In a prospective study we compared the surgical outcome, length of hospital stay, complications and patient satisfaction for patients undergoing lumbar microdiscectomy (LM) under spinal anaesthesia (SA) in the sitting position (23 patients) to those of another cohort who underwent LM under general anaesthesia (GA) in the prone or genu-pectoral position during the same time period (238 patients). We aimed to determine: (i) if epidural anaesthesia is safe for lumbar microdiscectomy; and (ii) if placing the patient in a sitting position confers an advantage in performing the operation. For all patients we calculated the time from the end of the operation to the first spontaneous urination and to the first administration of analgesic drugs. Before being discharged, patients were asked to give an opinion on the quality of analgesia obtained by epidural anaesthesia and on the sitting position used. No patient had any complications linked to epidural anaesthesia and only one patient experienced a small dural tear as a surgical complication. Twenty of 23 patients expressed satisfaction with the level of analgesia obtained and only three considered it poor. All patients found the sitting position comfortable. Advantages of the sitting position for surgery include better comfort for the patient, potential to recreate a load condition similar to the one that takes place during orthostasis and a "cleaner" operative field that uses gravity to drain blood. Of greatest concern is the possibility of the patient developing a dural tear and subsequent leaking of cerebrospinal fluid, which could also be a source of surgical complications. Currently, epidural anaesthesia allows a reduction in anaesthetic and surgical times, anaesthetic complications and, consequently, hospitalization period. Further analysis of the sitting position for the patient during surgery is required to fully assess the advantages and disadvantages of this method.