Primary and revision lumbar discectomy: a three-year review from one center
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. The case records of 273 patients who underwe...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Indian journal of orthopaedics 2008-04, Vol.42 (2), p.178-181 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 181 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 178 |
| container_title | Indian journal of orthopaedics |
| container_volume | 42 |
| creator | Acharya, K N Nathan, T S Senthil Kumar, J Renjit Menon, K Venugopal |
| description | 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.
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.
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.
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. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.4103/0019-5413.40254 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_2759631</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A177906020</galeid><sourcerecordid>A177906020</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c517t-45e184554728e3503bbbaaca7736e7a0337b040196b12ad970c430212eba6083</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptks9rFDEUx4Modq2evUlQ0NNs8zsTD0IpWqWFeug9ZGbedFNmJjWZqex_b-IubVckh0De532T980XobeUrAUl_IQQaiopKF8LwqR4hlbUmLrimunnaPVQPUKvUrolRDLN1Et0RE3NlGRihS5-Rj-6uMVu6nCEe598mPCwjI2LuPOphXYO4_YzdnjeRIBqC7lQQPiN-xhGHCbALUwzxNfoRe-GBG_2-zG6_vb1-ux7dXl1_uPs9LJqJdVzJSTQWkgpNKuBS8KbpnGudVpzBdoRznVDRH66aihzndGkFZwwyqBxitT8GH3Zyd4tzQhduTu6wd7tBrHBeXtYmfzG3oR7y7Q0itMs8GkvEMOvBdJsxzLoMLgJwpKs5lwYpTXJ5Pt_yNuwxCkPZ2uVvZSGFOjDDrpxA1g_9SHf2hZJe0q1NkQRVqj1f6i8Ohh9m03sfT4_aPj4pGEDbpg3KQzLnD8oHYInO7CNIaUI_YMVlNiSEltyYEsO7N-U5I53Tx185Pex4H8Anqm0Jg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>862725900</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Primary and revision lumbar discectomy: a three-year review from one center</title><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Acharya, K N ; Nathan, T S Senthil ; Kumar, J Renjit ; Menon, K Venugopal</creator><creatorcontrib>Acharya, K N ; Nathan, T S Senthil ; Kumar, J Renjit ; Menon, K Venugopal</creatorcontrib><description>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.
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.
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.
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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0019-5413</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1998-3727</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.4103/0019-5413.40254</identifier><identifier>PMID: 19826524</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Switzerland: Medknow Publications and Media Pvt. Ltd</publisher><subject>Care and treatment ; Diagnosis ; Discectomy ; Health aspects ; Hernia ; Intervertebral disk ; Intervertebral disk displacement ; Original ; Physiological aspects ; Risk factors ; Vertebrae, Lumbar</subject><ispartof>Indian journal of orthopaedics, 2008-04, Vol.42 (2), p.178-181</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2008 Medknow Publications and Media Pvt. Ltd.</rights><rights>Copyright Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd Apr 2008</rights><rights>Indian Journal of Psychiatry 2008</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c517t-45e184554728e3503bbbaaca7736e7a0337b040196b12ad970c430212eba6083</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759631/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759631/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,27924,27925,53791,53793</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19826524$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Acharya, K N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nathan, T S Senthil</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kumar, J Renjit</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Menon, K Venugopal</creatorcontrib><title>Primary and revision lumbar discectomy: a three-year review from one center</title><title>Indian journal of orthopaedics</title><addtitle>Indian J Orthop</addtitle><description>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.
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.
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.
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.</description><subject>Care and treatment</subject><subject>Diagnosis</subject><subject>Discectomy</subject><subject>Health aspects</subject><subject>Hernia</subject><subject>Intervertebral disk</subject><subject>Intervertebral disk displacement</subject><subject>Original</subject><subject>Physiological aspects</subject><subject>Risk factors</subject><subject>Vertebrae, Lumbar</subject><issn>0019-5413</issn><issn>1998-3727</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2008</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNptks9rFDEUx4Modq2evUlQ0NNs8zsTD0IpWqWFeug9ZGbedFNmJjWZqex_b-IubVckh0De532T980XobeUrAUl_IQQaiopKF8LwqR4hlbUmLrimunnaPVQPUKvUrolRDLN1Et0RE3NlGRihS5-Rj-6uMVu6nCEe598mPCwjI2LuPOphXYO4_YzdnjeRIBqC7lQQPiN-xhGHCbALUwzxNfoRe-GBG_2-zG6_vb1-ux7dXl1_uPs9LJqJdVzJSTQWkgpNKuBS8KbpnGudVpzBdoRznVDRH66aihzndGkFZwwyqBxitT8GH3Zyd4tzQhduTu6wd7tBrHBeXtYmfzG3oR7y7Q0itMs8GkvEMOvBdJsxzLoMLgJwpKs5lwYpTXJ5Pt_yNuwxCkPZ2uVvZSGFOjDDrpxA1g_9SHf2hZJe0q1NkQRVqj1f6i8Ohh9m03sfT4_aPj4pGEDbpg3KQzLnD8oHYInO7CNIaUI_YMVlNiSEltyYEsO7N-U5I53Tx185Pex4H8Anqm0Jg</recordid><startdate>20080401</startdate><enddate>20080401</enddate><creator>Acharya, K N</creator><creator>Nathan, T S Senthil</creator><creator>Kumar, J Renjit</creator><creator>Menon, K Venugopal</creator><general>Medknow Publications and Media Pvt. Ltd</general><general>Medknow Publications & Media Pvt. Ltd</general><general>Medknow Publications</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PADUT</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20080401</creationdate><title>Primary and revision lumbar discectomy: a three-year review from one center</title><author>Acharya, K N ; Nathan, T S Senthil ; Kumar, J Renjit ; Menon, K Venugopal</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c517t-45e184554728e3503bbbaaca7736e7a0337b040196b12ad970c430212eba6083</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2008</creationdate><topic>Care and treatment</topic><topic>Diagnosis</topic><topic>Discectomy</topic><topic>Health aspects</topic><topic>Hernia</topic><topic>Intervertebral disk</topic><topic>Intervertebral disk displacement</topic><topic>Original</topic><topic>Physiological aspects</topic><topic>Risk factors</topic><topic>Vertebrae, Lumbar</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Acharya, K N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nathan, T S Senthil</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kumar, J Renjit</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Menon, K Venugopal</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Research Library China</collection><collection>Access via ProQuest (Open Access)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Indian journal of orthopaedics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Acharya, K N</au><au>Nathan, T S Senthil</au><au>Kumar, J Renjit</au><au>Menon, K Venugopal</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Primary and revision lumbar discectomy: a three-year review from one center</atitle><jtitle>Indian journal of orthopaedics</jtitle><addtitle>Indian J Orthop</addtitle><date>2008-04-01</date><risdate>2008</risdate><volume>42</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>178</spage><epage>181</epage><pages>178-181</pages><issn>0019-5413</issn><eissn>1998-3727</eissn><abstract>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.
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.
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.
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.</abstract><cop>Switzerland</cop><pub>Medknow Publications and Media Pvt. Ltd</pub><pmid>19826524</pmid><doi>10.4103/0019-5413.40254</doi><tpages>4</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0019-5413 |
| ispartof | Indian journal of orthopaedics, 2008-04, Vol.42 (2), p.178-181 |
| issn | 0019-5413 1998-3727 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_2759631 |
| source | EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central |
| subjects | Care and treatment Diagnosis Discectomy Health aspects Hernia Intervertebral disk Intervertebral disk displacement Original Physiological aspects Risk factors Vertebrae, Lumbar |
| title | Primary and revision lumbar discectomy: a three-year review from one center |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-22T10%3A29%3A23IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Primary%20and%20revision%20lumbar%20discectomy:%20a%20three-year%20review%20from%20one%20center&rft.jtitle=Indian%20journal%20of%20orthopaedics&rft.au=Acharya,%20K%20N&rft.date=2008-04-01&rft.volume=42&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=178&rft.epage=181&rft.pages=178-181&rft.issn=0019-5413&rft.eissn=1998-3727&rft_id=info:doi/10.4103/0019-5413.40254&rft_dat=%3Cgale_pubme%3EA177906020%3C/gale_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=862725900&rft_id=info:pmid/19826524&rft_galeid=A177906020&rfr_iscdi=true |