Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Jun;33(6):2206-2212.
doi: 10.1007/s00586-024-08199-5. Epub 2024 Mar 21.

The long-term outcome of revision microdiscectomy for recurrent sciatica

M B Lequin  1   2   3 , D Verbaan  4   5 , P R Schuurman  4   5 , Saskia Tasche  6 , W C Peul  7 , W P Vandertop  4   5 , G J Bouma  4   5   6
Affiliations

The long-term outcome of revision microdiscectomy for recurrent sciatica

M B Lequin et al. Eur Spine J. 2024 Jun.

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Discectomy; Neurosurgery; Operative procedure; Spine; Treatment outcome.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Arts M, Brand R, Van Den Akker E, Koes B, Bartels R, Tan WF, Peul W (2010) Tubular discectomy versus conventional microdiscectomy for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation: two year results of a double-blinded randomised controlled trial. In: spine conference publication: (var.pagings)
    1. Jensen RK, Kongsted A, Kjaer P, Koes B (2019) Diagnosis and treatment of sciatica. BMJ 367:l6273. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l6273 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lequin MB, Verbaan D, Jacobs WC, Brand R, Bouma GJ, Vandertop WP, Peul WC, Leiden-The Hague Spine Intervention Prognostic Study G, Wilco CP, Bart WK, Ralph TWMT, BvdH W, Ronald B (2013) Surgery versus prolonged conservative treatment for sciatica 5-year results of a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002534 - DOI - PubMed - PMC
    1. Lequin MB, Verbaan D, Schuurman PR, Tasche S, Peul WC, Vandertop WP, Bouma GJ (2022) Microdiscectomy for sciatica: reality check study of long-term surgical treatment effects of a Lumbosacral radicular syndrome (LSRS). Eur Spine J 31:400–407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-021-07074-x - DOI - PubMed
    1. Rothwell PM (2005) External validity of randomised controlled trials: “to whom do the results of this trial apply?” The Lancet 365:82–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(04)17670-8 - DOI

LinkOut - more resources