4.7), back pain intensity (0.0 vs 0.0), disability (RMDQ 15.2 vs 12.4), high risk of persistent disabling pain (47.5% vs 31.5%), depression (HADS 7.3 vs 5.4) and anxiety (8.9 vs 6.7), compared to patients without NC. Sciatica patients with NC presented with higher leg pain (6.0 vs 4.8) and disability but less anxiety (8.6 vs 10.2) and depression compared to patients with referred pain with NC. Conclusion. LBLP patients with NC present with more severe pain, disability and psychological morbidity, but these characteristics differ according to clinical diagnosis, suggesting potential subgroups. The data will inform future research on the clinical course and prognosis of these patients. No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: Support for SA Harrisson, a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Clinical Doctoral Fellow and NE Foster, an NIHR Senior Investigator, was provided by an NIHR Research Professorship awarded to NE Foster (NIHR-RP-011-015). K Konstantinou is supported by a Higher Education Funding Council for England/ NIHR Senior Clinical Lectureship. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health

The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of using the intact S1 nerve root as a donor nerve to repair an avulsion of the contralateral lumbosacral plexus. Two cohorts of patients were recruited. In cohort 1, the L4–S4 nerve roots of 15 patients with a unilateral fracture of the sacrum and sacral nerve injury were stimulated during surgery to establish the precise functional distribution of the S1 nerve root and its proportional contribution to individual muscles. In cohort 2, the contralateral uninjured S1 nerve root of six patients with a unilateral lumbosacral plexus avulsion was transected extradurally and used with a 25 cm segment of the common peroneal nerve from the injured leg to reconstruct the avulsed plexus. The results from cohort 1 showed that the innervation of S1 in each muscle can be compensated for by L4, L5, S2 and S3. Numbness in the toes and a reduction in strength were found after surgery in cohort 2, but these symptoms gradually disappeared and strength recovered. The results of electrophysiological studies of the donor limb were generally normal. . Severing the S1 nerve root does not appear to damage the healthy limb as far as clinical assessment and electrophysiological testing can determine. Consequently, the S1 nerve can be considered to be a suitable donor nerve for reconstruction of an avulsed contralateral lumbosacral plexus. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B:358–65

Purpose and Background:. Clinical interpretations of Degenerative Lumbar Disc Disease are not described in the literature. The purpose of this study was to establish a consensus of expert clinical opinion in order to fuel further research. Methods:. A reliable and valid electronic survey was designed to include theoretical constructs relating to training and education, general knowledge, assessment and management practices. Clinicians from the Society of Back Pain Research U.K. were invited to take part. Quantitative data was collated and coded using Bristol on-line survey software, and content analysis was used to systematically code and categorize qualitative data. Results:. Respondents represented a wide range of clinical specialties. The majority graduated in the U.K. (87%), were clinically active and had greater than 9 years postgraduate clinical experience (84%). MRI (36%) and physical assessment (21%) were cited as the most important clinical assessment tools. Reduction in disc height (92%) and disc dehydration (90%) were reported as the most important variables with respect to DLDD diagnosis. The most effective treatment approaches varied from education and reassurance, pain management, cognitive behavioural approaches to core stability training and group activity. Health professionals viewed the future of care advancement in terms of improvements in patient communication (35%) and education (38%). Treatment stratification (24%) and advancing evidence based management practices through research were also regarded as essential (27%). Conclusion:. Spinal clinical experts have clear views on DLDD assessment. In terms of management the results are varied suggesting inconsistency and uncertainty

There is no universally agreed definition of cauda equina syndrome (CES). Clinical signs of CES including direct rectal examination (DRE) do not reliably correlate with cauda equina (CE) compression on MRI. Clinical assessment only becomes reliable if there are symptoms/signs of late, often irreversible, CES. The only reliable way of including or excluding CES is to perform MRI on all patients with suspected CES. If the diagnosis is being considered, MRI should ideally be performed locally in the District General Hospitals within one hour of the question being raised irrespective of the hour or the day. Patients with symptoms and signs of CES and MRI confirmed CE compression should be referred to the local spinal service for emergency surgery. CES can be subdivided by the degree of neurological deficit (bilateral radiculopathy, incomplete CES or CES with retention of urine) and also by time to surgical treatment (12, 24, 48 or 72 hour). There is increasing understanding that damage to the cauda equina nerve roots occurs in a continuous and progressive fashion which implies that there are no safe time or deficit thresholds. Neurological deterioration can occur rapidly and is often associated with longterm poor outcomes. It is not possible to predict which patients with a large central disc prolapse compressing the CE nerve roots are going to deteriorate neurologically nor how rapidly. Consensus guidelines from the Society of British Neurological Surgeons and British Association of Spinal Surgeons recommend decompressive surgery as soon as practically possible which for many patients will be urgent/emergency surgery at any hour of the day or night. . Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1390–4

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