Now, these patients were very hesitant to undergo that, especially due to the fact that they were fairly young and healthy otherwise (one is around 35 and the other one is about 55). A fusion is where they remove the unhealthy tissue and use permanent hardware to prevent that section of the spine from even moving. The surgeon agreed that they needed surgery and that they probably needed a fusion of the spine.

In the last year or two, I have had two specific cases of lumbar disc herniation patients with significant, large herniations that ended up having their MRIs and were sent to a surgeon. Unless you are experiencing an actual emergency like loss of bowel or bladder control or severe weakness, most of those symptoms will resolve without significant intervention like surgery.

Many times, there is not any evidence to suggest that a large disc herniation always needs surgery. Unless patients are suffering from exigent conditions, such as cauda, equina syndrome, or a profound or progressive neurological deficit necessitating immediate surgery, most patients’ symptoms resolve without significant intervention.' A more simplified version of this statement: Despite what your doctors might think, it does not matter how big the disc herniation is. Regardless, the literature is controversial at best in its support of utilizing disc size to inform surgical management of lumbar disc herniations. Perhaps this practice is the result of an underlying belief that spontaneous resolution of large herniations is rare and will ultimately require surgical intervention. 'Some surgeons use the size of a lumbar disc herniation to determine whether or not a patient will ultimately fail non-operative management and require surgery. Why is that? Let me quote you what the surgeons from this study found. We have a five times higher rate of spine surgery than everyone else. Clearly something is going on here in the United States.

Little disc herniated