1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Qatar Medical Journal
  4. Volume 2008, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 2008, Issue 2
  • ISSN: 0253-8253
  • EISSN: 2227-0426

Abstract

Background of the Study: The clinical experience that there is a great variability in the ease of performing lumbar microdiscectomy, in particular while instructing the trainee surgeons.

Objective: To determine the role of the pre operative symptoms, it is duration and the radiological findings on influencing the procedure of lumbar microdiscectomy for a single lumbar disc prolapse.

Method: A prospective study of 82 patients with a single level lumbar disc prolapse included the analysis and correlation of clinical and radiological factors: age, sex, height, weight, type of physical work, presenting symptoms and their duration, the level and status of the disc prolapse - to the intra-operative findings of epidural vein dilatation, degree of fibrosis, and the duration of operation. The data were subjected to detailed analysis by using the statistical package of Social Science (SPSS/PC) Release 10.

Results: Thirty two percent of patients had significantlydilated epidural veins; their presence was influenced by the predominance of low back pain and the duration of symptoms. A third (34%) of patients had appreciable fibrosis at the surgical site, again influenced by low back pain, duration of symptoms and radiological findings of obstruction and bony abnormalities. In 37% of the patients the blood loss was in excess of 100 ml seen in patients with a profile similar to those with significant fibrosis. The procedure of microdiscectomy lasted longer than 120 minutes in 34% of patients whose predominant symptom was low back pain with prolonged duration of symptoms and abnormal x-ray findings.

Conclusion: The patient's preoperative clinical presentation and the radiological appearance of the prolapsed disc can affect significantly the microsurgical procedure. The short history of illness with more pronounced leg pain in the absence of bony abnormalities would favor easier operation; while Lumbar microdiscectomy is expected to be a difficult procedure in patients with low back pain as predominant symptom lasting for longer than 12 months and in whom the disc prolapsed is central or who showed additional bony abnormalities.

© 2008 Al Anzi, licensee Bloomsbury Qatar Foundation Journals.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5339/qmj.2008.2.16
2008-12-01
2024-11-08
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Davis RA. A long term outcome analysis 984 surgically treated herniated lumbar discs. J Neurosurgery. 1994; 80::415–421.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Keller RB, Atlaz SJ, Joule D, Singer DE, Deyo RA. Relationship between rates and outcomes of operative treatment for lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999; 18::752–762.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Prolo DJ, Oklund SA, Butcher M. Toward uniformity in evaluating results of the lumbar spine operationA paradigm applied to posterior lumbar interbody fusion, spine. 1986; 11:601–606.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Caspar W, Campbell B, Babier D, Kretsch Murer R, Golfried Y. The Caspar microsurgical discectomy and comparison with a conventional standard lumbardisc surgery procedure. Neurosurgery. 1991; 28::78–87.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Crock HV. Observations on management of failed spinal operations. J Bone Joint Surg. 1976; 58 B: 2::193–199.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Pappas CTE, Harrington T, Sonntag VKH. Outcome analysis in 654 surgically treated lumbar disc herniation. NS. 1992; 30::862–866.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Thome C, Barth M, Scharf J, Schmiedek P. Outcome after lumbar sequestrectomy compared with microdiscectomy: A prospective randomized study. J Neurosurg Spine. 2005; 3::271–278.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Hurme M, Alaranta H. Factor predicting the result of surgery for lumbar intervertebral disc herniation. Spine. 1987; 12::933–938.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Junge A, Dvorak J, Ahrens S. Predictions of bad and good outcome of lumbar discs surgery: A prospective clinical study with recommendations for screening to avoid bad outcome. Spine. 1995; 15:460–480.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Kiwarski J. Factors determining results of surgical treatment for lumbar spine syndrome. Chir Nazadow Ruchue Orthop Pol. 1996; 3::224–236.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Nervenarzt: Microsurgery of lumbar disc prolapse, super results of microsurgery as compared to standard and percutaneous procedure (review of literature). 2000: 71: 265-274.
  12. Shannon N, Paul EA. L4-5, L5-S1 disc protrusion: Analysis of 323 cases operated on over 12 years. J Neurol, NS, Psychiatry. 1979; 42::804–809.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Kutilainen E, Alanen A, Erkintalo M, Voltanens , Kormano M. Association between decrease disc surgical intensity in preoperative T2 noted MR1 and 15-year outcome after lumbar minimally invasive discectomy. Minimi Invasive Neurosur. 2000; 1:31–36.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Gurdijean ES, Webster JE, Ostrovski AZ. Herniated lumbar intervertebral discs; an analysis of 1176 operated cases. J Trauma. 1961; 1::158–176.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Dvork J, Cauchat MH, Valach L. The outcome of surgery for lumbar disc herniation. Spine. 1988; 13::1418–1422.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Fager CA. Lumbar microdiscectomy: A contrary opinion. Clin Neurosurg. 1986; 33::419–456.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Benzel EC. Vascular injury in lumbar intraventricular surgery. J Neurosurgery. 2001; 95:suppl 1:152.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Jensen RL. Cauda equina syndrome as a postoperative complication of lumbar spine surgery. Neurosurg Focus. 2004; 6::15–16.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Eismont FJ, Wiesel SW, Rothman RH. Treatment of dural tears associated with spinal surgery. J Bone Joint Surg. 1981; 63A::1132.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Pospiech I, Kocks W, Kaiff R. Intraoperative complications in lumbar inter-vertebral disc surgery. A Ktuelle Probl, Chir Ortho P. 1994; 43::153–155.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Wood JP. Lumbar disc surgery: Complications. J Am Osetopath Assoc. 1974; 3::234–240.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Hirabayashi S, Kumana K, Ogaulay , Gotof , Machiro S. Microdiscectomy and second operation for lumbar discs herniation. Spine. 1993; 15:2206–2211.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Carragee EJ, Han MY, Suen PW, Kim D. Clinical outcomes after lumbar discectomy for sciatica: the effects of fragment type and anular competence. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003; 85A: 1::102.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Burton CV. The etiology of the “Failed Back Surgery Syndrome Chapter II in Canthen JC, ed. Lumbar spine surgery: Indication, Technique, failures and alternative. Baltimore, Williams & Wilkins 1983. Standard lumbar disc procedure. Neurosurg. 1991; 1::78–87.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Porchet F, Vincent W, Bernard B. Relationship between severity of lumbar disc disease and disability scores in sciatica patients. Neurosurgery. 2002; 50::1253.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.5339/qmj.2008.2.16
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Epidural Veins, Fibrosis, Microdiscectomy, Symptoms and X-ray findings

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error