Volume 4 | Issue 1 | Jan – June 2019 | Page 22-26 | M B Lingayat, Ghaniuzzoha Asadi
Authors : M B Lingayat , Ghaniuzzoha Asadi 
 Department of Orthopaedics, GMC, Aurangabad, Maharashtra, India, GMC, Aurangabad, Maharashtra, India.
Address of Correspondence
Dr. M. B. Lingayat,
Lotus Hospital, Pushpanagiri, Aurangabad. Maharashtra.
Background: Lumbar disc lesion is a common problem encountered in clinical practice. Historically, laminectomy was performed to remove the offending disc material, But it was associated with significant morbidity. Conventional Microlumbar discectomy has resulted in quick recovery and early return to work. Conventional Microlumbar discectomy has become the “Gold Standard” for treating lumbar disc lesion when surgery is indicated. The main objective is to study functional and clinical recovery following conventional microlumbar discectomy.
Methods: A Total of 40 patients who had single level disc herniation with radicular symptoms were operated by conventional microlumbar discectomy through period from September 2013 to August 2015. Results were measured using the Visual Analogue Scale(VAS) for leg pain and PROLO Economic and Functional Outcome Rating Scale. All quantitative data were summarized using mean and standard deviation.
Results: Marked improvement in Leg pain according to VAS (90% having no leg pain at last follow-up). Pre-operative Average VAS Score was 5 and post-operative last follow-up score was 1. According to PROLO Scale mean total score improved from 4.2 pre-operatively to 8.37 post-operatively and recovery rate was excellent in 95% cases. Most of the patients returned to their work of previous occupation with no restriction of any kind.
Conclusions: Conventional Microlumbar Discectomy is a safe, effective, reliable and least traumatic procedure for removal of lumbar disc lesion with very good long-term results. It resulted in early recovery and quick return to work. Good functional and clinical recovery achieved following surgery. It provided excellent pain relief.
Keywords: Lumbar disc lesion, conventional microlumbar discectomy, visual analog scale.
1. Richard, A. Dayo. 1983 “Conservative therapy for low back pain”. Journal of American Medical Association, 250(8): 1057–1062.
2. Bo Jonsson. 1996 “Neurologic signs and lumbar disc herniation”. Acta Ortho Scand, 67(5): 466–469.
3. Nagi, O.M. 1985 “Early results of discectomy ”. Indian Journal of Orthopaedics, 19(1): 15-19.
4. Nagi, O.M. 1985 “Early results of discectomy by fenestration technique”. Indian Journal of Orthopaedics, 19(1): 15–19.
5. Pappas, 1992 “Outcome analysis in 654 surgically treated lumbar disc herniation”. Neurosurgery, 30(6): 55–62.
6. Davies, 1994 “Longterm outcome analysis of 984 surgically treated herniated lumbar disc”. Journal of Neurosurgery, 80: 415–421.
7. Yash Gulati, 2004-Lumbar Microdiscectomy;-Apollo Medicine Journal Vol.1 september 2004 :29-32
8. K.V.Manohara Babu,2006-Surgical Management of lumbar disc prolapse,Journal of orthopaedics,2006,3(4)e6.
9. Chin KR 2008;-Success of lumbar microdiscectomy .J.Spinal Disord 2008 Apr;21(2):139-44. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e318093e5dc.
10. R.Pedrosa et.al.2010-Day surgery treatment of lumbar disc herniations,journal of international association of ambulatory surgery,16.3 october 2010;62-65.
11. Lecya Vacilevna Chichanovskaya et.al.(2013)-A comprehensive study of outcome after Lumbar discectomy at 6 months post-operative period. The Open Neurosurgery Journal, 2013, 6, 1-5.
|How to Cite this Article: Lingayat MB, Asadi G. A Prospective Study of Functional and Clinical Recovery Following Conventional Microlumbar Discectomy. International Journal of Spine Jan-June 2019;4(1):22-26.