Neurosurgery

Herniated Disc Surgery - Bulged Disc Surgery

Bulge, protrusion, extrusion and sequestration are four different things on your radiology report, and only some of them are ever operations. What each word means for the back and the neck, and which findings dissolve on their own.

About This Department

In a study that scanned 1,211 people with no neck symptoms whatsoever, 87.6 percent had a bulging disc, including 73.3 percent of the men and 78.0 percent of the women in their twenties. A bulge is not a herniation, three professional societies have agreed a naming standard that keeps them in separate categories, and radiology reports mix the words anyway. This page is about the words on your report, which of them describe something an operation can fix, and which of them describe what a normal spine looks like on a scan.

Free consultation

Send the report and the images, and have someone read them against your symptoms

Send the radiology report in full together with the image files themselves, a description of where the pain, numbness or weakness actually goes in the arm or the leg, how long it has been there and whether it is changing, and a note of anything already tried. A spine surgeon and a radiologist read the report against your symptoms and tell you which finding on it could plausibly be responsible, which findings are incidental, and whether an operation is even the question. No fee, no obligation, and a coordinator replies in your own language, usually within the same working day.

WhatsApp: +90 549 648 55 11 Send your report and images +90 549 648 55 11

Six words, six things

Almost everyone who searches for disc surgery does so with a piece of paper in front of them, and almost everyone has been left to interpret that paper alone. The document typically contains several findings at several levels, described in words that sound interchangeable and are not. Bulge, protrusion, extrusion, sequestration, degeneration and annular fissure name six different states of a disc, with different implications, different natural histories and different relationships to whether anything hurts.

Combined task forces of three professional bodies agreed the naming convention that separates them in 2014, those bodies being the North American Spine Society, the American Society of Spine Radiology and the American Society of Neuroradiology, updating a version first published in 2001. It is a naming convention and not a piece of evidence, which is worth saying plainly, and it exists because the same appearance on a scan was being reported in incompatible ways by different departments. Its central structural point is that a bulge sits outside the herniation family altogether.

That distinction is not a technicality. It changes what happens to the disc over the next year, it changes how strongly the finding associates with symptoms at all, and it changes whether anyone should be discussing an operation.

This page walks through the vocabulary, then applies the same treatment to the neck, which follows different rules and has an entirely separate set of operations.

How a disc fails, in order

The outer ring cracks. A disc is a soft center inside a tough fibrous ring, and the ring develops fissures with age and load. This is the annular fissure on your report. It is common, it is often silent, and in a pooled comparison of people with and without back pain the association did not reach significance.

The soft center pushes into the crack. The disc now has a focal lump on one side, wider at its base than at its tip, still held in by intact outer fibers. That is a protrusion, and it is a genuine herniation even though nothing has escaped.

Material breaks through. The escaped part is now wider than the neck holding it, like toothpaste squeezed through a small hole. That is an extrusion, and it is the finding with the strongest association with symptoms in the pooled data.

The fragment separates. A piece loses its connection entirely and sits free in the canal, sometimes migrating up or down behind the vertebral body. This is a sequestration, and it is the appearance that alarms patients most and predicts the best natural course.

The body clears it away. Free disc material outside its normal home is treated by the immune system as debris to be removed, which is exactly why the loosest fragments disappear most reliably. A bulge, by contrast, is not escaped material at all, so there is nothing for the body to clear, and bulges shrink in only 13.33 percent of cases.

What each word means

Read your own report with this beside it. The findings are listed roughly in order of how much they matter, which is not the order they usually appear in.

Wide table. Swipe or drag it sideways on a narrow screen, because it scrolls instead of shrinking.

The vocabulary of a spine report, and what each term describes
Word on the report	What it describes	What it means for you
Sequestration	A piece of disc has broken off completely and lies free in the spinal canal, no longer connected to the disc it came from.	Sounds the worst and behaves the best. In pooled data, 87.77 percent of sequestrations shrank away without surgery.
Extrusion	Disc material has pushed out through the outer ring and the escaped part is wider than the neck connecting it.	The finding most strongly associated with symptoms, with odds of 4.38 and a confidence interval of 1.98 to 9.68.
Protrusion	A focal outpouching where the base is wider than the part sticking out. Still a herniation, still contained.	Associated with symptoms at odds of 2.65, and shrinks less often than an extrusion at 37.53 percent.
Bulge	The whole disc extends slightly beyond the edge of the bone all the way round. Not focal, and not classed as a herniation.	Present in 87.6 percent of people with no neck symptoms at all. Almost never a reason to operate.
Annular fissure	A tear in the fibrous outer ring, sometimes reported as a high-intensity zone or an annular tear.	In a pooled comparison of people with and without back pain, the association was not statistically significant.
Degeneration or desiccation	The disc has dried out and lost height. Often reported as a black disc or given a grade from one to five.	In a population study of 975 people, degeneration on its own was not associated with back pain.
Modic or endplate signal change	A signal change in the bone immediately above or below a disc, graded in three types.	Median prevalence 43 percent in people with back pain and 6 percent in people without. Not an operation.
Facet arthropathy	Wear in the small paired joints at the back of each spinal segment.	Found in about 60 percent of men and 67 percent of women in a community sample, with no association with back pain.

What happens over a year

Weeks one to six, the pain does most of its improving. In a series of six patients who all refused surgery for a sequestrated fragment, radicular pain settled within three to six weeks in every one of them. That is a case report and not a rate, and the timing is worth knowing because it sets expectations correctly.

Months four to nine, the picture on the scan catches up. In those same six patients the fragment was still visibly disappearing on scans taken four to nine months later, long after the pain had gone. The symptom timeline and the imaging timeline are decoupled, and rescanning early will show you something that has not caught up with how you feel.

Six months is where most of the shrinking happens. Pooling 31 studies of 2,233 people treated without surgery, the authors reported that resorption occurred mainly within the first six months of conservative treatment. Overall, 70.39 percent of herniations shrank.

Some findings block the process. A review of the mechanism reports that herniated tissue containing a high proportion of cartilage, and discs showing Modic changes on the scan, resorb less readily. A ring of contrast enhancement around the fragment, sometimes called a bull's eye sign, points the other way and predicts easier reabsorption.

The report you are holding is a photograph of one moment. Everything above happens after the image was taken. A scan describes one afternoon in the life of a disc that is actively changing, and the words on it are least informative at precisely the moment people read them most anxiously.

The bulge, specifically

Almost everyone has one

Researchers scanned 1,211 healthy volunteers aged twenty to seventy with no neck symptoms, roughly a hundred per decade of each sex, and 87.6 percent had disc bulging. Among the youngest group, in their twenties, it was already 73.3 percent of men and 78.0 percent of women. A finding present in three quarters of symptom-free twenty-year-olds is a description of ordinary anatomy.

The statistical picture is genuinely murky

In a pooled comparison of 3,097 people aged fifty and under, bulges were more common in those with back pain, with odds of 7.54 and a confidence interval running from 1.28 to 44.56. That interval is so wide that the true value could be almost anything from a slight association to an enormous one, which is a different situation from a finding with a tight interval. Quoting the headline figure without the interval would misrepresent it badly.

It is the word radiologists disagree about most

In a study of three readers assessing 122 scans, agreement on whether a displacement was present at all reached 85 percent, and the authors noted specifically that normal versus bulged disc distinctions demonstrated the most disagreement of anything they measured. A separate study of five radiologists reading the same 53 scans four times concluded that one of the two naming systems tested was less clear regarding the classification of discs as normal versus bulged.

So what is bulged disc surgery

There is no operation for a disc bulge as such. If someone is proposing surgery and the only abnormality on your scan is a bulge, the question to ask is which specific structure is compressing which specific nerve, and how that was established. A bulge can occasionally contribute to narrowing in a tight canal alongside other changes, and that is a different clinical situation from the bulge being the diagnosis.

Which findings track with pain

What the comparison found

A meta-analysis pooled fourteen studies covering 3,097 adults aged fifty and under, half of them with self-reported back pain and half without, and compared what their scans showed. Extrusion was the finding most clearly associated with symptoms, at odds of 4.38 with a confidence interval of 1.98 to 9.68. Protrusion followed at odds of 2.65 with an interval of 1.52 to 4.62. Disc degeneration came in at 2.24 with an interval of 1.21 to 4.15. Those three are the precise ones, and they line up exactly with the sequence described earlier, since the further disc material has traveled from where it belongs, the more strongly it associates with hurting. None of those three intervals is narrow enough to fix a number for any individual, so the sensible way to read the ordering is as a ranking of which finding is most likely to be the explanation rather than as a measure of how much each one hurts. What survives the caveats is the ordering itself, and it is the reason the exact word on your report is worth extracting from whoever wrote it rather than accepting a summary sentence that lumps six different states of a disc under one reassuring or one frightening heading.

What did not associate at all

Four findings showed no statistically significant association with back pain in that analysis. Any Modic change, taken as a group, gave odds of 1.62 with an interval from 0.48 to 5.41. High-intensity zones gave 2.10 with an interval from 0.73 to 6.02. Annular fissures gave 1.79 with an interval from 0.97 to 3.31, which just includes no effect. Spondylolisthesis gave 1.59 with an interval from 0.78 to 3.24. Every one of those four appears routinely in reports and is routinely read by patients as an explanation for their pain.

Two things that analysis cannot tell you

The first is direction. Every study in it was cross-sectional, meaning the scan and the symptom were recorded at the same moment, so nothing establishes which came first. The second is that the population was restricted to people aged fifty and under, and the exposure was self-reported back pain rather than a verified diagnosis. Association at a population level also says nothing about an individual, and the whole clinical skill lies in deciding whether the finding on your scan explains your particular pattern of symptoms.

Findings that are not operations

Five entries appear on almost every spine report and none of them is a surgical diagnosis on its own. Each is worth understanding, and none is worth losing sleep over.

Disc degeneration or desiccation. A population study of 975 people with a mean age of 66 found degeneration alone in 30.4 percent, and its authors concluded that degeneration on its own was not associated with low back pain. What did associate was the combination of degeneration with an endplate signal change, present in 26.6 percent, which carried odds of 2.17 overall in the lumbar spine with an interval of 1.2 to 3.9.
Modic or endplate signal change. A systematic review of 82 samples found a median prevalence of 43 percent in people with back pain or sciatica and 6 percent in people from non-clinical populations, and noted that reported prevalence was lower in the better-quality studies. A later meta-analysis of 31 studies, only one of which was at low risk of bias, found 15 of them reported a significant positive association and its only pooled figure applied to a narrow subgroup assessed by an invasive and contested test.
Facet arthropathy. In 188 people from a community cohort assessed by computed tomography, facet joint osteoarthritis was present in 59.6 percent of men and 66.7 percent of women, rising to 89.2 percent of those in their sixties. The authors reported that individuals with facet arthritis at any spinal level showed no association with low back pain, and stated in their conclusion that they had failed to find one.
Schmorl's nodes. Small indentations where disc material has pushed vertically into the bone of the vertebra above or below. In the same population study of 975 people they appeared alone in only 1.5 percent, and combined with other findings far more often. They are a structural curiosity rather than a target.
High-intensity zone. A bright spot in the outer ring of the disc, sometimes reported as evidence of a painful tear. A systematic review found six usable studies and reported prevalence ranging from 3 to 61 percent in people with back pain against 2 to 3 percent in people without, with only three of the six finding a significant association. A twenty-fold spread across six studies is not a finding on which to base an operation.

Which ones dissolve

If one number on this page justifies learning the vocabulary, it is this one. A meta-analysis pooled 31 studies of 2,233 people whose herniations were treated without surgery and rescanned, and sorted the results by exactly the categories described above.

Overall, 70.39 percent of herniations shrank spontaneously. Broken down by type, the figures were 87.77 percent for sequestrations, 66.91 percent for extrusions, 37.53 percent for protrusions and 13.33 percent for bulges. Resorption occurred mainly within the first six months of conservative treatment. The authors concluded that ruptured herniations resorb more often than contained ones.

That gradient runs precisely opposite to how alarming the words sound. The finding that reads as catastrophic on a report, a free fragment sitting loose in the canal, is the one most likely to be gone within a year, because the immune system recognizes displaced disc material as something to clear away and the more thoroughly displaced it is, the better it can get at it. The finding that sounds mildest, a bulge, is barely displaced at all and therefore has nothing to be cleared.

Two cautions belong with those numbers. The studies pooled were observational, with no confidence intervals published for any of the proportions and no measure of how much they varied between studies, and the reported rates differed by country across a range the authors themselves flagged as unexplained. There is also a selection problem built into the design, since only people who agree to a second scan appear in the denominator, and whether that inflates or deflates the figures depends on who tends to come back. Treat the gradient as robust and the individual percentages as approximate. Confidence in the direction of the gradient rests on a mechanism that makes sense independently of the data, which is why it deserves more weight than any single percentage inside it, and mechanisms that explain their own numbers are rare enough in this field to be worth pointing out when one turns up. Nobody should plan a year around 66.91 rather than 60 percent.

How reliably words are applied

Having a standard vocabulary is not the same as applying it consistently, and several groups have tested how well readers agree. Kappa is the statistic used, where values above 0.8 count as almost perfect, 0.61 to 0.80 as substantial, 0.41 to 0.60 as moderate and 0.21 to 0.40 as fair.

Another wide one. Swipe or drag it sideways on a narrow screen, because it scrolls instead of shrinking.

How well readers agree when applying these terms to the same images
What was measured	Result	Who and how many
Whether a displacement is there at all	85 percent agreement, kappa 0.68	Three readers, 122 scans, two imaging centers. Readers were chiropractic radiologists.
Which category it belongs to	76 percent agreement, kappa 0.60	The same study. Naming the finding is measurably harder than spotting it.
The same reader, reading twice	Kappa 0.38 to 0.46 for classification	Forty-four scans reread. The authors call this lower than expected, and it is.
Disc contour under two naming systems	Fair to moderate between readers	Five general radiologists from three hospitals, 53 patients, four readings each.
Grading nerve root compromise	Kappa 0.62 to 0.67 between readers	Three observers, 500 nerve roots in 250 patients, with 94 checked against surgery.
Grading degeneration one to five	Kappa 0.69 to 0.81 between readers	Three observers, 300 discs in 60 patients. The most reproducible measure of the set.

What to ask about your report

Five things turn a page of vocabulary into a conversation. Each of these has a specific answer that a competent clinician can give in a sentence.

Which single finding on this report explains my symptoms. Not which findings are present, since several always are, but which one is the culprit and why. If the answer is a list instead of a single item with a reason, the report has been read to you instead of interpreted for you.
Does the side and the level match where my pain goes. A left-sided finding does not explain right-sided symptoms and a finding at one level does not explain a nerve from another. Have the pattern of your symptoms traced and then pointed at on the image.
Is it a bulge, a protrusion, an extrusion or a sequestration. Get the exact word. It changes the chance the problem resolves on its own from roughly one in eight to roughly seven in eight, which is the single largest piece of information available about your likely course.
Which of these findings would you expect in someone my age without symptoms. A clinician who can answer this is reading your scan in context. Bulging discs were present in 87.6 percent of asymptomatic volunteers in one large study of the neck, so their presence is information about age rather than about disease.
What would change if I did nothing for three months. The honest answer for most people is that the fragment would likely shrink and the pain would likely settle. If a specific reason exists to expect otherwise in your case, hearing it stated is far more useful than any adjective on the report.

Pressure and chemistry

Why size and symptoms come apart

The mechanical story, that a lump presses on a nerve and the nerve complains, is intuitive and incomplete. It cannot explain why enormous herniations are sometimes silent, why small ones are sometimes agonizing, or why pain frequently resolves months before the fragment does. The missing element is chemistry, because escaped disc material is not just an object in the wrong place, it is biologically active tissue that the body responds to.

What has been measured

A study of 37 patients classified their discs at the time of surgery into bulging, contained and non-contained groups and measured inflammatory mediators in tissue taken from each. Leukotriene B4 and thromboxane B2 differed significantly between contained and non-contained herniations, with the highest concentrations in the non-contained group, so the categories on your report correspond to measurably different biochemistry, and that same study found no tumor necrosis factor alpha and no interleukin-6 at all, which is a useful corrective to the impression that the inflammatory story is settled. A later systematic review of 16 studies and 1,212 patients with sciatica catalogued a long list of inflammatory markers including tumor necrosis factor alpha and phospholipase A2, found a moderate correlation between tumor necrosis factor alpha in biopsy tissue and pain, and concluded that there was insufficient evidence to draw firm conclusions about the relationship between inflammation and symptoms. Taken together the two studies say that something measurable is happening in the tissue and that nobody has yet shown which molecule matters, which is a more honest position than the confident inflammatory narrative circulating in patient material and in advertising for injections.

What happened when someone tried to treat it

If inflammation drives the pain, blocking it should help, and that has been tested. A systematic review pooled six studies of drugs targeting tumor necrosis factor alpha in sciatica, five of them randomized and one not. The medium-term global effect gave odds of 2.7 with a confidence interval of 1.0 to 7.1, short-term leg pain improved by a weighted mean difference of 13.6 points with an interval from 0.4 to 26.8, and the improvements were no longer statistically significant when the analysis was restricted to the randomized trials alone. Their conclusion was that there was insufficient evidence to recommend these agents and sufficient evidence to justify larger trials, which remains the position. Read in sequence, the biochemical measurements and the drug trials describe a mechanism real enough to detect in tissue and not yet understood well enough to interfere with usefully, which is roughly where a great deal of spine medicine currently sits. That gap is uncomfortable and it is where the field is.

The neck, in numbers

Herniated discs in the neck produce pain, numbness or weakness down an arm rather than a leg, and almost everything about them differs from the lumbar version. A records-linkage study of an entire American county over fifteen years produced the reference figures.

Wide again. Drag the table sideways on a narrow screen, because it scrolls instead of shrinking.

Cervical radiculopathy in 561 patients from a whole-population study
Question	Answer	Worth knowing
How common is it	83.2 per 100,000 per year	107.3 in men and 63.5 in women, peaking at 202.9 per 100,000 between fifty and fifty-four.
Did an injury cause it	In 14.8 percent of cases	Physical exertion or trauma preceded onset in fewer than one in six. Most people cannot identify a cause because there usually is not one.
Is a disc always responsible	A confirmed disc protrusion in 21.9 percent	Spondylosis, disc, or both accounted for 68.4 percent. This cohort predates routine scanning, so read it as a caution rather than a modern proportion.
Which nerve is usually involved	C7, then C6	Consistent with the levels where compression is most often seen on scans of people with no symptoms, at C5-C6 and C6-C7.
How does it usually end	90 percent asymptomatic or mildly affected	At a median follow-up of 4.9 years. Note that 26 percent of that cohort had surgery, so it is not a pure non-operative figure.
Does it come back	Recurrence in 31.7 percent	And 41 percent had previously had a lumbar radiculopathy, which says something about who develops these problems.

Questions to take with you

The first four apply wherever the problem is. The last six are specific to the neck, where the choice of operation is more consequential than in the lower back.

Name the exact category of my herniation, and tell me what that implies about it resolving on its own.
Show me on the image which structure is touching which nerve, and confirm the side matches my symptoms.
List which findings on my report you would expect to see in a person my age with no pain.
Tell me what you expect to happen over the next three months without any intervention.
For a neck problem, explain whether you are proposing to go in from the front or the back, and why that one.
Where a fusion is proposed, say what the evidence is on the level next door needing surgery later.
Should a disc replacement be proposed, name the device and say who funded the trials behind it.
Confirm whether I have any signs of spinal cord involvement rather than nerve root involvement.
Tell me which symptoms should make me seek help urgently rather than wait for a follow-up appointment.
Give me the operative note and the images to take home, whatever is decided.

When the neck is urgent

The difference between a nerve and the cord

A herniation pressing on a nerve root gives pain down one arm. A herniation or spondylosis pressing on the spinal cord itself gives something different, called myelopathy, and it shows up as clumsy hands, trouble with buttons or handwriting, an unsteady walk, and sometimes changes in bladder function. Those symptoms are not a worse version of arm pain, they are a different problem, and they are the situation where an operation stops being optional.

What happens without surgery

A cohort followed 117 people with myelopathy managed without an operation for a mean of two and a half years. Among the 95 newly diagnosed, 57 percent deteriorated neurologically, with a confidence interval of 46 to 67 percent. Among the 22 with recurrent symptoms after previous surgery, 73 percent deteriorated. The authors described the natural history as poor, and that phrase is theirs.

Watching does not work well

In that same cohort, the standard clinical score used to monitor myelopathy detected only 33 percent of the deteriorations, and the scan detected only 28 percent. A composite of several measures reached 81 percent sensitivity. The authors state plainly that the absence of worsening on the scan or on the clinical score is not sufficient to determine that someone is stable.

What surgery achieves

A prospective study of 278 patients across twelve North American centers found significant improvement one year after decompression across the myelopathy score, the disability index and almost every quality of life dimension, and that the degree of improvement did not depend on how severe the symptoms were beforehand. Complications occurred in 18.7 percent. Every patient in that study had surgery, so it shows that operated patients improve and cannot show that surgery beats waiting.

Choosing a neck operation

From the front, with a fusion

The disc is removed through a small incision in the front of the neck and the space is filled with a graft and usually plated. It is the most established operation, it addresses compression coming from the front directly, and the trade is that the segment no longer moves. That immobility is the origin of the adjacent segment argument discussed below.

From the front, with an artificial disc

The same approach, with a moving implant in place of the graft. The randomized evidence is extensive and every trial of it is a device manufacturer's study conducted for regulatory approval, which does not make the results wrong and does mean you should know it. Two of the long-term reports have manufacturer employees among their authors.

From the back, without a fusion

A foraminotomy opens the bony tunnel the nerve exits through, from behind, leaving the disc and the movement alone. It suits a herniation sitting out to one side compressing a single root, and it is the least discussed of the three despite having a randomized trial behind it.

How the choice is actually made

By where the compression sits, how many levels are involved, whether the cord or only a root is affected, and the shape of your neck on the scan. A surgeon who can explain the anatomical reason for their preference is telling you something useful. One who describes a technique as newer or more advanced without reference to your anatomy is not.

The level next door

The number everyone argues about

Fusing one segment of the neck is thought to load the segments above and below, and whether that causes trouble later is the central argument in cervical spine surgery. The reference study followed 374 patients through 409 anterior cervical fusions for up to twenty-one years. New radiculopathy or myelopathy at an adjacent level occurred at 2.9 percent per year over the decade after surgery, and survival analysis predicted that 25.6 percent of patients, with a confidence interval of 20 to 32 percent, would develop it within ten years. More than two thirds of those needed a further operation. Those numbers describe a genuine risk and they do not settle what causes it, because a fused segment and its neighbors share the same owner, the same genetics and the same decades of load, so any figure of this kind bundles the consequence of the operation together with whatever was going to happen anyway. The study that produced it also produced the awkward result below.

The finding that complicates the story

One result in that cohort ran against what its own authors expected, and they published it anyway. The risk of adjacent segment disease was significantly lower after a multilevel fusion than after a single-level one, which is the opposite of what the mechanical theory predicts, since fusing more segments should load the neighbors more. The most likely reading is that some of what gets called adjacent segment disease is simply the natural progression of a degenerative process that was going to affect those levels regardless, and that the patients who need a single-level fusion are the ones with more disc left to degenerate. If that is right, replacing the fusion with a moving implant would not prevent as much as the argument for it assumes. None of that removes the risk of needing surgery at another level later, and it does change what the risk is evidence of, which matters a great deal when the argument is being used to steer you toward a moving implant instead of a fusion.

What the neck trials show

Every randomized comparison of disc replacement against fusion in the neck is a manufacturer's regulatory trial. The results are consistent and the sponsorship is universal, so both belong in the same sentence.

This table is wide too. Swipe it sideways on a narrow screen, because it scrolls instead of shrinking.

The randomized and long-term evidence on cervical operations
Study and comparison	Result	What has to be said with it
Disc replacement against fusion, seven years	At two levels, overall success 60.8 percent against 34.2 percent. At one level, 55.2 percent against 50 percent, which was not significant.	Manufacturer trial across 24 US sites. The success measure includes absence of further surgery, so it and the reoperation result are not independent.
Surgery at the level next door	At one level, 3.7 percent after replacement against 13.6 percent after fusion. At two levels, 4.4 percent against 11.3 percent.	The most clinically meaningful advantage reported for the moving implant, and it is the outcome the device is designed to affect.
Disc replacement at ten years	Further surgery at the operated level rose from 6.6 percent at seven years to 10.3 percent at ten. Adjacent-level surgery reached 13.8 percent.	A single-arm follow-up of the implant group. Bone formation around the implant grade four rose from 1.2 to 4.6 to 9.0 percent at two, seven and ten years.
Pooled across twenty randomized trials	4,004 patients, 2,212 with a disc replacement and 1,792 with a fusion. No difference in blood loss or length of hospital stay.	Eight different prostheses across the included studies, so this pools devices that are not interchangeable.
Foraminotomy from behind against fusion from the front	Success by the standard criteria was 88 percent after the posterior operation and 76 percent after the anterior one, meeting the trial's threshold for being no worse.	265 patients in nine Dutch hospitals, investigator-blinded. One of the two arm-pain endpoints crossed the non-inferiority margin, so the result is not uniform.
Who this evidence covers	Single-level, one-sided nerve root compression in the foraminotomy trial. Patients with pure neck pain and no arm symptoms were excluded.	None of this evidence speaks to operating on someone whose only complaint is a sore neck.

The trial about knowing

Given that this entire page is about understanding a radiology report, one study deserves prominence precisely because it complicates the premise. Somebody randomized whether patients were told what their scan showed.

Two hundred and forty-six patients with acute back pain or radiculopathy all had a scan. Half were given the results within 48 hours, and for the other half both the patient and the treating doctor were kept blind to them. Everyone then had six weeks of conservative management. Clinical outcome at six weeks was similar in both groups, and general health on a standard questionnaire improved more in the group who had not been told, with a p value of 0.008.

Read that carefully before drawing a conclusion from it. The general health finding is one subscale among many comparisons with no correction described, so it is suggestive and not proven, and the patients had pain of less than three weeks' duration, which is not the situation of someone who has been struggling for a year. The abstract provides no group sizes and no scores, only the direction and that single p value.

What it does establish is that knowing your result did not make you better, and may have made you feel slightly worse about your health overall, in a trial where both groups had exactly the same findings inside them. That is not an argument against understanding your report. It is an argument for understanding it accurately rather than alarmingly, which is the difference between reading that you have a bulging disc and reading that most people your age have one too.

What a report changes

The largest test of report wording ever run

Investigators inserted a line into lumbar spine imaging reports at 98 primary care clinics across four American health systems, stating how common each finding is in people of the same age without back pain. Then they counted what happened to 238,886 patients over the following year. The main measure of subsequent spine care showed a difference of 0.7 percent with a confidence interval running from minus 2.9 to plus 1.5 percent, which is nothing. A follow-up analysis of the same trial found no effect on injections and no effect on operations, with odds of 1.01 and 0.99 respectively. Nothing larger has ever been attempted, and the primary result was flatly null, which is worth stating plainly on a page built around the idea that the words on a report change how people think about their own spines, and the null held across four health systems and a full year of follow-up. The effect on care was indistinguishable from zero.

The one signal, and how weak it was

Opioid prescribing within a year fell slightly, with odds of 0.95 and a confidence interval of 0.91 to 1.00, at a p value of 0.04. The upper bound of that interval sits exactly on no effect and it was a secondary outcome in a trial whose primary outcome was null, which is about as fragile as a positive result gets. The investigators randomized clinics instead of individual patients, so the quarter of a million people describe exposure rather than assignment.

Why that is worth telling you

Any page whose premise is that understanding the words matters should say honestly that when somebody put those words into a quarter of a million reports, the health system carried on doing exactly what it was doing. The trial measured what got done to patients. Whether patients felt better informed or less frightened by the added line went unmeasured, by that trial and by everyone since. Understanding your own report is worth doing for your own sake, which is a smaller claim than the one usually made and is the one the evidence supports.

Coming to Istanbul

Send the images before you book anything

Nothing is more useful before you travel than having someone read your images against your symptoms and tell you whether an operation is even the question. Send the image files rather than the report alone, because the report is one radiologist's wording while the images are the evidence, and a second reading frequently reclassifies a finding, and given how much the category changes the expected course, that reclassification can change the whole plan without anyone touching you.

Length of stay if an operation is right

A single-level neck operation typically means one or two nights in hospital and five to seven days in Istanbul in total, allowing a day beforehand for assessment and several days afterward for a wound check before flying. Swallowing is uncomfortable for the first week after an operation through the front of the neck, and that is expected and not a complication. Where the cord is involved rather than a single nerve root, expect a longer stay and a longer conversation, since those decisions are less reversible. Plan the return flight with a few days of slack rather than to the earliest date that looks possible, because the commonest reason people end up rebooking is not a complication but a wound check that gets moved by a day, and rebooking a long-haul ticket takes more time and effort than the extra nights ever would. Nobody regrets the spare afternoon.

Follow up after you return home

You leave with the operative note naming the exact level and what was implanted, the device card if a disc replacement was used, your imaging, and a named contact here. Give all of it to your own doctor instead of filing it, because the level next door needs surgery in about a quarter of fused patients within ten years and the person managing that in eight years' time will need to know precisely what was done. Contact somebody the same day for new weakness, for clumsiness in the hands, for any change in walking or bladder function, or for spreading redness at the wound. Whoever looks after you afterward will not have been in the room, so the paperwork is the only durable record of what was done and at which level, and a folder sitting in a drawer at home is no use at all to a doctor eight years and two countries away. Hand it over at the first appointment.

Herniated and bulging disc FAQ

Is a bulging disc the same as a herniated disc?

No. The agreed naming standard keeps them in separate categories. A bulge is the whole disc extending slightly beyond the bone all the way round, and a herniation is a focal displacement of material. In a study of 1,211 people with no neck symptoms, 87.6 percent had disc bulging.

Is there an operation for a bulging disc?

Not as such. If a bulge is the only abnormality on your scan, ask which structure is compressing which nerve and how that was established. Bulges shrank in only 13.33 percent of cases in pooled data, which reflects the fact that nothing has escaped to be cleared away.

Which type of herniation gets better on its own?

The most dramatic-sounding ones. Pooling 31 studies of 2,233 people, 87.77 percent of sequestrations, 66.91 percent of extrusions and 37.53 percent of protrusions shrank without surgery, mostly within six months.

My report lists degeneration and facet arthritis. Do those need treating?

In a population study of 975 people, disc degeneration on its own was not associated with back pain. In a community sample assessed by scan, facet arthritis was present in about 60 percent of men and 67 percent of women and showed no association with back pain at any level.

Do radiologists agree on these terms?

Moderately. Three readers assessing 122 scans agreed on whether a displacement was present 85 percent of the time and on its category 76 percent of the time, and the authors noted that distinguishing normal from bulged produced the most disagreement of anything they measured.

How is a neck disc different from a back disc?

Symptoms go down an arm, C7 is the commonest nerve involved, and an injury preceded onset in only 14.8 percent of cases in a whole-population study. The operations are different too, with a choice between going in from the front with a fusion or an artificial disc, or from behind without either.

If I have a neck fusion, will the next level fail?

In 374 patients followed up to twenty-one years, new symptoms at an adjacent level occurred at 2.9 percent per year and were predicted to affect 25.6 percent within ten years. Curiously the risk was lower after multilevel than single-level fusion, which suggests part of it is natural progression.

What symptoms mean I should not wait?

For the neck, clumsy hands, difficulty with buttons or handwriting, an unsteady walk or bladder changes suggest the spinal cord rather than a nerve root. In a cohort managed without surgery, 57 percent of newly diagnosed patients deteriorated over an average of two and a half years.

References

Fardon DF, Williams AL, Dohring EJ, Murtagh FR, Rothman SLG, Sze GK. Lumbar disc nomenclature, version 2.0, recommendations of the combined task forces of the North American Spine Society, the American Society of Spine Radiology and the American Society of Neuroradiology. The Spine Journal. 2014;14(11):2525-2545.
Nakashima H, Yukawa Y, Suda K, Yamagata M, Ueta T, Kato F. Abnormal findings on magnetic resonance images of the cervical spines in 1211 asymptomatic subjects. Spine. 2015;40(6):392-398.
Brinjikji W, Diehn FE, Jarvik JG, Carr CM, Kallmes DF, Murad MH, Luetmer PH. MRI findings of disc degeneration are more prevalent in adults with low back pain than in asymptomatic controls, a systematic review and meta-analysis. American Journal of Neuroradiology. 2015;36(12):2394-2399.
Zou T, Liu XY, Wang PC, Chen H, Wu PG, Feng XM, Sun HH. Incidence of spontaneous resorption of lumbar disc herniation, a meta-analysis. Clinical Spine Surgery. 2024;37(6):256-269.
Zeng Z, Qin J, Guo L, Hirai T, Gui Z, Liu T, Su C, Yu D, Yan M. Prediction and mechanisms of spontaneous resorption in lumbar disc herniation, a narrative review. Spine Surgery and Related Research. 2024;8(3):235-242.
Orief T, Orz Y, Attia W, Almusrea K. Spontaneous resorption of sequestrated intervertebral disc herniation. World Neurosurgery. 2012;77(1):146-152.
Arana E, Kovacs FM, Royuela A, Estremera A, Sarasibar H, Amengual G, Galarraga I, Martinez C, Muriel A, Abraira V, Zamora J, Campillo C. Influence of nomenclature in the interpretation of lumbar disk contour on magnetic resonance imaging, a comparison of the agreement using the combined task force and the Nordic nomenclatures. American Journal of Neuroradiology. 2011;32(6):1143-1148.
Cooley JR, Danielson CD, Schultz GD, Hall TA. Posterior disk displacement, morphologic assessment and measurement reliability, lumbar spine. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics. 2001;24(5):317-326.
Pfirrmann CWA, Dora C, Schmid MR, Zanetti M, Hodler J, Boos N. MR image-based grading of lumbar nerve root compromise due to disk herniation, reliability study with surgical correlation. Radiology. 2004;230(2):583-588.
Pfirrmann CW, Metzdorf A, Zanetti M, Hodler J, Boos N. Magnetic resonance classification of lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration. Spine. 2001;26(17):1873-1878.
Jensen TS, Karppinen J, Sorensen JS, Niinimaki J, Leboeuf-Yde C. Vertebral endplate signal changes (Modic change), a systematic literature review of prevalence and association with non-specific low back pain. European Spine Journal. 2008;17(11):1407-1422.
Herlin C, Kjaer P, Espeland A, Skouen JS, Leboeuf-Yde C, Karppinen J, Niinimaki J, Sorensen JS, Storheim K, Jensen TS. Modic changes, their associations with low back pain and activity limitation, a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2018;13(8):e0200677.
Teraguchi M, Yoshimura N, Hashizume H, Muraki S, Yamada H, Oka H, Minamide A, Nakagawa H, Ishimoto Y, Nagata K, Kagotani R, Tanaka S, Kawaguchi H, Nakamura K, Akune T, Yoshida M. The association of combination of disc degeneration, end plate signal change, and Schmorl node with low back pain in a large population study, the Wakayama Spine Study. The Spine Journal. 2015;15(4):622-628.
Teraguchi M, Yim R, Cheung JPY, Samartzis D. The association of high-intensity zones on MRI and low back pain, a systematic review. Scoliosis and Spinal Disorders. 2018;13:22.
Kalichman L, Li L, Kim DH, Guermazi A, Berkin V, O'Donnell CJ, Hoffmann U, Cole R, Hunter DJ. Facet joint osteoarthritis and low back pain in the community-based population. Spine. 2008;33(23):2560-2565.
Nygaard OP, Mellgren SI, Osterud B. The inflammatory properties of contained and noncontained lumbar disc herniation. Spine. 1997;22(21):2484-2488.
Jungen MJ, ter Meulen BC, van Osch T, Weinstein HC, Ostelo RWJG. Inflammatory biomarkers in patients with sciatica, a systematic review. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2019;20(1):156.
Williams NH, Lewis R, Din NU, Matar HE, Fitzsimmons D, Phillips CJ, Sutton A, Burton K, Hendry M, Nafees S, Wilkinson C. A systematic review and meta-analysis of biological treatments targeting tumour necrosis factor alpha for sciatica. European Spine Journal. 2013;22(9):1921-1935.
Radhakrishnan K, Litchy WJ, O'Fallon WM, Kurland LT. Epidemiology of cervical radiculopathy, a population-based study from Rochester, Minnesota, 1976 through 1990. Brain. 1994;117(Pt 2):325-335.
Radcliff K, Davis RJ, Hisey MS, Nunley PD, Hoffman GA, Jackson RJ, Bae HW, Albert T, Coric D. Long-term evaluation of cervical disc arthroplasty with the Mobi-C cervical disc, a randomized, prospective, multicenter clinical trial with seven-year follow-up. International Journal of Spine Surgery. 2017;11(4):31.
Gornet MF, Burkus JK, Shaffrey ME, Schranck FW, Copay AG. Cervical disc arthroplasty, ten-year outcomes of the Prestige LP cervical disc at a single level. Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine. 2019;31(3):317-325.
Xie L, Liu M, Ding F, Li P, Ma D. Cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for treatment of symptomatic cervical disc disease, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. SpringerPlus. 2016;5(1):1188.
Broekema AEH, Simoes de Souza NF, Soer R, Koopmans J, van Santbrink H, Arts MP, Burhani B, Bartels RHMA, van der Gaag NA, Verhagen MHP, Tamasi K, van Dijk JMC, Reneman MF, Groen RJM, Kuijlen JMA. Noninferiority of posterior cervical foraminotomy versus anterior cervical discectomy with fusion for procedural success and reduction in arm pain among patients with cervical radiculopathy at 1 year, the FACET randomized clinical trial. JAMA Neurology. 2023;80(1):40-48.
Hilibrand AS, Carlson GD, Palumbo MA, Jones PK, Bohlman HH. Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American Volume. 1999;81(4):519-528.
Fehlings MG, Wilson JR, Kopjar B, Yoon ST, Arnold PM, Massicotte EM, Vaccaro AR, Brodke DS, Shaffrey CI, Smith JS, Woodard EJ, Banco RJ, Chapman JR, Janssen ME, Bono CM, Sasso RC, Dekutoski MB, Gokaslan ZL. Efficacy and safety of surgical decompression in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy, results of the AOSpine North America prospective multi-center study. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American Volume. 2013;95(18):1651-1658.
Martin AR, Kalsi-Ryan S, Akbar MA, Rienmueller AC, Badhiwala JH, Wilson JR, Tetreault LA, Nouri A, Massicotte EM, Fehlings MG. Clinical outcomes of nonoperatively managed degenerative cervical myelopathy, an ambispective longitudinal cohort study in 117 patients. Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine. 2021;34(6):821-829.
Ash LM, Modic MT, Obuchowski NA, Ross JS, Brant-Zawadzki MN, Grooff PN. Effects of diagnostic information, per se, on patient outcomes in acute radiculopathy and low back pain. American Journal of Neuroradiology. 2008;29(6):1098-1103.
Jarvik JG, Meier EN, James KT, Gold LS, Tan KW, Kessler LG, Suri P, Kallmes DF, Cherkin DC, Deyo RA, Sherman KJ, Halabi SS, Comstock BA, Luetmer PH, Avins AL, Rundell SD, Griffith B, Friedly JL, Lavallee DC, Stephens KA, Turner JA, Bresnahan BW, Heagerty PJ. The effect of including benchmark prevalence data of common imaging findings in spine image reports on health care utilization among adults undergoing spine imaging, a stepped-wedge randomized clinical trial. JAMA Network Open. 2020;3(9):e2015713.
Suri P, Meier EN, Gold LS, Marcum ZA, Johnston SK, James KT, Bresnahan BW, O'Reilly M, Turner JA, Kallmes DF, Sherman KJ, Deyo RA, Luetmer PH, Avins AL, Griffith B, Heagerty PJ, Rundell SD, Jarvik JG, Friedly JL. Lumbar spine imaging reports and subsequent spine procedures, secondary outcomes of the Lumbar Imaging with Reporting of Epidemiology randomized trial. Pain Medicine. 2021;22(6):1272-1280.

Editor's note

Written by the Biruni Hospital medical editorial team. Reviewed by Assistant Professor Özcan ÇIKLATEKERLİO, Neurosurgery.

Medically reviewed by

Assistant Professor Özcan ÇIKLATEKERLİO

Neurosurgery

Related Treatments

View All