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. Methods. A retrospective study was conducted using prospectively collected data and patient-reported outcome measures, including the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), between 2008 and 2019. Postoperative sRDH was identified from clinical notes and the centre’s MRI database, with all imaging providers in the region checked for missing events. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate five-year sRDH incidence. Cox proportional hazards model was used to identify independent variables predictive of sRDH, with any variable not significant at the p < 0.1 level removed. Hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results. Complete baseline data capture was available for 733 of 754 (97.2%) consecutive patients. Median follow-up time for censored patients was 2.2 years (interquartile range (IQR) 1.0 to 5.0). sRDH occurred in 63 patients at a median 0.8 years (IQR 0.5 to 1.7) after surgery. The five-year Kaplan-Meier estimate for sRDH was 12.1% (95% CI 9.5 to 15.4), sRDH reoperation was 7.5% (95% CI 5.5 to 10.2), and any-procedure reoperation was 14.1% (95% CI 11.1 to 17.5). Current smoker (HR 2.12 (95% CI 1.26 to 3.56)) and higher preoperative ODI (HR 1.02 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.03)) were independent risk factors associated with sRDH. Current smoker (HR 2.15 (95% CI 1.12 to 4.09)) was an independent risk factor for sRDH reoperation. Conclusion. This is one of the largest series to date which has identified current smoker and higher preoperative disability as independent risk factors for sRDH. Current smoker was an independent risk factor for sRDH reoperation. These findings are important for spinal surgeons and rehabilitation specialists in risk assessment, consenting patients, and perioperative management. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(3):315–322

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. Methods. Patients were asked to prospectively complete visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores on the day of their MRI scan. All patients with primary disc herniation were included. Exclusion criteria included recurrent disc herniation, cauda equina syndrome, or any other associated spinal pathology. T2 weighted MRI scans were reviewed on picture archiving and communications software. The T2 axial image showing the disc protrusion with the largest cross sectional area was used for measurements. The area of the disc and canal were measured at this level. The size of the disc was measured as a percentage of the cross-sectional area of the spinal canal on the chosen image. The VAS leg pain and ODI scores were each correlated with the size of the disc using the Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC). Intraobserver reliability for MRI measurement was assessed using the interclass correlation coefficient (ICC). We assessed if the position of the disc prolapse (central, lateral recess, or foraminal) altered the symptoms described by the patient. The VAS and ODI scores from central and lateral recess disc prolapses were compared. Results. A total of 56 patients (mean age 41.1 years (22.8 to 70.3)) were included. A high degree of intraobserver reliability was observed for MRI measurement: single measure ICC was 0.99 (95% confidence interval (CI) from 0.97 to 0.99 (p < 0.001)). The PCC comparing VAS leg scores with canal occupancy for herniated disc was 0.056. The PCC comparing ODI for herniated disc was 0.070. We found 13 disc prolapses centrally and 43 lateral recess prolapses. There were no foraminal prolapses in this group. The position of the prolapse was not found to be related to the mean VAS score or ODI experienced by the patients (VAS, p = 0.251; ODI, p = 0.093). Conclusion. The results of the statistical analysis show that there is no direct correlation between the size or position of the disc prolapse and a patient’s symptoms. The symptoms experienced by patients should be the primary concern in deciding to perform discectomy. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(6):715–720

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.

Aims

The purpose of this study was to investigate the risk of additional surgery in the lumbar spine and to describe long-term changes in patient-reported outcomes after surgery for lumbar disc herniation in adolescents and young adults.

Little information is available about the incidence and outcome of incidental dural tears associated with microendoscopic lumbar decompressive surgery. We prospectively examined the incidence of dural tears and their influence on the outcome six months post-operatively in 555 consecutive patients (mean age 47.4 years (13 to 89)) who underwent this form of surgery. The incidence of dural tears was 5.05% (28/555). The risk factors were the age of the patient and the procedure of bilateral decompression via a unilateral approach. The rate of recovery of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association score in patients with dural tears was significantly lower than that in those without a tear (77.7% vs 87.6%; p < 0.02), although there were no significant differences in the improvement of the Oswestry Disability Index between the two groups. Most dural tears were small, managed by taking adequate care of symptoms of low cerebrospinal fluid pressure, and did not require direct dural repair. Routine MRI scans were undertaken six months post-operatively; four patients with a dural tear had recurrent or residual disc herniation and two had further stenosis, possibly because the dural tear prevented adequate decompression and removal of the fragments of disc during surgery; as yet, none of these patients have undergone further surgery.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:641–5.

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.

Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) is indicated for many patients with pain and/or instability of the lumbar spine. We performed 36 PLIF procedures using the patient’s lumbar spinous process and laminae, which were inserted as a bone graft between two vertebral bodies without using a cage. The mean lumbar lordosis and mean disc height to vertebral body ratio were restored and preserved after surgery. There were no serious complications.

These results suggest that this procedure is safe and effective.

Recurrence of back or leg pain after discectomy is a well-recognised problem with an incidence of up to 28%. Once conservative measures have failed, several surgical options are available and have been tried with varying degrees of success. In this study, 42 patients with recurrent symptoms after discectomy underwent less invasive posterior lumbar interbody fusion (LI-PLIF). Clinical outcome was measured using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Short Form 36 (SF-36) questionnaires and visual analogue scales for back (VAS-BP) and leg pain (VAS-LP). There was a statistically significant improvement in all outcome measures (p < 0.001). The debate around which procedure is the most effective for these patients remains controversial.

Our results show that LI-PLIF is as effective as any other surgical procedure. However, given that it is less invasive, we feel that it should be considered as the preferred option.

Between March 2000 and February 2006, we carried out a prospective study of 100 patients with a low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis (Meyerding grade II or below), who were randomised to receive a single-level and instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion with either one or two cages. The minimum follow-up was for two years. At this stage 91 patients were available for review. A total of 47 patients received one cage (group 1) and 44 two cages (group 2). The clinical and radiological outcomes of the two groups were compared.

There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of post-operative pain, Oswestry Disability Score, clinical results, complication rate, percentage of post-operative slip, anterior fusion rate or posterior fusion rate. On the other hand, the mean operating time was 144 minutes (100 to 240) for patients in group 1 and 167 minutes (110 to 270) for those in group 2 (p = 0.0002). The mean blood loss up to the end of the first post-operative day was 756 ml (510 to 1440) in group 1 and 817 ml (620 to 1730) in group 2 (p < 0.0001).

Our results suggest that an instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion performed with either one or two cages in addition to a bone graft around the cage has a low rate of complications and a high fusion rate. The clinical outcomes were good in most cases, regardless of whether one or two cages had been used.

Studies on recurrent disc herniation quote rates of recurrence without regard to the times of recurrence and the influence of longer follow-up. Our objective was to assess the use of survival analysis to measure the rate of revision after lumbar microdiscectomy. We undertook a retrospective analysis of the hospital records of 993 patients who underwent lumbar microdiscectomy over a period of ten years. After calculating the overall rate of revision for the mean length of follow-up, we carried out a survival analysis using the life-table method. During the study period 49 patients had a revision microdiscectomy. This gave an overall rate of revision of 4.9% at a mean follow-up of 5.25 years. Using survival analysis, the rate of revision was 7.9% at a follow-up of ten years when the number at risk was 84. Survival analysis gives a more accurate estimation of the true rate of recurrence for patients undergoing lumbar microdiscectomy. The method allows better comparison between different interventions for disc herniation

We analysed prospectively 26 patients who had revision operations for ipsilateral recurrent radicular pain after a period of pain relief of more than six months following primary discectomy. They were assessed before the initial operation, between the two procedures and at a minimum of two years after reoperation. MRI was performed before primary discectomy and reoperation. Fifty consecutive patients who had a disc excision during the study period but did not have recurrent radicular pain, were analysed as a control group. Of the study group 42% related the onset of recurrent radicular pain to an isolated injury or a precipitating event, but none of the control group did so (p < 0.001). T2-weighted MRI performed before primary discectomy showed that patients in the study group had significantly more severe disc degeneration compared with the control group (p = 0.02). Intraoperative findings revealed recurrent disc herniation in 24 patients and bulging of the disc in two, one of whom also had lateral stenosis. Epidural scarring was found to be abundant, intraoperatively and on MRI, in eight and in nine patients, respectively. At the last follow-up, the clinical outcome was satisfactory in 85% of patients in the study group and in 88% of the control group (p > 0.05). Work or daily activities had been resumed at the same level as before the onset of symptoms by 81% of the patients in the study group and 84% of the control group. No correlation was found between the amount of epidural fibrosis, as seen intraoperatively and on MRI, and the result of surgery. The recurrence of radicular pain caused no significant changes in the psychological profile compared with the assessment before the primary discectomy

In a prospective, consecutive study 93 patients who had had previous lumbar spinal surgery underwent repeat decompression for persistent or recurrent back and leg pain. The previous operations had been discectomies in 65 patients and decompression for spinal stenosis in 28; two of the latter group had also had posterolateral fusion. At the repeat operation, disc herniation was found in 19 patients, lateral spinal stenosis in 19, central spinal stenosis in 20 and periradicular fibrosis in 35. Ninety-one patients were followed up for two years after surgery; the effect of the operation was recorded using a four-scale grading system. The results were significantly related to the diagnosis. Nerve-root compression due to recurrent disc herniation or to bony compression responded well to repeat decompression. In patients with a single nerve-root compression the results were similar to those obtained in primary operations. Sciatica due to nerve-root scarring was seldom improved by the repeat operation