Patient Satisfaction Undergoing Surgery for Lumbar Disc Herniation
Keywords:
Lumbar Disc Herniation,, Visual Analog Scale, Lumbar MicrodiscectomyAbstract
Objective: To assess patient’s satisfaction, who are undergoing surgery for lumbar disc herniation.
Materials and Methods: This observational study was conducted in Neurosurgery Department of Rehman Medical Institute, Peshawar from February 2014 to July 2014. A total of 58 patients who underwent surgery with lumbar disc herniation were studied. Clinical outcomes were measured using the visual analog scale (VAS) score for leg and/or back pain pre-operatively and 2 weeks post-operatively. Patient was considered satisfied from surgery (Lumbar Microdiscectomy), if there is improvement in VAS, 2 weeks post-operatively of ? 3 score. All the patients were followed up for a minimum period of four weeks.
Results: The mean age of the patients was 40.21 ± 12.51 years with majority (62.1%) of the male patients. The main bulk of the patients (75.8%) having lumbar disc herniation were in between 20 – 50 yearsof age. Regarding level of the prolapsed intervertebral disc, most of the patients were harboring lumbar disc herniation at L4-L5 level (41.4%). About 5.2% (n = 3) of the patients were lost to follow-up. Major bulk of the patient (89.1%) was satisfied from the surgery. There was statistically significant difference between pre-op and post-op VAS (p value = <0.01).
Conclusion: Majority of the patients of lumbar prolapsed intervertebral disc was male with L4 – L5 level most commonly involved.Almost 90% of the patients were satisfied from the surgery, Lumbar microdiscectomy, with statistically significant p value.
References
2. Yabuki S. Basic and update knowledge of lumbar disc herniation: review. Fukushima J Med Sci. 1999; 45: 63-75.
3. Akbar A, Mahar A. Lumbar disc prolapsed manage-ment and outcome analysis of 96 surgically treated patients. J Pak Med Assoc. 2002; 52: 62-5.
4. McCall IW. Lumbar herniated disks. Radiol Clin North Am. 2000; 38: 1293-309.
5. Atlas SJ, Keller RB, Wu YA, Deyo RA, Singer DE. Long-term outcomes of surgical and nonsurgical mana-gement of sciatica secondary to a lumbar disc herni-ation: 10 year results from the Maine Lumbar Spine
Study. Spine, 2005; 30: 927-35.
6. Osterman H, Seitsalo S, Karppinen J, Malmivaara A. Effectiveness of microdiscectomy for lumbar disc her-niation: a randomized controlled trial with 2 years of follow-up. Spine, 2006; 31: 2409-14.
7. Weber H. Lumbar disc herniation. A controlled, pros-pective study with ten years of observation. Spine, 1983; 8: 131-40.
8. Weinstein JN, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD, Skinner JS, Han-scom B, Tosteson AN, Herkowitz H, Fischgrund J, Cammisa FP, Albert T, Deyo RA. Surgical vs. non-ope-rative treatment for lumbar disk herniation: the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) observat-ional cohort. JAMA. 2006; 296: 2451-9.
9. Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, Tosteson AN, Hanscom B, Skinner JS, Abdu WA, Hilibrand AS, Bo-den SD, Deyo RA. Surgical vs. nonoperative treatment for lumbar disk herniation: the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT): a randomized trial. JAMA. 2006; 296: 2441-50.
10. Andersson GBJ. The epidemiology of spinal disorders. In: Frymoyer JW, editor. The adult spine: principles and practice. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott – Raven; 1997: p 127.
11. Dammers R, Koehler PJ. Lumbar disc herniation: level increases with age. Surgical Neurol. 2002; 58: 209-213.
12. Hsu K, Zucherman J, Shea W, Kaiser J, White A, Scho-fferman J, Amelon C. High lumbar disc degeneration. Incidence and etiology. Spine, 1990; 15: 679-82.
13. Spangfort EV. The lumbar disc herniation. A computer-aided analysis of 2,504 operations. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl. 1972; 142: 1-95.
14. Albert TJ, Balderston RA, Heller JG, Herkowitz HN, Garfin SR, Tomany K, An HS, Simeone FA. Upper lumbar disc herniations. J Spinal Disord. 1993; 6: 351-9.
15. Tamir E, Anekshtein Y, Melamed E, Halperin N, Miro-vsky Y. Clinical presentation and anatomic position of L3 – L4 disc herniation: a prospective and comparative study. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2004; 17: 467-9.
16. Weber H. Lumbar disc herniation. A prospective study of prognostic factors including a controlled trial. J Oslo City Hosp. 1978; 28: 89-113.
17. Kohles SS, Kohles DA, Karp AP, Erlich VM, Polissar NL. Timedependent surgical outcomes following cau-daequina syndrome diagnosis: comments on a meta-analysis. Spine, 2004; 29: 1281-7.
18. Shapiro S. Medical realities of caudaequina syndrome secondary to lumbar disc herniation. Spine, 2000; 25: 348-52. 19. Jordon J, Konstantinou K, O'Dowd J. Herniated lumbar disc. BMJ Clin Evid.; 2009: 1118. PMCID: PMC2907819 20. Moore, Keith L. Moore, Anne M.R. Agur; in colla-boration with and with content provided by Arthur F. Dalley II; with the expertise of medical illustrator Val-erie Oxorn and the developmental assistance of Marion E. (2007). Essential clinical anatomy (3rd ed.). Balti-more, MD: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. p. 286. ISBN 0-7817-6274-X.
21. O'Connell JEA. Protrusions of the lumbar intervertebral discs. J Bone Joint Surg. 1951; 33: 8-30.
22. Ahmad N, Mahmood A, Ahmad I, Shafi K, Aziz A. Immediate relief of lumber redicular pain after surgical
excision of prolapsed inter vertebral disc. JPOA. 2010; 22 (1): 1-6.
23. Sangwan SS, Kundu ZS, Singh R, Kamboj P, Siwach RC, Aggarwal P. Lumbar disc excision through fenes-tration. Indian J Orthop. 2006; 40: 86-9.
24. Devkota UP, Lohani S, Joshi RM. Minimally invasive open lumbar discectomy: An alternative to microlumbar discectomy. KUMJ. 2009; 7 (3): 204-8.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
The work published by PJNS is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0). Copyrights on any open access article published by Pakistan Journal of Neurological Surgery are retained by the author(s).
