A rehabilitation protocol for patients with lumbar degenerative disk disease treated with lumbar total disk replacement

The treatment effect of posterior lumbar fusion surgery on patients suffering from lumbar disc herniation concurrent with peroneal nerve paralysis

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to investigate the clinical effect of posterior lumbar fusion surgery on patients who suffer from lumbar disc herniation concurrent with peroneal nerve paralysis.

Methods

The patients suffering from peroneal nerve paralysis and undergoing posterior lumbar fusion surgery between January 2012 and December 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. The data of the identified patients were then collected and processed. All patients were followed up post-operatively after discharge from the hospital. The data was analyzed in terms of Oswestry disability index (ODI), visual analogue scale (VAS) score, and relative lower-limb muscle strength.

Results

A total of 87 patients (52 males and 35 females) aged 54 ± 11 years met the inclusion criteria for this study. These patients stayed in hospital for 16 ± 6 days and were followed up for 81 ± 24 months. Data analysis showed that muscle strength of the tibialis anterior and extensor digitorum significantly recovered at the last follow-up with a grade of 3 (median), compared to grade 0 at admission (p < 0.001). Furthermore, the median VAS score decreased to 1 at the last follow-up from 6 at admission (p < 0.001), and the ODI greatly improved with 10% (median) at the last follow-up, while it was 58% at admission (p < 0.001). The ODI improvement rate was 60% on average at the last follow-up. Multivariate regression analysis regarding the ODI and muscle strength improvement rates showed that advanced age was a risk factor for postoperative recovery.

Conclusions

Most of the patients suffering from lumbar disc herniation concurrent with peroneal nerve paralysis can improve after undergoing posterior lumbar fusion surgery, but few can reach full recovery. Advanced age might be a risk factor that affects the prognosis of these patients after surgery.

The Effect of Lower-Limb Exercise on Pain Management of the Patients Undergoing Posterior Lumbar Fusion Surgery: A Retrospective Case-Control Study

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to investigate the clinical effect of lower-limb exercise, when combined with celecoxib, on pain management of patients undergoing posterior lumbar fusion surgeries.

Methods

The patients undergoing posterior lumbar fusion surgeries between 01/2018 and 06/2021 were retrospectively identified, with their data collected. After surgery, some patients took celecoxib for analgesia (celecoxib group, 200 mg/day) while the others took celecoxib together with lower-limb exercise (combined group, celecoxib-200 mg/day). On postoperative days (POD) 1, 3, 7, and 14, data were collected and analyzed regarding the following items: patient satisfaction, lower-limb muscle force, lumbar JOA score (29 points), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and visual analog scale (VAS) score.

Results

A total of 225 participants were included in this study. Specifically, 120 cases were admitted into in the celecoxib group and 105 were included in the combined group. Comparisons of baseline data did not indicate any difference between the combined group and the celecoxib group. Data analysis showed that patient satisfaction in the combined group was significantly higher than the celecoxib group on POD 3, 7, and 14, respectively (all p < 0.001). Moreover, the combined group had less VAS score compared with the celecoxib group on POD 3, 7, and 14, respectively (all p < 0.01). In addition, lower-limb muscle force in the combined group was significantly stronger than that in the celecoxib group on POD 3 and POD 7, respectively (both p < 0.01). Furthermore, the combined group achieved less ODI score than the celecoxib group on POD 3, 7, and 14, respectively (all p < 0.05). Comparisons of the lumbar JOA score did not suggest any statistical difference during the whole follow-up period.

Conclusions

In conclusion, postoperative lower-limb rehabilitation exercise can help to release pain after lumbar fusion surgeries. Additionally, postoperative lower-limb exercise can facilitate the recovery of lower-limb muscle force, as well as improving patient satisfaction.

Rehabilitation and lumbar surgery: the French recommendations for clinical practice

BACKGROUND

Indications and techniques of rehabilitation differ widely across types of lumbar surgery, including timing (before or after surgery) and prescriptions (surgeons but also medical or paramedical professionals).

OBJECTIVES

This project aimed to build consensual recommendations for practice in this context.

METHODS

The SOFMER methodology was used to establish recommendations for physical medicine and rehabilitation: a steering committee defined the types of lumbar surgery involved and developed the main questions to be addressed; a scientific committee performed a literature review for grading evidence and proposed the first version of recommendations, which were discussed during a dedicated session at the national Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine congress; then an e-Delphi method with cross-professional experts was used to finalise recommendations and reach a multidisciplinary consensus.

RESULTS

The main questions developed were the value of rehabilitation before and after surgery, timing and type of rehabilitation, benefit of supervision and instrumental rehabilitation, value of patient education, and complementary interventions concerning rehabilitation for discectomy, fusion, and disc prosthesis (excluding decompression for spinal stenosis). The literature review identified 60 articles, but for several of the questions, no article in the literature addressed the issue. The multidisciplinary scientific committee analysed the literature and addressed the questions to propose the first version of a set of 23 recommendations. The congress session failed to answer all questions or to reach consensus for all items. After a three-step e-Delphi, 20 recommendations were retained, for which consensus among experts was reached. The recommendations are applicable only to patients without a neurological lesion.

CONCLUSIONS

These recommendations provide important and consensual knowledge to assist clinicians in decision-making for rehabilitation in lumbar surgery. Despite many of the recommendations relying exclusively on expert opinion rather than published evidence, this approach is an important advance to improve concordance among healthcare professionals.

Clinical Rehabilitation Effect of Postoperative Lower-Limb Training on the Patients Undergoing OLIF Surgery: A Retrospective Study

Background

In this study, it was aimed to investigate the clinical rehabilitation effect of lower-limb training on the patients that undergo oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) procedures.

Methods

The eligible participants undergoing OLIF procedures between 01/2017 and 07/2019 were identified. All the patients underwent one-segment fusion operation (L3-4 or L4-5). Based on whether the participants received postoperative rehabilitation training, they were divided into two groups: intervention group and control group. Postoperatively, the participants in the intervention group were trained with lower-extremity rehabilitation exercise and maintained for three months. All participants got reexamined at the first postoperative week, the second postoperative week, the first postoperative month, and the third postoperative month (last follow-up). Comparisons were made in terms of the lower-extremity muscle force, visual analogue scale (VAS) score, lumbar JOA score, Oswestry disability index (ODI), the incidence of deep venous thrombosis (DVT), and patient satisfaction.

Results

Seventy-seven participants in the intervention group (32 males and 45 females) and 82 in the control group (39 males and 43 females) were incorporated in this study. The median age of the participants was 57 years (39∼73) in the intervention group and 54 years (35∼71) in the control group. No statistical significance between the two groups was found (P > 0.05). ODI score was less in the intervention group as compared to the control group in the first week after surgery (P=0.029). VAS and JOA scores were better in the intervention group in the first two weeks after surgery (P < 0.05). DVT incidence in the intervention group was lower than the control group at final follow-up (P=0.037). Both group participants have achieved good grading in muscle force rehabilitation but no significant differences between the two groups. Additionally, satisfaction was higher in the intervention group than the control group.

Conclusions

In summary, postoperative lower-extremity rehabilitation exercise can effectively accelerate patients' health recovery from the OLIF surgery and increase their satisfaction.

Postoperative Care Pathways Following Lumbar Total Disc Replacement: Results of a Modified Delphi Approach

STUDY DESIGN

A modified Delphi method was used to establish consensus. Subject matter experts were invited to participate as the expert panel. Best practice statements were distributed to the panel. Panel members were asked to mark "agree" or "disagree" after a series of statements during several rounds until either consensus could be obtained or the practice method was deemed unable to achieve consensus.

OBJECTIVE

Lumbar total disc replacement (TDR) is acknowledged as an alternative to spinal fusion in appropriately selected patients. There is a lack of unanimity on the appropriate postoperative patient protocols and rehabilitation expectations for the procedure. The long-term viability of Lumbar TDR, further adoption in the community setting and specific patient outcomes are contingent on the existence of appropriate postoperative recovery programs.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Currently there are no established methods for postoperative care following lumbar TDR. Establishing a postoperative clinical pathway algorithm may improve patient outcomes with respect to lumbar TDR.

METHOD

A lumbar TDR expert panel of 22 spine surgeons employed a modified Delphi method to drive consensus on postoperative care following single-level Lumbar TDR. The panel first reviewed literature and guidelines relevant to postoperative care following lumbar TDR. Panel members considered 21 survey questions intended to determine "standard-practice" postoperative care recommendations for patients who have undergone lumbar TDR for the initial recovery phase (0-4 wk) and rehabilitation (4-20 wk). Each panel member participated in a round of anonymous voting followed by a group discussion. Consensus was defined as 80% agreement or higher among the respondents.

RESULTS

Consensus was achieved in 11 of the 21 survey questions. There was a high degree of consensus around the key goals for both the initial recovery and rehabilitation phases, ceased use of narcotics for pain management by 4 weeks postoperative, unrestricted walking immediately following surgery, timelines for physical therapy (within 2-4 wk) and return to work based on level of activity (as early as 1 wk postoperative). Lack of agreement included the use of back bracing and timing of postoperative visits. Generally, panel members felt that patient expectations regarding return to function were different following lumbar TDR versus fusion and warrant further study.

CONCLUSION

Surgeon and patient alignment around postoperative expectations may significantly affect the long-term results of lumbar TDR. This surgeon consensus study found agreement for immediate postoperative ambulation, rapid reduction in opioids within the first month, and early return to work. When expectations are appropriately set with patients preoperatively, both provider and patient have shared goals in the return-to-function process.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

5.

The effect of systematic lower-limb rehabilitation training in elderly patients undergoing lumbar fusion surgery: a retrospective study

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to explore the effect of systematic lower-limb rehabilitation training in elderly patients undergoing lumbar fusion surgery due to serious degenerative intervertebral disc diseases.

Results

At the 1st week after surgery, clinical rehabilitation effect in intervention group was better regarding lower-limb muscle strength, lower-limb DVT, VAS score, and ODI, as compared with control group (all p < 0.05). During the first two weeks after surgery, satisfaction rate in intervention group was higher than that in control group. However, there was no significant difference at last follow-up after surgery when comparing intervention group to control group.

Materials and Methods

We retrospectively collected medical records of elderly patients (aged ≥ 60 yrs) undergoing lumbar fusion surgery between 01/2013 and 01/2015 in our department. Some of the identified patients randomly underwent postoperative systematic training of lower-limb rehabilitation gymnastics (intervention group, n = 240), the others not (control group, n = 300). During postoperative period, intervention group received lower-limb rehabilitation gymnastics treatment for 3 months, but control group did not. All patients were routinely asked to return hospital for a check in the 1st postoperative week, as well as the 2nd week, the 1st month, and the 3rd month. Clinical outcomes were evaluated by scoring lower-limb muscle strength, detecting lower-limb deep venous thrombosis (DVT), visual analogue scale (VAS) score, lumbar JOA score, Oswestry disability index (ODI) questionnaire, and performing satisfaction survey.

Conclusions

In early postoperative stage, systematic lower-limb rehabilitation training can effectively speed up the recovery, beneficial to reducing lower-limb DVT and increasing patient satisfaction rate.

RESULTS OF TOTAL LUMBAR INTERVERTEBRAL DISK REPLACEMENT WITH M6-L: A MULTICENTER STUDY

ABSTRACT Objective: In this paper we report the clinical and radiological results of lumbar intervertebral disk (IVD) replacement with M6-L for the treatment of patients with IVD degeneration. Methods: One hundred and fifty-six patients with IVD degeneration were operated with the one level implantation of an M6-L prosthesis at three neurosurgical departments, in Irkutsk, Krasnoyarsk and Vladivostok. We assessed pain intensity (VAS), the Oswestry disability index (ODI) and outcomes by the Macnab scale up to 36 months after surgery. Instrumental data were used to assess range of motion in the operated segment and heterotopic ossification by the McAfee-Suchomel classification. Results: The average VAS before surgery was 6.9 ± 1.6 cm. After surgery, this value reduced significantly, to an average of 1.3 ± 1.2 cm (p<0.001). The average ODI before surgery was 40.2 ± 6.9%, and after IVD arthroplasty, this indictor improved to 12.3 ± 6.1% (p <0.001). Range of motion in the operated segment at baseline averaged 36.8 ± 2.6o, and within 36 months after the operation, this had increased to 41.2 ± 2.9o. During the entire follow-up period, signs of severe (13.4%, n = 21) or moderate (10.2%, n = 16) heterotopic ossification were observed. Conclusions: The use of M6-L prosthesis can significantly reduce the level of pain, improve quality of life and maintain the physiological range of motion in the operated spinal segment in patients with degenerative lesions IVD at a low level of adverse outcomes. [249 Words].

Evidence base and future research directions in the management of low back pain

Low back pain (LBP) is a prevalent and costly condition. Awareness of valid and reliable patient history taking, physical examination and clinical testing is important for diagnostic accuracy. Stratified care which targets treatment to patient subgroups based on key characteristics is reliant upon accurate diagnostics. Models of stratified care that can potentially improve treatment effects include prognostic risk profiling for persistent LBP, likely response to specific treatment based on clinical prediction models or suspected underlying causal mechanisms. The focus of this editorial is to highlight current research status and future directions for LBP diagnostics and stratified care.

Comparison of Single-Level and Multiple-Level Outcomes of Total Disc Arthroplasty: 24-Month Results

BACKGROUND

Low back pain is one of the most prevalent problems in industrialized countries, affecting as many as 80% of all adults at some time in their lives. Among the significant contributors to low back pain is degenerative disc disease (DDD). Although fusion has been well accepted for treatment of DDD, high rates of complications and stress to adjacent segments remain a concern. Lumbar total disc replacement (TDR) was developed with a goal of preserving motion and avoiding various fusion-related complications, but the relative merits of single vs. multiple level arthroplasty remain unclear.

METHODS

This is a multi-center, single arm, prospective post-market registry of the M6-L, consisting of consecutive patients presenting with lumbar DDD who agreed to participate. This paper reports on those patients who have completed at least 24 months of followup to date. Clinical outcome measures include the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and back and leg Visual Analogue Scales (VAS). Radiographic analysis of disc angle and range of motion (ROM) was also performed.

RESULTS

Results for 83 patients comprising 121 implants in two cohorts (49 single level (SL), 34 multiple levels (ML)) are reported. Both cohorts experienced significant improvement at 24 months including significant decreases in ODI and VAS. Relative to SL procedures, ML procedures demonstrated either comparable results, or results that trended favorably towards the ML procedures. Index and global ROM at 24 months were not significantly different between the two cohorts, while the disc angles were larger in the SL cohort regardless of index level.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study to report clinical and radiographic outcomes of TDR with the M6-L in SL vs ML procedures with two years of followup. The results suggest initial device safety and effectiveness when used for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disc disease at one or more levels.

Physiotherapeutic Rehabilitation Following Lumbar Total Disc Replacement: A Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

This study sought to answer the following questions: What are the outcomes of physiotherapy post lumbar total disc replacement (LTDR) compared with patient self-mediated rehabilitation? Is a difference in outcomes related to the number of physiotherapy sessions?

METHODS

This is a retrospective observational study of 600 patients post TDR. Patient outcomes for self-mediated rehabilitation (Group 1), 1-3 sessions of clinic-based physiotherapy (Group 2) and ≥4 sessions of clinic-based physiotherapy (Group 3) were analysed. Outcomes measures included the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMQ), Short Form-36 Physical (SF-36 PCS) and Mental Subscale Components (SF-36 MCS), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for back and leg pain intensity. Patient's pre-operative baseline measures and post-operative follow-up measures at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months post-operatively were analysed.

RESULTS

Oswestry Disability Index and RMQ had significantly lower scores in Group 3 compared with Group 1 at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months follow-up. Significantly lower scores for Group 2 compared with Group 1 were observed for the ODI at 3 months follow-up and for the RMQ at 3 and 6 months follow-up. Significantly lower scores were observed in Group 3 compared with Group 1 for VAS back pain at 3 months and VAS leg pain at 6 months follow-up. Significantly higher scores in Group 3 compared with Group 1 were also observed in the SF-36 PCS at 6, 12 and 24 months. Significantly higher scores in Group 2 compared with Group 1 were observed at 6 months follow up. These trends were also observed when investigating the percentage of patients with a greater 50% improvement in the outcome measure.

CONCLUSIONS

Physiotherapy post-LTDR produces statistically significant and possibly clinically important improvements in functional disability, pain and quality of life outcomes compared with self-mediated rehabilitation. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Effect of trigger point injection on lumbosacral radiculopathy source

Background:

Active muscular trigger points (aMTPs) presenting with radiating pain can interfere in diagnosis and treatment of patients suffering from lumbosacral radiculopathy.

Objectives:

We aimed to diagnose and evaluate the trigger point therapy on the outcome of pain in patients with lumbosacral radiculopathy.

Materials and Methods:

A total of 98 patients were enrolled suffered with chronic pain andlumbosacral radiculopathy at L4-L5 and L5-S1 who were candidates of non-surgical management. All patients received conservative modalities, including bed rest, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents (NSAID), and physiotherapy. These treatments continued for a week. Patients were examined for the presence of trigger points in their lower extremities. Those who had trigger points were divided into 2 groups (TP and N). Patients in TP group underwent trigger point injection therapy. No further therapy was done for the N group. Pain scores and straight leg raise (SLR) test in both groups were collected and analyzed on the seventh and 10th days of the therapy. Results were analyzed by paired t test and chi-square test.

Results:

Out of 98 patients, 64 had trigger points. Thirty-two patients were assigned to each group. Pain scores (Mean ± SD) in TP group was 7.12 ± 1.13 and in N group was 6.7 ± 1.16, P = 0.196. Following the treatment, pain scores were 2.4 ± 1.5 in TP group and 4.06 ± 1.76 in N group P = 0.008. SLR test became negative in all patients in TP group but only in 6 (19%) patients in N group, P = 0.001.

Conclusions:

Results show that trigger point injection therapy in patients suffering from chronic lumbosacral radiculopathy with trigger points can significantly improve their recovery, and conservative therapy may not be adequate.

Rehabilitation following surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. A Cochrane review

STUDY DESIGN

A systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effects of active rehabilitation on functional outcome after lumbar spinal stenosis surgery when compared with "usual postoperative care."

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Surgery rates for lumbar spinal stenosis have risen, yet outcomes remain suboptimal. Postoperative rehabilitation has been suggested as a tool to improve postoperative function but, to date, there is limited evidence to support its use.

METHODS

CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), the Cochrane Back Review Group Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PEDro electronic databases were searched. Randomized controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of active rehabilitation with usual care in adults with lumbar spinal stenosis who had undergone primary spinal decompression surgery were included. Two authors independently selected studies, assessed the risk of bias, and extracted the data in line with the recommendations of the Cochrane Back Review Group. Study results were pooled in a meta-analysis when appropriate using functional status as the primary outcome, with secondary outcomes including measures of leg pain, low back pain, and global improvement/general health. The GRADE approach was used to assess the quality of the evidence.

RESULTS

Our searches yielded 1726 articles, of which 3 studies (N = 373 participants) were suitable for inclusion in meta-analysis. All included studies were deemed to have low risk of bias; no study had unacceptably high dropout rates. There was moderate evidence suggesting that active rehabilitation was more effective than usual care in improving both short- and long-term functional status after surgery. Similar findings were noted for secondary outcomes, including short-term improvement in low back pain and long-term improvement in both low back pain and leg pain.

CONCLUSION

We obtained moderate-quality evidence indicating that postoperative active rehabilitation after decompression surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis is more effective than usual care. Further work is required particularly with respect to the cost-effectiveness of such interventions.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

1.

Rehabilitation following surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis

BACKGROUND

Lumbar spinal stenosis is a common cause of back pain that can also give rise to pain in the buttock, thigh or leg, particularly when walking. Several possible treatments are available, of which surgery appears to be best at restoring function and reducing pain. Surgical outcome is not ideal, and a sizeable proportion of patients do not regain good function. No accepted evidence-based approach to postoperative care is known-a fact thathas prompted this review.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether active rehabilitation programmes following primary surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis have an impact on functional outcomes and whether such programmes are superior to 'usual postoperative care'.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases from their first issues to March 2013: CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library, most recent issue), the Cochrane Back Review Group Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PEDro.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the effectiveness of active rehabilitation versus usual care in adults (> 18 years of age) with confirmed lumbar spinal stenosis who had undergone spinal decompressive surgery (with or without fusion) for the first time.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data from the included trials by using a predeveloped form. We contacted authors of original trials to request additional unpublished data as required. We recorded baseline characteristics of participants, interventions, comparisons, follow-up and outcome measures to enable assessment of clinical homogeneity. Clinical relevance was independently assessed by using the five questions recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group (CBRG), and risk of bias within studies was determined by using CBRG criteria.We pooled individual study results in a meta-analysis when appropriate. For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) when the same measurement scales were used in all studies and the standardised mean difference (SMD) when different measurement scales were used. Whenreported means and standard deviations of the outcomes showed that outcome data were skewed, we log-transformed data for all studies in the comparison and performed a meta-analysis on the log-scale. Results of analyses performed on the log-scale were converted back to the original scale. We used a fixed-effect inverse variance model to measure treatment effect when no substantial evidence of statistical heterogeneity was found. When we detected substantial statistical heterogeneity, we used a random-effects inverse variance model.The primary outcome measure was functional status as measured by a back-specific functional scale. Secondary outcomes included measures of leg pain, low back pain and global improvement/general health. We considered statistical significance and clinical relevance of outcomes. We used the GRADE approach to assess the overall quality of evidence for each outcome on the basis of five criteria, for which evidence was ranked from high to very low quality, depending on the number of criteria met.

MAIN RESULTS

Our searches yielded 1,726 results, and a total of three studies (N = 373 participants) were included in the review and meta-analysis. All studies were deemed to have low risk of bias; no study had unacceptably high dropout rates. Also, no unacceptably unbalanced dropout rates, unacceptably low adherence rates or non-adherence to the protocol or clearly significant unbalanced baseline differences were noted for the primary outcome. Outcomes in the short term (within six months postoperative)Evidence of moderate quality from three RCTs (N = 340) shows that active rehabilitation is more effective than usual care for functional status (log SMD -0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.44 to 0.00, corresponding to an average percentage improvement (reduction in standardised functional score) of 20%, 95% CI 0% to 36%) and for reported low back pain (log MD -0.18, 95% CI-0.35 to -0.02, corresponding to an average percentage improvement (reduction in VAS score) of 16%, 95% CI 2% to 30%). In contrast, evidence of low quality suggests that rehabilitation is no more effective than usual care for leg pain (log MD -0.17, 95% CI -0.52 to 0.19, corresponding to an average percentage improvement (reduction in VAS score) of 16%, 95% CI 21% worsening to 41% improvement). Low-quality evidence from two RCTs (N = 238) indicates that rehabilitation has no additional benefit on general health status as compared to usual care (MD 1.30, 95% CI -4.45 to 7.06). Outcomes in the long term (at 12 months postoperative)Evidence of moderate quality from three RCTs (N = 373) shows that rehabilitation is more effective than usual care for functional status (log SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.46 to -0.05, corresponding to an average percentage improvement (reduction in standardised functional score) of 23%, 95% CI 5% to 37%), for reported low back pain (log MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.36 to -0.05, corresponding to an average percentage improvement (reduction in VAS score) of 18%, 95% CI 5% to 30%]. Evidence of moderate quality (N = 373) and for leg pain (log MD -0.24, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.01, corresponding to an average percentage improvement (reduction in VAS score) of 21%, 95% CI 1% to 37%). In contrast, evidence of low quality from two studies (N = 273) suggests that rehabilitation is no more effective than usual care with respect to improvement in general health (MD -0.48, 95% CI -6.41 to 5.4).None of the included papers reported any relevant adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests that active rehabilitation is more effective than usual care in improving both short- and long-term (back-related) functional status. Similar findings were noted for secondary outcomes, including short-term improvement in low back pain and long-term improvement in both low back pain and leg pain, although limited impact was observed in relation to improvements in general health status. The clinical relevance of these effects is medium to small. Our evaluation is limited by the small number of relevant studies identified, and further research is required.

Changes in flexion-relaxation phenomenon and lumbo-pelvic kinematics following lumbar disc replacement surgery

BACKGROUND

A single group prospective study. Disc prostheses are believed to contribute to the restoration of the segmental movement and the preservation of the adjacent segments. The study's main objective was to determine if changes in neuromuscular patterns assessed using the flexion-relaxation phenomenon (FRP) can be observed following disc replacement surgery.

METHODS

Fifteen subjects participated in this study; they were evaluated before and after lumbar disc replacement surgery. Both assessments included ten repetitions of a trunk flexion and extension movement (with and without a load), where the surface electromyography (EMG) and kinematic data were recorded.

RESULTS

Following the disc replacement procedure (17.3 weeks ± 8.4), participants reported a significant reduction in their ODI and FABQ - physical activity scores. Increases in pelvic flexion as well as in erector spinae (ES) muscle activity at L5 in the flexion phase were observed. Following the disc replacement surgery, ES activity at L2 decreased during the quiet standing position.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study suggest that although improvements in disability scores and fear-avoidance related to physical activities scores were noted after a disc replacement surgery, the lumbar ROM was not modified. Nevertheless, a significant increase in the hip ROM during the flexion-extension task as well as an increase in ES muscle activity in flexion was observed following surgery. The VAS, FABQ I and ODQ scores were positively correlated with change in the muscular activities during the FRP.