Cargando…

Primary and revision lumbar discectomy: A three-year review from one center

BACKGROUND: Despite variations in technique, the results of primary and revision lumbar discectomy have been good. The aim of this study was to retrospectively review cases of primary and revision lumbar discectomy performed in our institute over a three-year period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The case...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Acharya, KN, Nathan, TS Senthil, Kumar, J Renjit, Menon, K Venugopal
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications 2008
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759631/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19826524
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0019-5413.40254
_version_ 1782172695614455808
author Acharya, KN
Nathan, TS Senthil
Kumar, J Renjit
Menon, K Venugopal
author_facet Acharya, KN
Nathan, TS Senthil
Kumar, J Renjit
Menon, K Venugopal
author_sort Acharya, KN
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Despite variations in technique, the results of primary and revision lumbar discectomy have been good. The aim of this study was to retrospectively review cases of primary and revision lumbar discectomy performed in our institute over a three-year period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The case records of 273 patients who underwent lumbar discectomy between January 2001-2004 and fulfilled our inclusion and exclusion criteria were reviewed. Of these, 259 were primary discectomies and 14 were revision surgeries. Recurrence was defined as ipsilateral disc herniation at the previously operated level. Demographic parameters, magnetic resonance imaging of the disc, patient satisfaction and rate of recurrence were analyzed. RESULTS: The primary surgery group had 52 (20.08%) contained and 207 (79.92%) extruded or sequestered discs, while the numbers in the revision group were three (21.43%) and 11 (78.57%) respectively. “Satisfactory” outcome was noted in 96.5% of the primary surgeries, with a recurrence rate of 3.5%. In the revision group 78.6% had “satisfactory” outcome. In 9.4% of the primary group we encountered complications, while it was 21.43% in the revision group. CONCLUSIONS: Lumbar discectomy is a safe, simple and effective procedure with satisfactory outcome in 96.5% of primary disc surgery and 78.6% of revision disc surgery.
format Text
id pubmed-2759631
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2008
publisher Medknow Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-27596312009-10-13 Primary and revision lumbar discectomy: A three-year review from one center Acharya, KN Nathan, TS Senthil Kumar, J Renjit Menon, K Venugopal Indian J Orthop Original Article BACKGROUND: Despite variations in technique, the results of primary and revision lumbar discectomy have been good. The aim of this study was to retrospectively review cases of primary and revision lumbar discectomy performed in our institute over a three-year period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The case records of 273 patients who underwent lumbar discectomy between January 2001-2004 and fulfilled our inclusion and exclusion criteria were reviewed. Of these, 259 were primary discectomies and 14 were revision surgeries. Recurrence was defined as ipsilateral disc herniation at the previously operated level. Demographic parameters, magnetic resonance imaging of the disc, patient satisfaction and rate of recurrence were analyzed. RESULTS: The primary surgery group had 52 (20.08%) contained and 207 (79.92%) extruded or sequestered discs, while the numbers in the revision group were three (21.43%) and 11 (78.57%) respectively. “Satisfactory” outcome was noted in 96.5% of the primary surgeries, with a recurrence rate of 3.5%. In the revision group 78.6% had “satisfactory” outcome. In 9.4% of the primary group we encountered complications, while it was 21.43% in the revision group. CONCLUSIONS: Lumbar discectomy is a safe, simple and effective procedure with satisfactory outcome in 96.5% of primary disc surgery and 78.6% of revision disc surgery. Medknow Publications 2008 /pmc/articles/PMC2759631/ /pubmed/19826524 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0019-5413.40254 Text en © Indian Journal of Psychiatry http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Acharya, KN
Nathan, TS Senthil
Kumar, J Renjit
Menon, K Venugopal
Primary and revision lumbar discectomy: A three-year review from one center
title Primary and revision lumbar discectomy: A three-year review from one center
title_full Primary and revision lumbar discectomy: A three-year review from one center
title_fullStr Primary and revision lumbar discectomy: A three-year review from one center
title_full_unstemmed Primary and revision lumbar discectomy: A three-year review from one center
title_short Primary and revision lumbar discectomy: A three-year review from one center
title_sort primary and revision lumbar discectomy: a three-year review from one center
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759631/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19826524
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0019-5413.40254
work_keys_str_mv AT acharyakn primaryandrevisionlumbardiscectomyathreeyearreviewfromonecenter
AT nathantssenthil primaryandrevisionlumbardiscectomyathreeyearreviewfromonecenter
AT kumarjrenjit primaryandrevisionlumbardiscectomyathreeyearreviewfromonecenter
AT menonkvenugopal primaryandrevisionlumbardiscectomyathreeyearreviewfromonecenter