Search

Study Design: Prospective cohort study., Background: Although lumbar radiculopathy is regarded as a specific diagnosis, the most effective treatment strategy is unclear. Commonly used treatments include transforaminal epidural steroid injections (TESIs) and Mechanical Diagnosis & Therapy (MDT), but no studies have investigated the effectiveness of this combination. MDT differentiates pain centralization (C) from non-centralization (NC), which indicates good vs. poor prognostic validity respectively., Objective: The main aims were 1) to determine changes in Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy (MDT) pain response classifications after transforaminal epidural steroid injections (TESIs) in candidates for lumbar herniated disc surgery and 2) to evaluate differences in short and long term outcomes for patients with different pain response classifications., Methods: Candidates for lumbar herniated disc surgery were assessed with a MDT protocol and their pain response classified as centralizing or peripheralizing. For this study,only patients were eligible who showed a peripheralizing pain response at intake. All patients then received TESIs and were reassessed and classified using the MDT protocol, into groups according to pain response (resolved, centralizing, peripheralizing with less pain and peripheralising with severe pain). After receiving targeted treatment based on pain response after TESIs, ranging from advice, MDT or surgery, follow-up assessments were completed at discharge and at 12 months. The primary outcomes were disability (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire [RMDQ] for Sciatica), pain severity in leg (visual analogue scale [VAS], 0-100) and global perceived effect (GPE). Linear mixed-models were used to determine between-groups differences in outcome., Results: A total of 77 patients with lumbar disc herniation and peripheralizing symptoms were included. Patients received an average of 2 (SD 0.7) TESIs. After TESIs, 17 patients (22%) were classified as peripheralizing with continuing severe pain.These patients underwent surgery and were not further evaluated. Eleven (14%) patients were classified as resolved, 37 (48%) as centralizing with significant less pain, and 12 (16%) as peripheralizing with significant less pain. None of these patients underwent surgery. Resolved and centralizer subgroups had better outcomes in terms of VAS and RMDQ than the non-operated peripheralizers at discharge and at 12 months. The succes rates (GPE) for the resolved, centralizing, and peripheralizing with less pain patients were 100%, 100% and 33% respectively at short term, and 100%, 92% and 50% respectively at long term., Conclusion: After TESIs, a peripheralizing pain pattern changed to resolved or centralizing in 62% of the patients. For the non-operated patients, those with a centralising pattern after TESIs reported better pain and disability outcomes than those with peripheralizing pattern at short and long term.

Background Context: Percutaneous laser disc decompression (PLDD) is a minimally invasive treatment for lumbar disc herniation, with Food and Drug Administration approval since 1991. However, no randomized trial comparing PLDD to conventional treatment has been performed., Purpose: In this trial, we assessed the effectiveness of a strategy of PLDD as compared with conventional surgery., Study Design/setting: This randomized prospective trial with a noninferiority design was carried out in two academic and six teaching hospitals in the Netherlands according to an intent-to-treat protocol with full institutional review board approval., Patient Sample: One hundred fifteen eligible surgical candidates, with sciatica from a disc herniation smaller than one-third of the spinal canal, were included., Outcome Measures: The main outcome measures for this trial were the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire for sciatica, visual analog scores for back and leg pain, and the patient's report of perceived recovery., Methods: Patients were randomly allocated to PLDD (n=57) or conventional surgery (n=58). Blinding was impossible because of the nature of the interventions. This study was funded by the Healthcare Insurance Board of the Netherlands., Results: The primary outcome, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, showed noninferiority of PLDD at 8 (-0.1; [95% confidence interval (CI), -2.3 to 2.1]) and 52 weeks (-1.1; 95% CI, -3.4 to 1.1) compared with conventional surgery. There was, however, a higher speed of recovery in favor of conventional surgery (hazard ratio, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.42-0.97]). The number of reoperations was significantly less in the conventional surgery group (38% vs. 16%). Overall, a strategy of PLDD, with delayed surgery if needed, resulted in noninferior outcomes at 1 year., Conclusions: At 1 year, a strategy of PLDD, followed by surgery if needed, resulted in noninferior outcomes compared with surgery., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Disc herniation with sciatica accounts for five percent of low-back disorders but is one of the most common reasons for spine surgery. The goal of this study was to update the Cochrane review on the effect of surgical techniques for sciatica due to disc herniation, which was last updated in 2007., Materials and Methods: In April 2011, we conducted a comprehensive search in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDRO, ICL, and trial registries. We also checked the reference lists and citation tracking results of each retrieved article. Only randomized controlled trials (RCT) of the surgical management of sciatica due to disc herniation were included. Comparisons including chemonucleolysis and prevention of scar tissue or comparisons against conservative treatment were excluded. Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias of the studies and extracted data. Quality of evidence was graded according to the GRADE approach., Results: Seven studies from the original Cochrane review were included and nine additional studies were found. In total, 16 studies were included, of which four had a low risk of bias. Studies showed that microscopic discectomy results in a significantly, but not clinically relevant longer operation time of 12 min (95% CI 2-22) and shorter incision of 24 mm (95% CI 7-40) compared with open discectomy, but did not find any clinically relevant superiority of either technique on clinical results. There were conflicting results regarding the comparison of tubular discectomy versus microscopic discectomy for back pain and surgical duration., Conclusions: Due to the limited amount and quality of evidence, no firm conclusions on effectiveness of the current surgical techniques being open discectomy, microscopic discectomy, and tubular discectomy compared with each other can be drawn. Those differences in leg or back pain scores, operation time, and incision length that were found are clinically insignificant. Large, high-quality studies are needed, which examine not only effectiveness but cost-effectiveness as well.

Background: Conventional microdiskectomy is the most frequently performed surgery for patients with sciatica caused by lumbar disk herniation. Transmuscular tubular diskectomy has been introduced to increase the rate of recovery, although evidence of its efficacy is lacking., Objective: To determine whether a favorable cost-effectiveness for tubular diskectomy compared with conventional microdiskectomy is attained., Methods: Cost utility analysis was performed alongside a double-blind randomized controlled trial conducted among 325 patients with lumbar disk related sciatica lasting >6 to 8 weeks at 7 Dutch hospitals comparing tubular diskectomy with conventional microdiskectomy. Main outcome measures were quality-adjusted life-years at 1 year and societal costs, estimated from patient reported utilities (US and Netherlands EuroQol, Short Form Health Survey-6D, and Visual Analog Scale) and diaries on costs (health care, patient costs, and productivity)., Results: Quality-adjusted life-years during all 4 quarters and according to all utility measures were not statistically different between tubular diskectomy and conventional microdiskectomy (difference for US EuroQol, -0.012; 95% confidence interval, -0.046 to 0.021). From the healthcare perspective, tubular diskectomy resulted in nonsignificantly higher costs (difference US $460; 95% confidence interval, -243 to 1163). From the societal perspective, a nonsignificant difference of US $1491 (95% confidence interval, -1335 to 4318) in favor of conventional microdiskectomy was found. The nonsignificant differences in costs and quality-adjusted life-years in favor of conventional microdiskectomy result in a low probability that tubular diskectomy is more cost-effective than conventional microdiskectomy., Conclusion: Tubular diskectomy is unlikely to be cost-effective compared with conventional microdiskectomy.

Background: Tubular discectomy compared with conventional microdiscectomy has been introduced to speed up the rate of recovery in patients with lumbar disc related sciatica, although similar results have been shown. The authors performed a subgroup analysis to investigate whether certain patients might benefit more from either two surgical treatments., Methods: A double-blinded randomised trial was performed to compare the rate of recovery and outcome at 1 year between tubular discectomy and conventional microdiscectomy. Complete and nearly complete recovery, documented on the patient's global perceived recovery, were defined as a good outcome. The effect modification of the allocated treatment strategy by predefined variables on the rate of recovery and outcome at 1 year was analysed by Cox proportional hazard analyses and logistic regression analyses, respectively., Results: With respect to the outcome rate of recovery, interaction with treatment effect was present for the variable gender and type of disc herniation. Patients with a contained disc herniation (HR 0.73; 95% CI 0.49 to 1.09) and women (HR 0.75; 95% CI 0.54 to 1.06) had slower rates of recovery when treated with tubular discectomy. Variables correlated with good outcome at 1 year were the level of education and Slump test. Higher educated patients (OR 0.18; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.59) and patients with a negative Slump (OR 0.24; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.92) fared worse at 1 year when they underwent tubular discectomy., Conclusions: Superiority of tubular discectomy compared with conventional microdiscectomy was not demonstrated. Subgroup analyses identified only a few variables that were associated with more or less benefit from one of the allocated treatments. Trial registration isrct.org Identifier: ISRCTN51857546.

Context: Conventional microdiskectomy is the most frequently performed surgery for patients with sciatica due to lumbar disk herniation. Transmuscular tubular diskectomy has been introduced to increase the rate of recovery, although evidence is lacking of its efficacy., Objective: To determine outcomes and time to recovery in patients treated with tubular diskectomy compared with conventional microdiskectomy., Design, Setting, and Patients: The Sciatica Micro-Endoscopic Diskectomy randomized controlled trial was conducted among 328 patients aged 18 to 70 years who had persistent leg pain (>8 weeks) due to lumbar disk herniations at 7 general hospitals in The Netherlands from January 2005 to October 2006. Patients and observers were blinded during the follow-up, which ended 1 year after final enrollment., Interventions: Tubular diskectomy (n = 167) vs conventional microdiskectomy (n = 161)., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was functional assessment on the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RDQ) for sciatica (score range: 0-23, with higher scores indicating worse functional status) at 8 weeks and 1 year after randomization. Secondary outcomes were scores on the visual analog scale for leg pain and back pain (score range: 0-100 mm) and patient's self-report of recovery (measured on a Likert 7-point scale)., Results: Based on intention-to-treat analysis, the mean RDQ score during the first year after surgery was 6.2 (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.6 to 6.8) for tubular diskectomy and 5.4 (95% CI, 4.6 to 6.2) for conventional microdiskectomy (between-group mean difference, 0.8; 95% CI, -0.2 to 1.7). At 8 weeks after surgery, the RDQ mean (SE) score was 5.8 (0.4) for tubular diskectomy and 4.9 (0.5) for conventional microdiskectomy (between-group mean difference, 0.8; 95% CI, -0.4 to 2.1). At 1 year, the RDQ mean (SE) score was 4.7 (0.5) for tubular diskectomy and 3.4 (0.5) for conventional microdiskectomy (between-group mean difference, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.03 to 2.6) in favor of conventional microdiskectomy. On the visual analog scale, the 1-year between-group mean difference in improvement was 4.2 mm (95% CI, 0.9 to 7.5 mm) for leg pain and 3.5 mm (95% CI, 0.1 to 6.9 mm) for back pain in favor of conventional microdiskectomy. At 1 year, 107 of 156 patients (69%) assigned to tubular diskectomy reported a good recovery vs 120 of 151 patients (79%) assigned to conventional microdiskectomy (odds ratio, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.35 to 0.99]; P = .05)., Conclusions: Use of tubular diskectomy compared with conventional microdiskectomy did not result in a statistically significant improvement in the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire score. Tubular diskectomy resulted in less favorable results for patient self-reported leg pain, back pain, and recovery., Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN51857546.

Surgery speeds up recovery for sciatica. Prolonged conservative care with surgery for those patients with persistent sciatica however, yields similar results at 1 year. To investigate whether baseline variables modify the difference in recovery rates between these treatment strategies, baseline data of 283 patients enrolled in a randomized trial, comparing early surgery with prolonged conservative care, were used to analyse effect modification of the allotted treatment strategy. For predictors shown to modify the effect of the treatment strategy, repeated measurement analyses with the Roland Disability Questionnaire and visual analogue scale pain as continuous outcomes were performed for every level of that predictor. Presumed predictive variables did not have any interaction with treatment, while "sciatica provoked by sitting" showed to be a significant effect modifier (P = 0.07). In a Cox model we estimated a hazard ratio (HR, surgery versus conservative) of 2.2 (95% CI 1.7-3.0) in favour of surgery when sciatica was provoked by sitting, while the HR was 1.3 (95% CI 0.8-2.2) when this sign was absent. The interaction effect is marginally significant (interactions are usually tested at the 10% level) but the patterns generated by the repeated measurement analyses of all primary outcomes are completely consistent with the inferred pattern from the survival analysis. Classical signs did not show any contribution as decision support tools in deciding when to operate for sciatica, whereas treatment effects of early surgery are emphasized when sciatica is provoked by sitting and negligible when this symptom is absent.

Background: Nerve root decompression with instrumented spondylodesis is the most frequently performed surgical procedure in the treatment of patients with symptomatic low-grade spondylolytic spondylolisthesis. Nerve root decompression without instrumented fusion, i.e. Gill's procedure, is an alternative and less invasive approach. A comparative cost-effectiveness study has not been performed yet. We present the design of a randomised controlled trial on cost-effectiveness of decompression according to Gill versus instrumented spondylodesis., Methods/design: All patients (age between 18 and 70 years) with sciatica or neurogenic claudication lasting more than 3 months due to spondylolytic spondylolisthesis grade I or II, are eligible for inclusion. Patients will be randomly allocated to nerve root decompression according to Gill, either unilateral or bilateral, or pedicle screw fixation with interbody fusion. The main primary outcome measure is the functional assessment of the patient measured with the Roland Disability Questionnaire for Sciatica at 12 weeks and 2 years. Other primary outcome measures are perceived recovery and intensity of leg pain and low back pain. The secondary outcome measures include, incidence of re-operations, complications, serum creatine phosphokinase, quality of life, medical consumption, costs, absenteeism, work perception, depression and anxiety, and treatment preference. The study is a randomised prospective multicenter trial in which two surgical techniques are compared in a parallel group design. Patients and research nurse will not be blinded during the follow-up period of 2 years., Discussion: Currently, nerve root decompression with instrumented fusion is the golden standard in the surgical treatment of low-grade spondylolytic spondylolisthesis, although scientific proof justifying instrumented spondylodesis over simple decompression is lacking. This trial is designed to elucidate the controversy in best surgical treatment of symptomatic patients with low-grade spondylolytic spondylolisthesis.

Object: Although clinical guidelines for sciatica have been developed, various aspects of lumbar disc herniation remain unclear, and daily clinical practice may vary. The authors conducted a descriptive survey among spine surgeons in the Netherlands to obtain an overview of routine management of lumbar disc herniation., Methods: One hundred thirty-one spine surgeons were sent a questionnaire regarding various aspects of different surgical procedures. Eighty-six (70%) of the 122 who performed lumbar disc surgery provided usable questionnaires., Results: Unilateral transflaval discectomy was the most frequently performed procedure and was expected to be the most effective, whereas percutaneous laser disc decompression was expected to be the least effective. Bilateral discectomy was expected to be associated with the most postoperative low-back pain. Recurrent disc herniation was expected to be lowest after bilateral discectomy and highest after percutaneous laser disc decompression. Complications were expected to be highest after bilateral discectomy and lowest after unilateral transflaval discectomy. Nearly half of the surgeons preferentially treated patients with 8-12 weeks of disabling leg pain. Some consensus was shown on acute surgery in patients with short-lasting drop foot and those with a cauda equina syndrome, and nonsurgical treatment in patients with long-lasting, painless drop foot. Most respondents allowed postoperative mobilization within 24 hours but advised their patients not to resume work until 8-12 weeks postoperatively., Conclusions: Unilateral transflaval discectomy was the most frequently performed procedure. Minimally invasive techniques were expected to be less effective, with higher recurrence rates but less postoperative low-back pain. Variety was shown between surgeons in the management of patients with neurological deficit. Most responding surgeons allowed early mobilization but appeared to give conservative advice in resumption of work.

Background: Awareness of treatment group assignment in a clinical trial may influence patient behavior and bias outcome reporting. The objective of this study was to compare 2-year clinical outcomes in blinded vs unblinded patients who were treated with lumbar discectomy and a bone-anchored annular closure device (ACD) for prevention of lumbar disc reherniation. Methods: This was a secondary analysis of a randomized trial comparing lumbar discectomy with (n=272) vs without (n=278) implantation of a bone-anchored ACD. Among patients who received ACD implantation, 35 (13%) were blinded and 237 (87%) were unblinded to treatment allocation. In patients treated with ACD, propensity score-matching (1:1) was performed to account for imbalances in patient characteristics between blinded and unblinded groups. Key clinical outcomes were back pain severity (0–100 scale), leg pain severity (0–100 scale), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI, 0–100 scale), symptomatic reherniation, reoperation at the treated lumbar level, and device- or procedure-related serious adverse events (AEs). Outcomes were reported through 2 years of follow-up, which coincided with the time at which blinded patients were unblinded. Results: There were no statistically significant differences in 2-year outcomes between propensity score-matched blinded (n=35) and unblinded (n=35) patients treated with the ACD. In blinded vs unblinded ACD patients compared to baseline, back pain severity decreased by 40 vs 37 points (P=0.61), leg pain severity decreased by 75 points in each group (P>0.99), and ODI decreased by 47 vs 43 points (P=0.19). The risks of symptomatic reherniation (5.7% vs 9.1%; P=0.59), reoperation (8.6% vs 12.2%, P=0.62), and device- or procedure-related serious AEs (5.7% vs 8.9%, P=0.63) were comparably low in blinded and unblinded patients. Conclusion: In patients treated with lumbar discectomy and a bone-anchored ACD, there were no clinically important or statistically significant differences in back pain, leg pain, ODI, symptomatic reherniation, reoperation, or serious AEs over 2 years of follow-up when comparing patients who were blinded vs unblinded to their treatment assignment. The main limitations of this study were the post hoc nature of the analysis and the potential for bias due to surgeon awareness of treatment assignment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Lumbar discectomy procedure in patients with largedefects in the annulusfibrosus lowers the Intent-to-treat population consisted of 272 patients with attempted ACD implant and 278 patients assigned to Control. Figure 8 Percentage of patients achieving the minimal clinically important difference in patient-reported outcomes over 4 years of follow-up. Annular closure device, annulus fibrosus, disc herniation, lumbar discectomy, randomized controlled trial, reoperation, sciatica. [Extracted from the article]

: The diversity among the current international practice patterns and the discrepancy between the eminence-based medicine and the evidence-based medicine in the treatment of lumbar disk herniation is presented. Minimally invasive techniques were expected to give the lowest postoperative low back pain, however, also to give the highest risk of recurrent disk herniation.Study Design: A questionnaire survey.Objective: To evaluate the current practice patterns of surgeons regarding both the surgical and nonsurgical management of lumbar disk herniation (LDH) worldwide and to compare this with the current literature.Summary Of Background Data: Sciatica is a common diagnosis in the general population. Sciatica is most frequently caused by LDH. Multiple surgical techniques and treatment modalities are available to treat LDH, albeit some with small effect sizes or without compelling evidence.Methods: A survey including questions on the application of physical examination, expectations regarding different surgical and nonsurgical techniques, factors influencing the outcome of surgery were distributed among members of AOSpine International and the European Association of Neurosurgical Societies.Results: Eight hundred and seventeen surgeons from 89 countries completed the questionnaire. These surgeons perform a total of 62.477 discectomies yearly. Pain medication and steroid injections were expected to be the most effective nonsurgical treatments. The severity of pain and/ or disability and failure of conservative therapy were the most important indications for surgery. A period of 1 to 2 months of radiculopathy was regarded as a minimum for indicating surgery. Unilateral transflaval discectomy was the procedure of choice among the majority and was expected to be the most effective technique with the lowest complication risk. Surgeons performing more lumbar discectomies, with more clinical experience and those located in Asia, were more likely to offer minimally invasive surgical techniques.Conclusion: This study shows that current international practice patterns for LDH surgery are diverse. There seems to be a discrepancy between preferred surgical techniques and the attitudes of surgeons worldwide and the evidence. Further research should focus on developing international guidelines to reduce practice variety and offer patients the optimal treatment for LDH.Level Of Evidence: N/A. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The reference surgical procedure for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation is open microdiscectomy. Minimal invasive discectomy with tubular retractors is hypothesised to cause less tissue damage and result in lower blood loss, less postoperative pain and faster recovery. We previously reported our 1 and 2-year results, and found no better outcomes of tubular discectomy compared with open microdiscectomy. Until now, no studies on tubular discectomy have reported results with more than 2 years of follow-up. Studies with long-term follow-up are required to determine if clinical outcomes are sustained and to assess specific long-term outcomes such as reoperation rate and iatrogenic low back pain due to impaired spinal integrity. The aim of this study is to evaluate the 5-year results of tubular discectomy compared with conventional microdiscectomy.Methods: The study was designed as a double-blind randomised controlled trial. 325 patients with a symptomatic lumbar disc herniation were randomly allocated to tubular discectomy (166 patients) or conventional microdiscectomy (159 patients). Repeated standardised follow-up measurements were performed at 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 26, 38, 52, 78, 104, 156, 208 and 260 weeks after randomisation. Main outcomes are the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire for Sciatica (RDQ), Visual Analogue Scale for leg pain and low back pain, self-perceived recovery and reoperation incidence.Results: There was no clinically significant difference between tubular discectomy and conventional microdiscectomy regarding the main clinical outcomes at any time point during the 5 years of follow-up. RDQ scores at 5 years were 4.3 (95% CI 3.3 to 5.2) in the tubular discectomy group and 3.4 (95% CI 2.4 to 4.5) in the conventional microdiscectomy group. The mean difference of 0.9 (95% CI -0.6 to 2.2) was not significant. Mean differences for leg pain and back pain were 0.2 (95% CI -5.5 to 6.0) and 0.4 (95% CI -5.9 to 6.7), respectively. 77% of patients allocated to conventional discectomy reported complete or near-complete recovery of symptoms compared with 74% of patients allocated to tubular discectomy (p=0.79). The reoperation rate was 18% in the tubular discectomy group and 13% in the conventional discectomy group (p=0.29).Conclusions: Long-term functional and clinical outcome did not differ between patients allocated to tubular discectomy and conventional microdiscectomy. Primary and secondary outcome measures did not support the hypothesised advantages of tubular discectomy over conventional microdiscectomy.Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN51857546. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Interspinous process devices (IPDs) are implanted to treat patients with intermittent neurogenic claudication (INC) based on lumbar spinal stenosis. It is hypothesized that patients with lumbar spinal stenosis treated with IPD have a faster short-term recovery, an equal outcome after 2 years and less back pain compared with bony decompression.Methods: A randomized design with variable block sizes was used, with allocations stratified according to center. Allocations were stored in prepared opaque, coded and sealed envelopes, and patients and research nurses were blind throughout the follow-up. Five neurosurgical centers (including one academic and four secondary level care centers) included participants. 211 participants were referred to the Leiden-The Hague Spine Prognostic Study Group. 159 participants with INC based on lumbar spinal stenosis at one or two levels with an indication for surgery were randomized into two groups. Patients and research nurses were blinded for the allocated treatment throughout the study period. 80 participants received an IPD and 79 participants underwent spinal bony decompression. The primary outcome at long-term (2-year) follow-up was the score for the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire. Repeated measurement analyses were applied to compare outcomes over time.Results: At two years, the success rate according to the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire for the IPD group [69 % (95 % CI 57-78 %)] did not show a significant difference compared with standard bony decompression [60 % (95 % CI 48-71 %) p value 0.2]. Reoperations, because of absence of recovery, were indicated and performed in 23 cases (33 %) of the IPD group versus 6 (8 %) patients of the bony decompression group (p < 0.01). Furthermore, long-term VAS back pain was significantly higher [36 mm on a 100 mm scale (95 % CI 24-48)] in the IPD group compared to the bony decompression group [28 mm (95 % CI 23-34) p value 0.04].Conclusions: This double-blinded study could not confirm the advantage of IPD without bony decompression over conventional 'simple' decompression, two years after surgery. Moreover, in the IPD treatment arm, the reoperation rate was higher and back pain was even slightly more intense compared to the decompression treatment arm. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The usual surgical treatment of refractory sciatica caused by lumbar disc herniation, is open discectomy. Minimally invasive procedures, including percutaneous therapies under local anesthesia, are increasingly gaining attention. One of these treatments is Percutaneous Laser Disc Decompression (PLDD). This treatment can be carried out in an outpatient setting and swift recovery and return to daily routine are suggested. Thus far, no randomized trial into cost-effectiveness of PLDD versus standard surgical procedure has been performed. We present the design of a randomized controlled trial, studying the cost-effectiveness of PLDD versus conventional open discectomy in patients with sciatica from lumbar disc herniation. Methods/design: The study is a randomized prospective multi-center trial, in which two treatment strategies are compared in a parallel group design. Patients (age 18-70 years) visiting the neurosurgery department of the participating hospitals, are considered for inclusion in the trial when sciatica due to lumbar disc herniation has lasted more than 8 weeks. Patients with disc herniation smaller than 1/3 of the spinal canal diameter, without concomitant lateral recess stenosis or sequestration, are eligible for participation, and are randomized into one of two treatment arms; either Percutaneous Laser Disc Decompression or conventional discectomy. The functional outcome of the patient, as assessed by the Roland Disability Questionnaire for Sciatica at 8 weeks and 1 year after treatment, is the primary outcome measure. The secondary outcome parameters are recovery as perceived by the patient, leg and back pain, incidence of re-intervention, complications, quality of life, medical consumption, absence of work and secondary costs. Discussion: Open discectomy is still considered to be the golden standard in the surgical treatment of lumbar disc herniation. Whether Percutaneous Laser Disc Decompression has at least as much efficacy as the standard surgical procedure, and is more cost-effective, will be determined by this trial. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN25884790. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A response by Mark P. Arts and Wilco C. Peul to a letter to the editor about their article "Tubular Diskectomy vs Conventional Microdiskectomy for Sciatica: A Randomized Controlled Trial" in a 2009 issue is presented.