This Article Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal My Folders Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Morgan-Hough, C. V. J. Articles by Eisenstein, S. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Morgan-Hough, C. V. J. Articles by Eisenstein, S. M.

Primary and revision lumbar discectomy

A 16-YEAR REVIEW FROM ONE CENTRE

¹ Department of Spinal Surgery, Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt Hospital, Oswestry, Shropshire SY10 7AY, UK.
² Department of Mathematics, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire ST5 5BG, UK.

Correspondence should be sent to Mrs C. V. J. Morgan-Hough.

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.