The long-term outcome of revision microdiscectomy for recurrent sciatica.

PURPOSE: To study the long-term outcome of revision microdiscectomy after classic microdiscectomy for lumbosacral radicular syndrome (LSRS). METHODS: Eighty-eight of 216 patients (41%) who underwent a revision microdiscectomy between 2007 and 2010 for MRI disc-related LSRS participated in this study. Questionnaires included visual analogue scores (VAS) for leg pain, RDQ, OLBD, RAND-36, and seven-point Likert scores for recovery, leg pain, and back pain. Any further lumbar re-revision operation(s) were recorded. RESULTS: Mean (SD) age was 59.8 (12.8), and median [IQR] time of follow-up was 10.0 years [9.0-11.0]. A favourable general perceived recovery was reported by 35 patients (40%). A favourable outcome with respect to perceived leg pain was present in 39 patients (45%), and 35 patients (41%) reported a favourable outcome concerning back pain. The median VAS for leg and back pain was worse in the unfavourable group (48.0/100 mm (IQR 16.0-71.0) vs. 3.0/100 mm (IQR 2.0-5.0) and 56.0/100 mm (IQR 27.0-74.0) vs. 4.0/100 mm (IQR 2.0-17.0), respectively; both p < 0.001). Re-revision operation occurred in 31 (35%) patients (24% same level same side); there was no significant difference in the rate of favourable outcome between patients with or without a re-revision operation. CONCLUSION: The long-term results after revision microdiscectomy for LSRS show an unfavourable outcome in the majority of patients and a high risk of re-revision microdiscectomy, with similar results. Based on also the disappointing results of alternative treatments, revision microdiscectomy for recurrent LSRS seems to still be a valid treatment. The results of our study may be useful to counsel patients in making appropriate treatment choices.

Microdiscectomy for sciatica: reality check study of long-term surgical treatment effects of a Lumbosacral radicular syndrome (LSRS).

PURPOSE: It remains unclear whether the long-term results of RCTs regarding the outcome of microdiscectomy for lumbosacral radicular syndrome (LSRS) are generalizable. The purpose of this study was to determine the external validity of the outcome preseneted in RCTs after microdicectomy for LSRS in a patient cohort from a high-volume spine center. METHODS: Between 2007 and 2010, 539 patients had a single level microdiscectomy for MRI disk-related LSRS of whom 246 agreed to participate. Questionnaires included visual analogue scores (VAS) for leg pain, RDQ, OLBD, RAND-36 and Likert scores for recovery, leg and back pain. Lumbar re-operation(s) were registered. RESULTS: Mean age was 51.3, and median time of follow-up was 8.0 years. Re-operation occurred in 64 (26%) patients. Unfavorable perceived recovery was noted in 85 (35%) patients, and they had worse leg and back pain than the 161 (65%) patients with a favorable recovery: median VAS for leg pain 28/100 mm versus 2/100 mm and median VAS for back pain 9/100 mm versus 3/100 mm, respectively. In addition, the median RDQ and OLBD scores differed significantly: 9 vs 3 for RDQ and 26 vs 4 for OLBD, respectively (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In this cohort study, the long-term results after microdiscectomy for LSRS were less favorable than those obtained in RCTs, possibly caused by less strict patient selection than in RCTs. Our findings emphasize that patients, who do not meet the same inclusion criteria for surgery as in RCTs, should be informed about the chances of a less favorable result.