The Failed Back Surgery Syndrome: Reasons, Intraoperative Findings, and Long‐term Results: A Report of 182 Operative Treatments

Study Design A retrospective study was performed of 182 revisions on failed back surgery syndrome from the years 1965 to 1990. Objective To analyze the reasons for failure of primary discectomy, the outcome of the revisions, and factors that influenced those outcomes. Summary of Background Data The reported reintervention rates after lumbar discectomy range from 5% to 33% depending on the type of surgical procedure. The authors' former investigations reported a revision rate of 10.8% in evaluating 1500 lumbar discectomies. Methods Because the documentation was standardized, detailed data of all patients were available. To gain further information concerning the long‐term results a questionnaire was used. Computer processing and statistical tests were performed. Results One hundred eighty‐two revisions were performed on 136 patients. Forty‐four patients (34%) were revised multiple times. Generally, recurrent or uninfluenced sciatic pain and neurologic deficiency or lumbar instability led to reintervention. Recurrent lumbar disc herniation mainly was found at the first reintervention. In multiple revision patients the rate of epidural fibrosis and instability increased to greater than 60%. In 80% of the patients the results were satisfactory in short‐term evaluation, decreasing to 22% in long‐term follow up (2‐27 years). Conclusions Laminectomy performed in primary surgery could be detected as the only factor leading to a higher rate of revisions. A trend toward poor results after recurrent disc surgery seems to be fateful because of the development of epidural fibrosis and instability. In severe discotomy syndrome, a spinal fusion seems to be more successful than multiple fibrinolyses.

[1]  H. Leu,et al.  [10 years of percutaneous disk surgery: results and developments]. , 1989, Schweizerische Rundschau fur Medizin Praxis = Revue suisse de medecine Praxis.

[2]  V. Sonntag,et al.  Outcome analysis in 654 surgically treated lumbar disc herniations. , 1992, Neurosurgery.

[3]  J. Laredo,et al.  Automated Percutaneous Lumbar Discectomy Versus Chemonucleolysis in the Treatment of Sciatica: A Randomized Multicenter Trial , 1993, Spine.

[4]  G. Martin Recurrent disc prolapse as a cause of recurrent pain after laminectomy for lumbar disc lesions. , 1980, The New Zealand medical journal.

[5]  J. Krämer [The post-diskotomy syndrome]. , 2008, Zeitschrift fur Orthopadie und ihre Grenzgebiete.

[6]  J. S. Barr Low-back and sciatic pain; results of treatment. , 1951, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[7]  G. Waddell,et al.  Failed lumbar disc surgery and repeat surgery following industrial injuries. , 1979, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[8]  F. Kimbell,et al.  A study of the causes of failure in the herniated intervertebral disc operation; an analysis of sixty-seven reoperated cases. , 1952, Journal of neurosurgery.

[9]  R. Zappulla,et al.  Noncortical Origins of the Spinal Motor Evoked Potential in Rats , 1988, Neurosurgery.

[10]  L. Weidenhielm,et al.  Does Microscopic Removal of Lumbar Disc Herniation Lead to Better Results Than the Standard Procedure?: Results of a One-Year Randomized Study , 1993, Spine.

[11]  B. Nyström Experience of microsurgical compared with conventional technique in lumbar disc operations , 1987, Acta neurologica Scandinavica.

[12]  N. Kahanovitz,et al.  Automated percutaneous discectomy: a prospective multi-institutional study. , 1990, Neurosurgery.

[13]  P. Gillström,et al.  Microsurgery versus standard removal of the herniated lumbar disc. A 3-year comparison in 150 cases. , 1990, Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica.

[14]  A. Schreiber,et al.  [Diagnosis and therapy of the narrow lumbar spinal canal]. , 1985, Der Orthopade.

[15]  Y. Gotfried,et al.  The Caspar microsurgical discectomy and comparison with a conventional standard lumbar disc procedure. , 1991, Neurosurgery.