Functional Outcome of Lumbar Discectomy by Fenestration Technique in Lumbar Disc Prolapse – Return to Work and Relief of Pain

The Functional and Economic Outcome of Lumber Discectomy: A Comparative Study of Fenestration Discectomy Versus Hemilaminectomy and Discectomy

“…Our results in fenestration group were comparable with Ujjwal et al [8] who stated that; according to PROLO economical scale, (72%) of cases could work at their previous job without any recurrences while (12%) were able to work at previous occupation but part time or limited status while (16%) cases were able to work but had to abandon their previous occupation. In our study 15% of fenestration group and 22% of hemilaminectomy group was able to return back to their previous job but in part time or with limited effort, while the rest of the patients were able to work but they changed their previous jobs.…”

“…This is also comparable with Ujwal et al [8] study in which they recorded that 88% of their patients were relieved of pain at the end of 6 months.…”

“…SLRT was positive in all cases while cross leg raising test was positive in 37.8% of cases; this is comparable to study done by Ujwal et al [8]. Sensory deficit was elicited in 42.3% of the patients; motor deficit in 60.4% and diminished ankle reflex was founded in 20.7%.…”

“…We compare both procedures in the following points: Duration of operation: In the fenestration group, the mean operative time was 69.13 ± 8.96 min which was significantly shorter than the hemilaminectomy group which was 78.66 ± 10.31 min (pvalue >0.001), this is can be attributed to less soft tissue dissection, minimal bonny procedure with flavectomy and smaller incision which need less time for closure. Ujwal et al [8] in their study reported 75 min as a mean operative time for fenestration discectomy. A study done by Adam et al [10] showed significant shorter operative time with fenestration (mean time was 70 min) than the time of laminectomy (mean time 105 min).…”

“…Six months postoperatively, the score is significantly improved in both procedures economically and functionally (p-value less than 0.001). PROLO score assessed the patient economically and functionally and it describes more details than other score systems like Macnabs, although the end score of both systems are the same [8]. PROLO score when created in 1986, it was for evaluation of vertebral interbody fusion, this rating scale is easily applicable and can delineate pre-and postoperative conditions of patients on a semi quantitative basis [13].…”