Subsidence induced recurrent radiculopathy after staged two-level standalone endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion with a threaded cylindrical cage: a case report

The Effect of Intraoperative Overdistraction on Subsidence Following Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of overdistraction on interbody cage subsidence.

BACKGROUND

Vertebral overdistraction due to the use of large intervertebral cage sizes may increase the risk of postoperative subsidence.

METHODS

Patients who underwent anterior cervical discectomy and fusion between 2016 and 2021 were included. All measurements were performed using lateral cervical radiographs at 3 time points - preoperative, immediate postoperative, and final follow-up >6 months postoperatively. Anterior and posterior distraction were calculated by subtracting the preoperative disc height from the immediate postoperative disc height. Cage subsidence was calculated by subtracting the final follow-up postoperative disc height from the immediate postoperative disc height. Associations between anterior and posterior subsidence and distraction were determined using multivariable linear regression models. The analyses controlled for cage type, cervical level, sex, age, smoking status, and osteopenia.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight patients and 125 fused levels were included in the study. Of the 68 fusions, 22 were single-level fusions, 35 were 2-level, and 11 were 3-level. The median final follow-up interval was 368 days (range: 181-1257 d). Anterior disc space subsidence was positively associated with anterior distraction (beta = 0.23; 95% CI: 0.08, 0.38; P = 0.004), and posterior disc space subsidence was positively associated with posterior distraction (beta = 0.29; 95% CI: 0.13, 0.45; P < 0.001). No significant associations between anterior distraction and posterior subsidence (beta = 0.07; 95% CI: -0.06, 0.20; P = 0.270) or posterior distraction and anterior subsidence (beta = 0.06; 95% CI: -0.14, 0.27; P = 0.541) were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that overdistraction of the disc space was associated with increased postoperative subsidence after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Surgeons should consider choosing a smaller cage size to avoid overdistraction and minimize postoperative subsidence.

The Role of Bone Mineral Density in a Successful Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Narrative Review

BACKGROUND

The incidence of osteoporosis is a prime concern, especially in parts of the world where the population is aging, such as Europe or the US. Many new therapy strategies have been described to enhance bone healing. Lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) is a surgical procedure that aims to stabilize the lumbar spine by fusing two or more vertebrae using an interbody cage. LIF is a standard treatment for various spinal conditions, such as degenerative disc disease, spinal stenosis, and spondylolisthesis. However, successful fusion is challenging for patients with osteoporosis due to their reduced bone mineral density (BMD) and increased risk of cage subsidence, which can lead to implant failure and poor clinical outcomes.

METHODS

 A comprehensive literature search yielded 220 articles, with 16 ultimately included. Keywords included BMD, cage subsidence, osteoporosis, teriparatide, and lumbar interbody fusion.

RESULTS

 This review examines the relationship between BMD and LIF success, emphasizing the importance of adequate bone quality for successful fusion. Preoperative assessment methods for BMD and the impact of low BMD on fusion rates and patient outcomes are discussed. Additionally, techniques to improve fusion success in patients with weakened bone density, such as biological enhancement and BMD-matched interbody cages, are explored. However, consensus on the exact BMD threshold for a successful outcome remains elusive.

CONCLUSION

 While an apparent correlation between BMD and fusion rate in LIF procedures is acknowledged, conclusive evidence regarding the precise BMD threshold indicative of an increased risk of unfavorable outcomes remains elusive. Surgeons are advised to exercise caution in surgical planning and follow-up for patients with lower BMD. Furthermore, future research initiatives, particularly longitudinal studies, are encouraged to prioritize the examination of BMD as a fundamental risk factor, addressing gaps in the literature.

Factors associated with intervertebral cage subsidence in posterior lumbar fusion

BACKGROUND

The interbody fusion apparatus is a key component of the operation and plays a key role in the postoperative efficacy. Cage subsidence is one of the common complications after lumbar fusion and internal fixation. Clinical studies on the risk factors of cage subsidence are incomplete and inaccurate, especially paravertebral muscle atrophy and intervertebral bone fusion time.

METHODS

Among the patients who underwent PLIF surgery in our hospital from January 2016 to January 2019, 30 patients with cage subsidence and 30 patients without cage subsidence were randomly selected to be included in this study. The differences between the two groups were compared, and the relevant factors of cage subsidence were explored by single factor comparison and multiple logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Bone mineral density (T) of the subsidence group [(- 1.84 ± 1.81) g/cm2 vs (- 0.87 ± 1.63) g/cm2, P = 0.018] was significantly lower than that of the normal group. There were 4 patients with end plate injury in the subsidence group (P = 0.038). Preoperative end plate Modic changes [I/II/III, (7/2/2) vs (2/5/8), P = 0.043] were significantly different between the two groups. In the subsidence group, preoperative rCSA of psoas major muscle [(1.43 ± 0.40) vs (1.64 ± 0.41), P = 0.043], CSA of paravertebral muscle [(4530.25 ± 776.55) mm2 vs (4964.75 ± 888.48) mm2, P = 0.047], paravertebral muscle rCSA [(3.03 ± 0.72) vs (3.84 ± 0.73), P < 0.001] and paravertebral muscle rFCSA [(2.29 ± 0.60) vs (2.89 ± 0.66), P < 0.001] were significantly lower than those in normal group. In the subsidence group, the vertebral body area [(1547.81 ± 309.89) mm2 vs (1326.48 ± 297.21) mm2, P = 0.004], the height of the immediately corrected vertebral space [(2.86 ± 1.10) mm vs (1.65 ± 1.02) mm, P = 0.020], immediately SL corrective Angle [(5.81 + 4.71)° vs (3.24 + 3.57) °, P = 0.009), postoperative PI-LL [(11.69 + 6.99)° vs (6.66 + 9.62) °, P = 0.029] and intervertebral fusion time [(5.38 ± 1.85) months vs (4.30 ± 1.49) months, P = 0.023] were significantly higher than those in the normal group. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the time of intervertebral fusion (OR = 1.158, P = 0.045), the height of immediate intervertebral space correction (OR = 1.438, P = 0.038), and the Angle of immediate SL correction (OR = 1.101, P = 0.019) were the risk factors for cage subsidence. Bone mineral density (OR = 0.544, P = 0.016) and preoperative paravertebral muscle rFCSA (OR = 0.525, P = 0.048) were protective factors.

CONCLUSION

Intervertebral fusion time, correctable height of intervertebral space, excessive Angle of immediate SL correction, bone mineral density and preoperative paravertebral muscle rFCSA are risk factors for cage subsidence after PLIF.

Reverse Lumbar Pedicle Screw in Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion: A Novel Concept to Restrict Cage Subsidence

OBJECTIVE

Cage subsidence is a common morbidity after oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF), with risk of compromising clinical and radiographic outcomes. The study aims to describe an innovative reverse lumbar pedicle screw (RLPS) technique in OLIF and compare its effect on restricting cage subsidence with classical lateral fixation (LF) in radiological and clinical evaluation.

METHOD

Consecutive patients having undergone single-level OLIF-LF/RLPS from 2018 to 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. In OLIF-RLPS, the upper entry point was determined at the intersection between one horizontal line (1 cm above inferior endplate) and one vertical line (dissecting anterior and middle thirds of the vertebra) while the inferior entry point between one horizontal line (5 mm below superior endplate) and the same vertical line. Trajectories were from vertebrae reverse into contralateral pedicle. Radiological evaluation included disc height (DH) and segmental lordosis (SL); cage subsidence was evaluated by DH loss. Clinical assessment included visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI). Student t or Mann-Whitney U test was used for continuous variation according to normality analysis while Chi-square test for category variation.

RESULTS

A total of 29 patients had been enrolled in the study including 14 cases in the RLPS group and 15 cases in the LF group. The DH in the OLIF-RLPS group had increased from the preoperative 9.07 ± 1.73 mm to 13.73 ± 1.83 mm postoperatively, without significant difference compared with the OLIF-LF group during the perioperative, but decreased to 12.53 ± 1.74 mm in 3 months and maintained at 12.00 ± 1.45 mm in 12 months, significantly higher than the OLIF-LF group (p < 0.05). At the last follow-up, 7.1% (1/14) cases in the OLIF-RLPS group had shown subsidence of grade I, significantly less than 46.7% (7/15) cases in the OLIF-LF group. Pain and disability had improved similarly in two groups, without significant difference detected between two groups at the last follow-up.

CONCLUSION

RLPS technique with modified entry points and prolonged trajectory could effectively restrict cage subsidence in OLIF postoperatively compared with traditional lateral fixation.

Resisting subsidence with a truss Implant: Application of the "Snowshoe" principle for interbody fusion devices

The primary objective was to compare the subsidence resistance properties of a novel 3D-printed spinal interbody titanium implant versus a predicate polymeric annular cage. We evaluated a 3D-printed spinal interbody fusion device that employs truss-based bio-architectural features to apply the snowshoe principle of line length contact to provide efficient load distribution across the implant/endplate interface as means of resisting implant subsidence. Devices were tested mechanically using synthetic bone blocks of differing densities (osteoporotic to normal) to determine the corresponding resistance to subsidence under compressive load. Statistical analyses were performed to compare the subsidence loads and evaluate the effect of cage length on subsidence resistance. The truss implant demonstrated a marked rectilinear increase in resistance to subsidence associated with increase in the line length contact interface that corresponds with implant length irrespective of subsidence rate or bone density. In blocks simulating osteoporotic bone, comparing the shortest with the longest length truss cage (40 vs. 60 mm), the average compressive load necessary to induce subsidence of the implant increased by 46.4% (383.2 to 561.0 N) and 49.3% (567.4 to 847.2 N) for 1 and 2 mm of subsidence, respectively. In contrast, for annular cages, there was only a modest increase in compressive load when comparing the shortest with the longest length cage at a 1 mm subsidence rate. The Snowshoe truss cages demonstrated substantially more resistance to subsidence than corresponding annular cages. Clinical studies are required to support the biomechanical findings in this work.

Hidden Blood Loss and Its Possible Risk Factors in Full Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion

BACKGROUND

Full endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-LIF) is a representative recent emerging minimally invasive operation. The hidden blood loss (HBL) in an Endo-LIF procedure and its possible risk factors are still unclear.

METHODS

The blood loss (TBL) was calculated by Gross formula. Sex, age, BMI, hypertension, diabetes, ASA classification, fusion levels, surgical approach type, surgery time, preoperative RBC, HGB, Hct, PT, INR, APTT, Fg, postoperative mean arterial pressure, postoperative heart rate, Intraoperative blood loss (IBL), patient blood volume were included to investigate the possible risk factors by correlation analysis and multiple linear regression between variables and HBL.

RESULTS

Ninety-six patients (23 males, 73 females) who underwent Endo-LIF were retrospective analyzed in this study. The HBL was 240.11 (65.51, 460.31) mL (median [interquartile range]). Fusion levels (p = 0.002), age (p = 0.003), hypertension (p = 0.000), IBL (p = 0.012), PT (p = 0.016), preoperative HBG (p = 0.037) were the possible risk factors.

CONCLUSION

Fusion levels, younger age, hypertension, prolonged PT, preoperative HBG are possible risk factors of HBL in an Endo-LIF procedure. More attention should be paid especially in multi-level minimally invasive surgery. The increase of fusion levels will lead to a considerable HBL.

A Proposed Personalized Spine Care Protocol (SpineScreen) to Treat Visualized Pain Generators: An Illustrative Study Comparing Clinical Outcomes and Postoperative Reoperations between Targeted Endoscopic Lumbar Decompression Surgery, Minimally Invasive TLIF and Open Laminectomy

Background: Endoscopically visualized spine surgery has become an essential tool that aids in identifying and treating anatomical spine pathologies that are not well demonstrated by traditional advanced imaging, including MRI. These pathologies may be visualized during endoscopic lumbar decompression (ELD) and categorized into primary pain generators (PPG). Identifying these PPGs provides crucial information for a successful outcome with ELD and forms the basis for our proposed personalized spine care protocol (SpineScreen). Methods: a prospective study of 412 patients from 7 endoscopic practices consisting of 207 (50.2%) males and 205 (49.8%) females with an average age of 63.67 years and an average follow-up of 69.27 months was performed to compare the durability of targeted ELD based on validated primary pain generators versus image-based open lumbar laminectomy, and minimally invasive lumbar transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF) using Kaplan-Meier median survival calculations. The serial time was determined as the interval between index surgery and when patients were censored for additional interventional and surgical treatments for low back-related symptoms. A control group was recruited from patients referred for a surgical consultation but declined interventional and surgical treatment and continued on medical care. Control group patients were censored when they crossed over into any surgical or interventional treatment group. Results: of the 412 study patients, 206 underwent ELD (50.0%), 61 laminectomy (14.8%), and 78 (18.9%) TLIF. There were 67 patients in the control group (16.3% of 412 patients). The most common surgical levels were L4/5 (41.3%), L5/S1 (25.0%), and L4-S1 (16.3%). At two-year f/u, excellent and good Macnab outcomes were reported by 346 of the 412 study patients (84.0%). The VAS leg pain score reduction was 4.250 ± 1.691 (p < 0.001). No other treatment during the available follow-up was required in 60.7% (125/206) of the ELD, 39.9% (31/78) of the TLIF, and 19.7% (12/61 of the laminectomy patients. In control patients, only 15 of the 67 (22.4%) control patients continued with conservative care until final follow-up, all of which had fair and poor functional Macnab outcomes. In patients with Excellent Macnab outcomes, the median durability was 62 months in ELD, 43 in TLIF, and 31 months in laminectomy patients (p < 0.001). The overall survival time in control patients was eight months with a standard error of 0.942, a lower boundary of 6.154, and an upper boundary of 9.846 months. In patients with excellent Macnab outcomes, the median durability was 62 months in ELD, 43 in TLIF, and 31 months in laminectomy patients versus control patients at seven months (p < 0.001). The most common new-onset symptom for censoring was dysesthesia ELD (9.4%; 20/206), axial back pain in TLIF (25.6%;20/78), and recurrent pain in laminectomy (65.6%; 40/61) patients (p < 0.001). Transforaminal epidural steroid injections were tried in 11.7% (24/206) of ELD, 23.1% (18/78) of TLIF, and 36.1% (22/61) of the laminectomy patients. The secondary fusion rate among ELD patients was 8.8% (18/206). Among TLIF patients, the most common additional treatments were revision fusion (19.2%; 15/78) and multilevel rhizotomy (10.3%; 8/78). Common follow-up procedures in laminectomy patients included revision laminectomy (16.4%; 10/61), revision ELD (11.5%; 7/61), and multilevel rhizotomy (11.5%; 7/61). Control patients crossed over into ELD (13.4%), TLIF (13.4%), laminectomy (10.4%) and interventional treatment (40.3%) arms at high rates. Most control patients treated with spinal injections (55.5%) had excellent and good functional outcomes versus 40.7% with fair and poor (3.7%), respectively. The control patients (93.3%) who remained in medical management without surgery or interventional care (14/67) had the worst functional outcomes and were rated as fair and poor. Conclusions: clinical outcomes were more favorable with lumbar surgeries than with non-surgical control groups. Of the control patients, the crossover rate into interventional and surgical care was 40.3% and 37.2%, respectively. There are longer symptom-free intervals after targeted ELD than with TLIF or laminectomy. Additional intervention and surgical treatments are more often needed to manage new-onset postoperative symptoms in TLIF- and laminectomy compared to ELD patients. Few ELD patients will require fusion in the future. Considering the rising cost of surgical spine care, we offer SpineScreen as a simplified and less costly alternative to traditional image-based care models by focusing on primary pain generators rather than image-based criteria derived from the preoperative lumbar MRI scan.

Improving the Management of Patients with Osteoporosis Undergoing Spinal Fusion: The Need for a Bone Mineral Density-Matched Interbody Cage

With an increasingly aging population globally, a confluence has emerged between the rising prevalence of degenerative spinal disease and osteoporosis. Fusion of the anterior spinal column remains the mainstay surgical intervention for many spinal degenerative disorders. However, decreased vertebral bone mineral density (BMD), quantitatively measured by dual x-ray absorptiometry (DXA), complicates treatment with surgical interbody fusion as weak underlying bone stock increases the risk of post-operative implant-related adverse events, including cage subsidence. There is a necessity for developing cages with advanced structural designs that incorporate bioengineering and architectural principles to tailor the interbody fusion device directly to the patient’s BMD status. Specifically, lattice-designed cages that mimic the web-like structure of native cancellous bone have demonstrated excellent resistance to post-operative subsidence. This article provides an introductory profile of a spinal interbody implant designed intentionally to simulate the lattice structure of human cancellous bone, with a similar modulus of elasticity, and specialized to match a patient’s bone status across the BMD continuum. The implant incorporates an open pore design where the degree of pore compactness directly corresponds to the patient’s DXA-defined BMD status, including patients with osteoporosis.

Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Technical Note and an Outcome Comparison with the Conventional Minimally Invasive Fusion

Background

In the past few decades, the minimally invasive technique for spine surgery has developed extensively from the scope of decompression until fusion surgeries to reduce damages to the normal anatomical structure. Unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) is one of the fusion options which is readily available without a sophisticated minimal invasive instrument. Our aim is to introduce ULIF experience in our center and comparing the result with conventional minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF).

Methods

This is a retrospective cohort study of 145 lumbar spondylolisthesis cases that underwent fusion surgery with either ULIF or the conventional MIS-TLIF. All of the patients were observed within a 12-month follow-up period to evaluate the back pain and leg pain Visual Analogue Score (VAS), the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), and fusion rate.

Results

The leg pain VAS was similarly improved in both groups. ULIF has a significant back pain improvement on direct post operation and at the 3-months follow-up (p value 0.032 and 0.046 respectively). ULIF group also had a significantly better improvement of ODI scores on the early post-operative period (p=0.045). However, both groups similarly showed improvement of ODI score and the SF-36 at the 3-, 6-, and 12- months follow up.

Conclusion

Full endoscopic fusion surgery with ULIF offers a comparable long-term outcome and a significantly better back pain VAS reduction in short-term follow up compared to the conventional MIS-TLIF. ULIF, with further improvement, can be the next gold standard in managing degenerative lumbar spine conditions.

[Advances in research on Cage subsidence following lumbar interbody fusion]

Objective

To summarize the advances in research on Cage subsidence following lumbar interbody fusion, and provide reference for its prevention.

Methods

The definition, development, clinical significance, and related risk factors of Cage subsidence following lumbar interbody fusion were throughout reviewed by referring to relevant domestic and doreign literature in recent years.

Results

At present, there is no consensus on the definition of Cage subsidence, and mostly accepted as the disk height reduction greater than 2 mm. Cage subsidence mainly occurs in the early postoperative stage, which weakens the radiological surgical outcome, and may further damage the effectiveness or even lead to surgical failure. Cage subsidence is closely related to the Cage size and its placement location, intraoperative endplate preparation, morphological matching of disk space to Cage, bone mineral density, body mass index, and so on.

Conclusion

The appropriate size and shape of the Cage usage, the posterolateral Cage placed, the gentle endplate operation to prevent injury, the active perioperative anti-osteoporosis treatment, and the education of patients to control body weight may help to prevent Cage subsidence and ensure good surgical results.

Truss implant technology™ for interbody fusion in spinal degenerative disorders: profile of advanced structural design, mechanobiologic and performance characteristics

Introduction: Interbody fusion devices are customarily used in fusion of the anterior spinal column for treatment of degenerative disc disease. Their traditional role is to reestablish and maintain intervertebral disc height, contain bone graft and provide mechanical support for the spine while osseointegration takes place. Utilizing the principles of mechanobiology, a unique biokinetic interbody fusion device has been developed that employs an advanced structural design to facilitate and actively participate in the fusion consolidation process.Areas covered: This article profiles and characterizes 4WEB Medical's Truss Implant Technology™ which includes a range of 3D-printed titanium spinal interbody implants and non-spinal implants whose design is based on truss structures enabled by advances in additive manufacturing. Four main areas of the implant design and functionality are detailed: bio-architecture, mechanobiologic underpinnings, bioactive surface features, and subsidence resistance. Pre-clinical and clinical examples are provided to describe and specify the bioactive roles and contributions of each design feature.Expert opinion: The distinct and unique combination of features incorporated within the truss cage design results in a biokinetic implant that actively participates in the bone healing cascade and fusion process.

"Pin Method" for Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion

BACKGROUND

 Endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion using a cage can have a similar fusion rate as minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) or open lumbar interbody fusion. Direct visual control during cage insertion is the key to prevent neural structure incarceration in endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion. Creating a track with any kind of retractor or cannula for cage insertion under fluoroscopic guidance is not safe enough, because the retractor and cannula can create many blind spots and can displace during cage insertion.

METHOD

 The pin method utilizes two flexible metallic guide pins inserted from the skin incision through the annulotomy site into the disk space until the anterior longitudinal ligament is reached under direct endoscopic monitoring. The two guide pins could be oriented parallel or perpendicular or even reduce to one or increase to many as needed to serve as a sliding track and a see-through barrier to prevent neural incarceration.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

 Two cases of L4/L5 grade 2 spondylolisthesis with neurogenic claudication were treated with endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion with 1-year follow-up, and the visual analog scale (VAS) score, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score, EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D, %) score, and modified Macnab score all improved greatly in both. The author developed an original, cheap, accessible, and safe method called the "pin method," which can be used in both full-endoscopic and biportal surgery and can apply to various approaches and has no limitation on the size and shape of the cage.

Dysethesia due to irritation of the dorsal root ganglion following lumbar transforaminal endoscopy: Analysis of frequency and contributing factors

BACKGROUND

New onset of acute dysethetic leg pain due to irritation of the dorsal root ganglion (DRG) following uneventful recovery from an expertly executed lumbar transforaminal endoscopic decompression is a common problem. Its incidence and relation to any risk factors that could be mitigated preoperatively are not well understood.

METHODS

We performed a multicenter frequency analysis of DRG irritation dysesthesia in 451 patients who underwent lumbar transforaminal endoscopic decompression for herniated disc and foraminal stenosis. The 451 patients consisted of 250 men and 201 women with an average age of 55.77 ± 15.6 years. The average follow-up of 47.16 months. The primary clinical outcome measures were the modified Macnab criteria. Chi-square testing was employed to analyze statistically significant associations between increased dysesthesia rates, preoperative diagnosis, the surgical level(s), and surgeon technique.

RESULTS

At final follow-up, Excellent (183/451; 40.6 %) and Good (195/451; 43.2 %) Macnab outcomes were observed in the majority of patients (378/451; 83.8 %). The majority of study patients (354; 78.5 %) had an entirely uneventful postoperative recovery without any DRG irritation, but 21.5 % of patients were treated for it in the immediate postoperative recovery period with supportive care measures including activity modification, transforaminal epidural steroid injections, non-steroidal anti-inflammatories, gabapentin, or pregabalin. There was no statistically significant difference in dysesthesia rates between lumbar levels from L1 to S1, or between single (DRG rate 21.8 %) or two-level (DRG rate 20.2 %) endoscopic decompression (p = 0.742). A statistically significantly higher incidence of postoperative dysesthesia was observed in patients who underwent decompression for foraminal stenosis (38/103; 27 %), and recurrent herniated disc (7/10; 41.2 %; p = 0.039). There were also statistically significant variations in dysesthesia rates between the seven participating clinical study sites ranging from 11.6%-33% (p = 0.002). Unrelenting postoperative dysesthetic leg pain due to DRG irritation was statistically associated with less favorable long-term clinical outcomes with DRG rates as high as 45 % in patients with a Fair and 61.3 % in patients with Poor Macnab outcomes (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Postoperative dysesthesia following transforaminal endoscopic decompression should be expected in one-fifth of patients. There was no predilection for any lumbar level. Foraminal stenosis and recurrent herniated disc surgery are risk factors for higher dysesthesia rates. There was a statistically significant variation of dysesthesia rates between participating centers suggesting that the surgeon skill level is of significance. Severe postoperative dysesthesia may be a predictor of Fair of Poor long-term Macnab outcomes.