Printer Friendly

Does duration of preoperative sciatica impact surgical outcomes in patients with lumbar disc herniation?

1. Introduction

Although the prevalence of lumbar disc herniation in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies reaches 30%, it clinically affects only 1-2% of the people throughout their life [1, 2]. Symptomatic lumbar disc herniation is more common in male and during the fourth and fifth decades of life [3]. Natural history usually begins with a fluctuating low back pain (LBP) that eventually radiates to one of the lower extremities. The pain usually spreads below the knee.

Nonoperative treatment for four to six weeks is usually effective in 70% of the affected patients [4, 5]. In those cases with refractory complains, most authors prefer surgical discectomy to conservative treatment [6, 7]. Due to this relative benign and self-limited course of lumbar disc herniation, most authors recommend nonoperative treatment for the first few weeks of presentations, but what about the upper limit of this golden time? Some believe that too late surgical decompression is associated with worse outcomes [8-10], while others do not consider delayed surgery as a poor prognostic factor [11, 12]. The aim of this study is to assess the surgical outcome of lumbar disc herniation based on preoperative sciatalgia duration. We hypothesized that preoperative sciatalgia duration has no significant effect on surgical outcome of the patients with lumbar disc herniation.

2. Materials and Methods

In this retrospective study, after local institutional review board approval (code number 89533), we analyzed our surgically treated patients due to lumbar disc herniation in our orthopedic department from September 2007 to August 2011. The inclusion criteria were a primary sciatalgia due to one-level stable lumbar disc herniation, being refractory to more than six weeks of conservative treatment, and surgical decompression without instrumentation or fusion. To avoid distortion of the results, only the patients with L4-L5 disc herniation were included. Our exclusion criteria were the cases with revision surgery, cauda equina syndrome, unstable spinal stenosis requiring fusion and/or instrumentation, significant underlying disorders (like uncontrolled diabetes mellitus, autoimmune diseases, tumors, hemorrhagic diasthesis, etc.), and a follow-up period of less than two years.

We placed our patients into two groups. The patients with preoperative sciatalgia duration less than 12 months were placed in Group A and the rest in Group B. Preoperatively, all the patients had anteroposterior and lateral standing lumbosacral radiographs, supine MRI, and in some cases electrodiagnostic studies were also performed. Disability and pain (both in lumbar region and leg) were measured by Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) on a numeric 0 to 10 scores [13-15]. These questionnaires were filled out preoperatively and at the last follow-up visits. A disability improvement of more than 10 points (20%) in ODI was considered significant clinically [16]. The patients' subjective satisfaction was also rated as excellent, good, fair, or poor.

After informing the patients about pros and cons of the surgical treatment, all the patients signed the informed consent forms and then, all operations were performed by the first author (Farzad Omidi-Kashani) with a similar surgical technique (minimal incision, unilateral exposure, laminotomy, and partial discectomy) throughout these years. As soon as the patients were able to walk and urinate, they were discharged from the hospital. In postoperative era, we also recorded the recurrence and revision rates for comparison between the groups.

Statistical Analysis. We used Wilcoxon test to compare postoperative improvement in pain and disability relative to preoperative status in each group. Intergroup comparison was carried out by Mann-Whitney U test. Statistical analysis was performed by Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 11.5 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) and P less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

3. Results

After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, eleven patients were omitted from the study and 240 patients could fulfill our criteria. There were 116 women and 124 men with a mean age of 36.4 [+ or -] 5.9 years (range 16 to 63). The mean duration of both preoperative sciatalgia and follow-up period were 13.3 [+ or -] 4.9 months (range 2 to 65) and 33.7 [+ or -] 5.1 months (range 24 to 72), respectively. Table 1 shows the demographic data and baseline characteristics of each group, separately.

As shown in Table 2, surgery could significantly improve leg pain, low back pain, and disability in both groups. Table 3 compares the effectiveness of surgery in Group A with Group B regarding the improvement in pain and disability. As this table shows, duration of preoperative sciatalgia either less or more than 12 months did not affect the surgical outcomes significantly.

There were 29 cases (12.1%) with recurrent lumbar disc herniation (15 at the same level, same side; seven at the same level opposite side; seven at the different levels). From these, 12 cases (5% of the total cases) underwent revision surgery, usually with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and pedicular screw fixation technique. Regarding the recurrence and revision rates, there was no significant difference between the two groups. In terms of patients' satisfaction, 81% reported as excellent, 11% good, 6% fair, and 2% poor. Again, we could find no statistical difference in patients' subjective satisfaction rate between the two groups (Table 4).

4. Discussion

We designed a retrospective study on 240 patients who were equally placed into two groups: less and more that 12 months of preoperative sciatalgia in the patients with simple single level lumbar disc herniation. In this study, we could find no significant differences in efficacy of surgical discectomy in terms of leg VAS, lumbar VAS, and ODI improvement between the groups. Lumbar disc herniation recurrence and revision rates were also similar between the two. Our results showed that the patients were satisfied with the surgical outcomes (whether they had been operated with sciatica duration shorter or longer than 12 months).

Due to relatively benign and self-limited course of lumbar disc herniation and probable significant complications coupled with surgical discectomy, initially a minimum of six weeks of nonsurgical treatment is recommended, but after this time there are great controversies about the impact of preoperative symptom duration on the surgical outcome of lumbar disc herniation [9-12, 17, 18].

In a study conducted by Ng and Sell, on 113 consecutive patients with lumbar discectomy, the authors found a significant reverse relationship between preoperative duration of radiculopathy for more than 12 months and postoperative disability improvement [10]. In this study, surgical operations performed throughout the first 12 months of radiculopathy did not affect the outcome. Similar to our study, these authors did not find a correlation between preoperative duration of sciatalgia and postoperative VAS improvement (P = 0.09). In another study conducted by Nygaard et al. on 132 patients with lumbar disc herniation underwent discectomy, they found a golden time of preoperative symptoms less than eight months for obtaining better surgical outcomes and more probability of returning to work [17]. Similarly, Grovle et al. found that duration of the sciatica more than three months was significantly associated with a longer time to return to work and worse surgical results [19].

Other proponents of this issue are Jansson et al., who in a study on 263 patients with lumbar discectomy with one-year followup, reported that smoking, short preoperative walking distance, and a long history of back pain were associated with poorer surgical outcome [18]. In the study we conducted, we did not consider smoking habit or walking ability separately and we mostly focused on ODI, leg and lumbar pain. We could not find that long duration of preoperative pain (in leg or lumbar area) is accompanied by worse surgical results.

Here, we would like to mention some studies that like us could not find an association between preoperative sciatalgia duration and postoperative surgical outcomes [11, 12]. Most of these studies are relevant to lumbar spinal stenosis (and not directly related to lumbar disc herniation) and believe that a delay of surgery does not worsen the prognosis of these patients [20, 21]. Radcliff et al. in a study the patients with spinal stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis evaluated the impact of preoperative symptom duration less or more than 12 months on the treatment (surgical or nonsurgical) outcomes [22]. They finally concluded that the patients with SS and symptom duration <12 months (versus >12 months) had significantly better results with surgical or nonsurgical treatment. In the patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis, preoperative symptom duration had no relationship with postoperative clinical improvement. Although in the study we conducted, the operated cases were all affected by lumbar disc herniation, we also could find no relationship between preoperative symptom duration and postoperative clinical improvement.

In conclusion, our study shows that in the patients with lumbar disc herniation undergoing discectomy, longer duration of preoperative symptoms was not associated with worse surgical outcomes. Albeit it should be noted that in our study, the number of patients with sciatica duration less than three or six months was small and consequently we could not statistically compare the impact of these durations on surgical prognosis. If we could compare the groups with these periods of time, the results might have been changed. Other shortcomings of our study included its retrospective design and its inability to evaluate other probable important factors influencing the results. It seems that the level of population culture, patient expectations, and insurance coverage may have some confounding roles. These should be proven later. It is proposed that in the future, a multicentric study in different countries throughout the world is to be carried out with a similar standard surgical and follow-up technique to avoid these confounding factors that may affect the results.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/565189

Conflict of Interests

This study has local institutional review board approval and the authors declare no conflict of interests.

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to thank Dr. Mohammad H Ebrahimzadeh, the president of Orthopedic Research Center, for his valuable comments on research and also revising the paper.

References

[1] R. A. Deyo and Y. J. Tsui-Wu, "Descriptive epidemiology of low-back pain and its related medical care in the United States," Spine, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 264-268, 1987

[2] J. M. Rhee, M. Schaufele, and W. A. Abdu, "Radiculopathy and the herniated lumbar disc. Controversies regarding pathophysiology and management," The Journal of Bone and JointSurgery, vol. 88, no. 9, pp. 2070-2080, 2006.

[3] S. D. Boden, D. O. Davis, T. S. Dina, N. J. Patronas, and S. W. Wiesel, "Abnormal magnetic-resonance scans of the lumbar spine in asymptomatic subjects. A prospective investigation," Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery A, vol. 72, no. 3, pp. 403-408, 1990.

[4] P. C. A. J. Vroomen, M. C. T. F. M. De Krom, and J. A. Knottnerus, "Predicting the outcome of sciatica at short-term follow-up," British Journal of General Practice, vol. 52, no. 475, pp. 119-123, 2002.

[5] B. W. Koes, M. W. Van Tulder, and W. C. Peul, "Diagnosis and treatment of sciatica," British Medical Journal, vol. 334, no. 7607, pp. 1313-1317, 2007

[6] J. N. Weinstein, J. D. Lurie, T. D. Tosteson et al., "Surgical versus nonoperative treatment for lumbar disc herniation: four-year results forthe Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT)," Spine, vol. 33, no. 25, pp. 2789-2800, 2008.

[7] A. N. A. Tosteson, J. S. Skinner, T. D. Tosteson et al., "The cost effectiveness of surgical versus nonoperative treatment for lumbar disc herniation over two years: evidence from the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT)," Spine, vol. 33, no. 19, pp. 2108-2115, 2008.

[8] P. M. Trief, W. Grant, and B. Fredrickson, "A prospective study of psychological predictors of lumbar surgery outcome," Spine, vol. 25, no. 20, pp. 2616-2621, 2000.

[9] J. A. Rihn, A. S. Hilibrand, K. Radcliff et al., "Duration of symptoms resulting from lumbar disc herniation: effect on treatment outcomes--analysis of the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT)," Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery A, vol. 93, no. 20, pp. 1906-1914, 2011.

[10] L. C. L. Ng and P. Sell, "Predictive value of the duration of sciatica for lumbar discectomy," Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery B, vol. 86, no. 4, pp. 546-549, 2004.

[11] M. Hasenbring, G. Marienfeld, S. Ahrens, and D. Soyka, "Chronic pain factor in patients with lumbar disc herniation," Der Schmerz, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 138-150, 1990.

[12] L. V. Sorensen, O. Mors, and O. Skovlund, "A prospective study of the importance of psychological and social factors for the outcome after surgery in patients with slipped lumbar disk operated upon for the first time," Acta Neurochirurgica, vol. 88, no. 3-4, pp. 119-125, 1987.

[13] M. E. Wewers and N. K. Lowe, "A critical review of visual analogue scales in the measurement of clinical phenomena," Research in Nursing & Health, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 227-236, 1990.

[14] J. C. T. Fairbank and P. B. Pynsent, "The oswestry disability index," Spine, vol. 25, no. 22, pp. 2940-2953, 2000.

[15] S. J. Mousavi, M. Parnianpour, H. Mehdian, A. Montazeri, and B. Mobini, "The oswestry disability index, the roland-morris disability questionnaire, and the quebec back pain disability scale: translation and validation studies of the iranian versions," Spine, vol. 31, no. 14, pp. E454-E459, 2006.

[16] V. Tandon, F. Campbell, and E. R. S. Ross, "Posterior lumbar interbody fusion: association between disability and psychological disturbance in noncompensation patients," Spine, vol. 24, no. 17, pp. 1833-1838, 1999.

[17] O. P. Nygaard, R. Kloster, and T. Solberg, "Duration of leg pain as a predictor of outcome after surgery for lumbar disc herniation: a prospective cohort study with 1-year follow up," Journal of Neurosurgery, vol. 92, no. 2, supplement, pp. 131-134, 2000.

[18] K.-A. Jansson, G. Nemeth, F. Granath, B. Jonsson, and P. Blomqvist, "Health-related quality of life in patients before and after surgery for a herniated lumbar disc," Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery B, vol. 87, no. 7, pp. 959-964, 2005.

[19] L. Grovle, A. J. Haugen, A. Keller, B. Ntvig, J. I. Brox, and M. Grotle, "Prognostic factors for return to work in patients with sciatica," The Spine Journal, vol. 13, no. 12, pp. 1849-1857, 2013.

[20] J. M. Spivak, "Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis," Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery A, vol. 80, no. 7, pp. 1053-1066, 1998.

[21] T. Amundsen, H. Weber, H. J. Nordal, B. Magnaes, M. Abdelnoor, and F. Lilleas, "Lumbar spinal stenosis: conservative or surgical management? A prospective 10-year study," Spine, vol. 25, no. 11, pp. 1424-1436, 2000.

[22] K. E. Radcliff, J. Rihn, A. Hilibrand et al., "Does the duration of symptoms in patients with spinal stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis affect outcomes?: analysis of the spine outcomes research trial," Spine, vol. 36, no. 25, pp. 2197-2210, 2011.

Farzad Omidi-Kashani, (1) Ebrahim Ghayem Hasankhani, (1) Amir Reza Kachooei, (1) Mohammad Dawood Rahimi, (2) and Reza Khanzadeh (3)

(1) Orthopedic Research Center, Orthopedic Department, Imam Reza Hospital, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad 913791-3316, Iran

(2) Orthopedic Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad 913791-3316, Iran

(3) College of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad 9177948974, Iran

Correspondence should be addressed to Farzad Omidi-Kashani; omidif@mums.ac.ir

Received 3 October 2013; Accepted 13 November 2013; Published 28 January 2014

Academic Editor: Dirk Deleu

TABLE 1: Demographic data of our treated patients.

Group   Number               Sex          Mean age [+ or -]
                                            SD ([dagger])
                                                (y**)

                 Male (%)    Female (%)

A        113      52 (46)     61 (54)     37.4 [+ or -] 5.7
B        127     72 (56.7)   55 (43.3)    35.6 [+ or -] 6.5

Group   Mean preoperative     Mean F/U (#)
        sciatica [+ or -]    [+ or -] SD (m)
             SD (m*)


A       8.3 [+ or -] 5.7    32.1 [+ or -] 4.8
B       19.2 [+ or -]3.8    35.3 [+ or -] 5.4

([dagger]) SD: standard deviation. ** y: year.
* m: month. (#) F/U: followup.

TABLE 2: Improvement in pain and disability.

Group                      Preoperative          Last visit

Group A
  Mean VAS (#) leg      8.16 [+ or -] 1.39   1.86 [+ or -] 2.34
  Mean VAS lumbar       7.2 [+ or -] 2.09     1.8 [+ or -] 2.28
  Mean ODI ([dagger])   60.4 [+ or -] 1.67   18.46 [+ or -] 2.16
Group B
  Mean VAS leg          8.15 [+ or -] 1.7     1.5 [+ or -] 1.99
  Mean VAS lumbar       7.4 [+ or -] 1.83    1.56 [+ or -] 1.69
  Mean ODI              59.6 [+ or -] 1.44   16.26 [+ or -] 1.83

Group                    z     P value

Group A
  Mean VAS (#) leg      4.72    0.001
  Mean VAS lumbar       3.89    0.001
  Mean ODI ([dagger])   4.7     0.001
Group B
  Mean VAS leg          4.79    0.001
  Mean VAS lumbar       4.71    0.001
  Mean ODI              4.78    0.001

(#) VAS: Visual Analogue Scale. ([dagger]) ODI:
Oswestry Disability Index.

TABLE 3: Comparison between the groups in terms of pain and
disability improvement.

              Mean difference between preoperative and last visit

             VAS (#) leg         VAS lumbar         ODI ([dagger])

Group A   6.3 [+ or -] 2.38   5.4 [+ or -] 2.37   41.93 [+ or -] 2.88
Group B   6.5 [+ or -] 2.17   5.83 [+ or -] 2.4   43.4 [+ or -] 2.01
Z                0.2                0.97                  0.4
P value         0.83                0.33                 0.68

(#) VAS: Visual Analogue Scale. ([dagger]) ODI: Oswestry
Disability Index.

TABLE 4: The correlation between mean duration of preoperative
sciatalgia and postoperative patients' satisfaction.

Patient         Mean duration      Group       P
satisfaction   of preoperative   comparison
                sciatica (m)        Good      0.34
                 ([dagger])

Excellent           13.6            Fair      0.62
                                    Poor      0.45
Good                14.6            Fair      0.61
                                    Poor      0.27
Fair                11.5            Poor      0.85
Poor                10.9             --        --

([dagger]) m: month.
COPYRIGHT 2014 Hindawi Limited
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2014 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:Clinical Study
Author:Omidi-Kashani, Farzad; Hasankhani, Ebrahim Ghayem; Kachooei, Amir Reza; Rahimi, Mohammad Dawood; Kha
Publication:Neurology Research International
Article Type:Report
Date:Jan 1, 2014
Words:2888
Previous Article:Desmopressin acetate in intracranial haemorrhage.
Next Article:Peripheral cytokines as a chemical mediator for postconcussion like sickness behaviour in trauma and perioperative patients: literature review.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2022 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters |