BACKGROUND: Although the existence of a motor defect in discogenic sciatica is a sign of severity, the literature does not provide evidence for an immediate requirement for surgery. OBJECTIVE: To assess the course of sciatica with discogenic paresis and to determine possible prognostic factors for recovery or improvement. STUDY DESIGN: This open prospective multicenter study included patients with discogenic sciatica with paresis that had been developing for less than 1 month and was rated < or =3 on a 5-grade scale. Pain, the strength of 11 muscles, return to work, and analgesic intake were assessed at 1, 3, and 6 months. Recovery and improvement were defined by pain not exceeding 20 mm or < or =50% of the initial pain score and a score of either 5 (recovery) or 4 (improvement) for the weakest muscle at inclusion. RESULTS: Sixty-seven patients were enrolled; 39 (58%) patients were treated surgically and 28 (42%) medically. Surgically treated patients differed from medically treated patients by a higher rate of extruded herniation, a higher number of paretic muscles (6.3 vs. 5; P = 0.051), and a longer course of sciatica (31.4 vs. 17.3 days; P = 0.034). At 6 months, 7 (10.4%) patients were lost to follow-up; 32 (53.3%) had improved, including 18 (30%) recovered, 33 (85%) back to work and having a professional activity, and 22 (39%) still taking analgesics. The only significant difference between recovered and not recovered patients was mean age at inclusion (43 vs. 51 years, P = 0.034). There were no significant differences between improved and not improved patients. Moreover, the outcome was not different in the two treatment groups: there were 17 (53%) improvements in surgically treated patients, including 8 (25%) recoveries, and 14 (56%) improvements in medically treated patients, including 8 (40%) recoveries. CONCLUSION: This pilot study showed no difference between surgical or medical management for recovery or improvement in patients with discogenic paresis. These results need confirmation by a randomized study.
BACKGROUND: Although the existence of a motor defect in discogenic sciatica is a sign of severity, the literature does not provide evidence for an immediate requirement for surgery. OBJECTIVE: To assess the course of sciatica with discogenic paresis and to determine possible prognostic factors for recovery or improvement. STUDY DESIGN: This open prospective multicenter study included patients with discogenic sciatica with paresis that had been developing for less than 1 month and was rated < or =3 on a 5-grade scale. Pain, the strength of 11 muscles, return to work, and analgesic intake were assessed at 1, 3, and 6 months. Recovery and improvement were defined by pain not exceeding 20 mm or < or =50% of the initial pain score and a score of either 5 (recovery) or 4 (improvement) for the weakest muscle at inclusion. RESULTS: Sixty-seven patients were enrolled; 39 (58%) patients were treated surgically and 28 (42%) medically. Surgically treated patients differed from medically treated patients by a higher rate of extruded herniation, a higher number of paretic muscles (6.3 vs. 5; P = 0.051), and a longer course of sciatica (31.4 vs. 17.3 days; P = 0.034). At 6 months, 7 (10.4%) patients were lost to follow-up; 32 (53.3%) had improved, including 18 (30%) recovered, 33 (85%) back to work and having a professional activity, and 22 (39%) still taking analgesics. The only significant difference between recovered and not recovered patients was mean age at inclusion (43 vs. 51 years, P = 0.034). There were no significant differences between improved and not improved patients. Moreover, the outcome was not different in the two treatment groups: there were 17 (53%) improvements in surgically treated patients, including 8 (25%) recoveries, and 14 (56%) improvements in medically treated patients, including 8 (40%) recoveries. CONCLUSION: This pilot study showed no difference between surgical or medical management for recovery or improvement in patients with discogenic paresis. These results need confirmation by a randomized study.
Authors: Steven J Kamper; Tasha R Stanton; Christopher M Williams; Christopher G Maher; Julia M Hush Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2010-06-16 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Tommi Kääriäinen; Simo Taimela; Timo Aalto; Heikki Kröger; Arto Herno; Veli Turunen; Sakari Savolainen; Markku Kankaanpää; Olavi Airaksinen; Ville Leinonen Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2015-05-27 Impact factor: 3.134