We reported the first single surgeon series comparing outcome of microscopic and open primary single level unilateral lumbar decompression or discectomy. We aimed to determine any difference in outcomes between the two techniques.

Forty-six decompressions were performed with use of an operating microscope (microscopic), and forty without (open) at two different hospitals. All procedures were performed by the senior author. Information was obtained by analysis of the patients' notes. The average age of the patients in both groups was comparable. Operating time was shorter in the microscopic group (68min, range 30-130) compared to the open group (83 mins, range 30-180). Dural tear rate was 4.3% with use of a microscope (0% symptomatic dural tear rate) and 7.5% without (2.5% symptomatic dural tear rate). Nerve damage incidence was 0% with use of a microscope and 5% (two patients) without. One of these was a neurapraxia and the patient made a full recovery. Wound infection rates, diagnosed on grounds of clinical suspicion, were 4.3% and 2.5% for microscopic and open respectively. There were no incidences of deep infection or post-operative discitis. Average inpatient stay was under 48 hours in both groups.

Using the modified Macnab criteria, results using the microscope were 0% poor, 14% fair, 32% good, and 55% excellent. The results for the open group were 0% poor, 10% fair, 37% good and 53% excellent. Average follow-up was six months (1-19) for the microscope group, and seven months (2-16) for the open group.

We conclude that primary single level unilateral lumbar decompressive surgery, performed without the use of a microscope, has a higher dural tear rate than the same surgery performed with the benefit of an operating microscope. Surgical time and incidence of nerve damage are also reduced by use of the microscope.

Thromboprophylaxis remains a controversial issue and many disagree about the optimum method or even if it is required at all.

We present a new method of performing meta-analysis incorporating studies with both experimental and observational study designs. We have developed a model that compares study cohorts of several different methods of thromboprophylaxis with a simulated matched control group whose variance helps to adjust for bias. This allows meaningful comparisons between studies and treatments that have not been directly compared.

We performed a systematic review of the literature from 1981 to October 2004. Studies where more than one method of prophylaxis was used were excluded from analysis. For each individual method of prophylaxis, data was extracted, combined and converted to give estimates of the rates of symptomatic, proximal DVT, fatal PE and major bleeding events. We identified 1242 studies of which 203 met the inclusion criteria for further analysis. This represented the results of over fifty thousand studied patients. We expressed the results for the different prophylactic methods as odds ratios compared to no prophylaxis.

All methods showed a beneficial effect in reducing VTEs apart from stockings and aspirin which showed an increase in the number of PE events. These results are particularly interesting when viewed from the standpoint of an individual NHS hospital trust that performs around 500 hip and knee replacements per year. Over a 5 year period, the more effective methods of prophylaxis prevented between 15 and 40 symptomatic DVTs and up to 3 fatal PEs compared to no treatment. However, they cause between 8 and 40 more major bleeding events. We do not know the proportion of these major bleeding events that are fatal.