No abstract

A wrong surgical indication, rather than failure of the prosthesis, appears to be the main cause of unsatisfactory results of disc replacement at medium-term evaluations. Prospective and longer term studies are needed to establish whether disc prosthesis may offer advantages compared with spinal fusion.

No abstract

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.

We assigned 67 patients with central lumbar stenosis alternately to either multiple laminotomy or total laminectomy. The protocol, however, allowed multiple laminotomy to be changed to total laminectomy if it was thought that the former procedure might not give adequate neural decompression. There were therefore three treatment groups: group I consisting of 26 patients submitted to multiple laminotomy; group II, 9 patients scheduled for laminotomy but submitted to laminectomy; and group III, 32 patients scheduled for, and submitted to, laminectomy. The mean follow-up was 3.7 years. Bilateral laminotomy at two or three levels required a longer mean operating time than total laminectomy at an equal number of levels. The mean blood loss at surgery and the clinical results did not differ in the three groups. The mean subjective improvement score for low back pain was higher in group I but there was also a higher incidence of neural complications in this group. No patient in group I had postoperative vertebral instability, whereas this occurred in three patients in groups II and III, who had lumbar scoliosis or degenerative spondylolisthesis preoperatively. Multiple laminotomy is recommended for all patients with developmental stenosis and for those with mild to moderate degenerative stenosis or degenerative spondylolisthesis. Total laminectomy is to be preferred for patients with severe degenerative stenosis or marked degenerative spondylolisthesis.