Abstract
Introduction: Since the introduction of lumbar microdiscectomy in the 1970's, many studies have attempted to compare the effectiveness of this method with that of standard open discectomy with conflicting results. This observational study is designed to compare the relative effectiveness of microdiscectomy (MD) with open discectomy (OD) for treating lumbar disc herniation, -within a large cohort, recruited from daily clinical practice. Methods and analysis: This study will include patients registered in the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery (NORspine). This clinical registry collects prospective data, including preoperative and postoperative outcome measures as well as individual and demographic parameters. The primary outcome is change in Oswestry disability index between baseline and 12 months after surgery. Secondary outcome measures are improvement of leg pain and changes in health related quality of life measured by the Euro-Qol-5D between baseline and 12 months after surgery, complications to surgery, duration of surgical procedures and length of hospital stay.
Highlights
Since the introduction of lumbar microdiscectomy in the 1970’s, many studies have attempted to compare the effectiveness of this method with that of standard open discectomy with conflicting results
In 1977, Yasargil and Caspar independently introduced the technique of microdiscectomy for treating lumbar disc herniation (Yasargil, 81) (Caspar et al, 78–86)
The size of the study allows for propensity matching, making the two groups comparable in most aspects for a close approximation to a randomized controlled trial. Definition of terms This observational study is designed to compare the relative effectiveness of discectomy with or without visual enhancement for treating lumbar disc herniation
Summary
Lumbar disc herniation is a common cause of sciatic pain and functional disability. most patients are relieved from their symptoms without surgical treatment, there is consensus for operating on selected patients with persistent radicular pain after 2–6 months (Atlas et al, 927–35; Schoenfeld & Bono, 1963–70; Weinstein et al, 2789–800). In 1977, Yasargil and Caspar independently introduced the technique of microdiscectomy for treating lumbar disc herniation (Yasargil, 81) (Caspar et al, 78–86) This technique offers better visual control of the operation field, through less traumatic and smaller incisions, compared to the standard open discectomy. A systematic review done by Gibson and Waddell in 2007, found no significant difference in outcome between the two treatment modalities and they concluded that even though open discectomy remains the “standard”, further studies comparing these two surgical methods are warranted. The size of the study allows for propensity matching, making the two groups comparable in most aspects for a close approximation to a randomized controlled trial Definition of terms This observational study is designed to compare the relative effectiveness of discectomy with or without visual enhancement for treating lumbar disc herniation. Aims of the study The primary aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of discectomy with or without visual enhancement (i.e. microdiscectomy vs. open discectomy) for treating lumbar disc herniation
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
