In 1990, we started to use the operating microscope on patients with lumbar disc herniation, and we stayed with him in Zürich at the time, our teacher, Prof., who is the source of pride for all of us. Dr. After watching M Gazi Yaşargil's videos on this subject, I made my own changes on this subject.

Unlike the classical technique, I preserved the structure called "ligamentum flavum", which connects the posterior elements of our spine, during the surgery and did not remove it. In those with normal lateral recess of the nerve, this structure is normal by separating only the upper spinal connection and paying attention to protecting the fatty tissue on the spinal cord membrane. I developed a microdiscectomy technique with minimal damage to the anatomy. In order to do this, instead of the expensive automatic retractor device of foreign origin, I had a "mini Taylor retractor" made by narrowing the width of the Taylor retractor used in the old technique, which allows working from a 1.5 cm wound, by a turner. The width of the retractor gradually narrowed and decreased to 1 cm. Of course, this information concerns mostly neurosurgeons, but it should not be forgotten that it also has a story. For example, local manufacturers manufactured this set that I developed and sold it to those in need at cheap prices, and they earned money and the country earned foreign currency.

In summary, after removing the herniated disc by entering through a one and a half centimeter hole, I walk the patient three hours later and send him home five hours later. As one of the first to start using microscopes in disc surgeries in our country, I received criticism from colleagues at the beginning, as with every innovation. They asked, "Can't your eyes see well?" This criticism does not only belong to colleagues in our country. In America, famous neurosurgeons wrote articles against the microscope in famous magazines and books. Fortunately, today “microdiscectomy” has become the “gold standard” for lumbar and cervical disc herniation surgery.

The late results of the technique we have been applying for 24 years have proven its superiority compared to the old naked eye surgeries, with findings showing that it causes less tissue damage, reflected in both patient satisfaction and imaging methods. Those who look with independent, impartial eyes will determine the right of this. Meanwhile, radiologists who write reports on the MRIs of patients who have undergone surgery have difficulties in determining the area where the surgery was performed, and sometimes they give reports to the patient who had the surgery as if it had not happened. This problem is, of course, an innocent result that is favorable for the patients and academically unfavorable for the doctor.