A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial Comparing the Results of Microdiscectomy Under Regional and General Anesthesia

  • Thanet Wattanawong
  • Petchara Chamnankitkosol
  • Patarawan Woratanarat
Conference paper


The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the results of microlumbar discectomy under regional anesthesia and under general anesthesia. This prospective, randomized, controlled trial was performed between October 2001 and March 2002 at Ramathibodi Hospital. Eighteen patients with lumbar disc herniation treated by microlumbar discectomy and followed in the same spinal protocol were randomly divided into two groups according to the anesthetic procedure: those under regional anesthesia and those under general anesthesia. Preoperative, postoperative, and long-term follow-up data were recorded. Ten patients were recruited to the regional anesthesia group and eight to the general anesthesia group. There were no significant differences in age, staging, severity, or operative time. The mean ambulation time in the regional anesthesia group (12 h) was significantly shorter than that in the general anesthesia group (48 h). The mean length of hospital stay was 1.3 and 4 days, respectively. In both groups, only oral analgesic drugs were needed. There was only one minor complication in the regional anesthetic group in a patient who developed orthostatic hypotension. Microlumbar discectomy is one of the best methods, with minimal invasiveness, minimal soft tissue injury, and short hospital stay, especially when performed with the patient under regional anesthesia.

Key words

Microlumbar Discectomy Regional anesthesia General anesthesia Treatment 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Smrcha M, Baudysova O, Juran V, et al (2001) Lumbar disc surgery in regional anaesthesia—40 years of experience. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 143:377–381Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Huang TJ, Hsu RW, Chen SH, et al (2001) Minimal access surgery in managing anterior lumbar disorders. Clin Orthop 387:140–147PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Merk H, Kramer R, Baltzer AW, et al (1999) Microsurgical lumbar intervertebral disk operation. Technique and complications. Orthopade 28:593–597PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    McCulloch JA (1996) Focus issue on lumbar disc herniation: macro-and microdiscectomy. Spine 21(24 Suppl):45S–56SPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schwetlick G (1998) Microsurgery in lumbar disk operations. Possibilities, methods and results. Orthopade 27:457–465CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Abramovitz JN, Neff SR (1991) Lumbar disc surgery: results of the Prospective Lumbar Discectomy Study of the Joint Section on Disorders of the Spine and Peripheral Nerves of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons and the Congress of Neurological Surgeons. Neurosurgery 29:301–307; discussion 307–308PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tsai YD, Yu PC, Lee TC, et al (2001) Superior rectal artery injury following lumbar disc surgery. Case report. J Neurosurg 95(1 Suppl):108–110PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Smith EB, DeBord JR, Hanigan WC (1991) Intestinal injury after lumbar discectomy. Surg Gynecol Obstet 173:22–24PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    An HS, Simpson JM, Stein R (1999) Outpatient laminotomy and discectomy. Spinal Disord 12:192–196Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Tokyo 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thanet Wattanawong
    • 1
  • Petchara Chamnankitkosol
    • 2
  • Patarawan Woratanarat
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedics, Ramathibodi HospitalMahidol UniversityBangkokThailand
  2. 2.Department of Anesthesiology, Ramathibodi HospitalMahidol UniversityBangkokThailand

Personalised recommendations