Abstract
Objective: To identify risk factors associated with patients that required revision surgery for sciatica.
Design: A retrospective study of 580 patients who underwent surgery for intractable sciatica attributable to pro-lapsed lumbar intervertebral disc from 1986 to 2000 inclusive.
Subjects: The study included a total of 580 patients. Of these seven patients had an operation at two levels, 25 patients had had a primary operation elsewhere and were therefore excluded; four sets of notes remain missing. The total number of primary operations analysed was therefore 558.
Outcome measures: Parameters such as gender, age, level and side of discectomy were entered into a database for analysis. Diagnostic and clinical parameters were also entered; these included the value of the angle of the straight leg raise recorded and absence or presence of neurological deficit (altered sensation, reduced motor power, and absent or diminished reflexes). Operative findings recorded and entered were the type of disc at operation (i. e. protrusion, extrusion and sequestration) and the presence of free cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), however minor, indicating a dural tear.
Results: The total number of primary discectomies was 558 of which 43 went on to require a second operation, giving a revision rate of 7.71%. Of the primary discectomies, 356 were protrusions, 92 extrusions and 110 sequestration. Of the 43 that went onto revision surgery, 35 were protrusions, two extrusion and six sequestration. A significant association was found with primary disc protrusions, this type of disc prolapse was almost three times more likely to go on to need revision surgery compared to extruded or sequestrated discs. Data analysed on primary protrusions showed these patients had a significantly greater straight leg raise angle and reduced incidence of positive neurological findings and so could be identified clinically.
Conclusions: This lead us to conclude that the group of patients with primary protrusions could be selected out and treated conservatively since they are three times more likely to require revision surgery.
Abstracts prepared by Mr. A. J. Stirling, FRCS, and Miss A. Weaver. Correspondence should be addressed to Miss A. Weaver at the Research and Teaching Centre, Royal Orthopaedic Hospital, Northfield, Birmingham, B31 2AP, UK
BritSpine 2002, the second combined meeting of the British Association of Spinal Surgeons, the British Cervical Spine Society, The British Scoliosis Society and the Society for Back Pain Research, took place at the International Convention Centre in Birmingham UK between 27th February and 1st March 2002. The following presentations and posters were given and displayed.
