Literature DB >> 20054942

Results of lumbar discectomy: a study using 15 different evaluation methods.

D S Korres1, G Loupassis, K Stamos.   

Abstract

Ninety-two patients who had undergone a primary excision of a lumbar disc were evaluated using 15 different criteria that evaluate the surgical outcome 2-15.5 years (average 8.8 years) following operation. The satisfactory results ranged from 62% to 84%. Criteria which relied on the subjective opinion of the patient gave the best results, while on the contrary the worst results were those that relied on functional criteria, such as return to work, return to previous employment, general activity level and need of further treatment. This variability in results observed with the same group of patients depends to a great extent on the nature of criteria used as well as on the design of those criteria. The study concludes that the reported outcomes for lumbar spinal surgery are influenced by the selection of the criteria used for the assessment of the end results.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1992        PMID: 20054942     DOI: 10.1007/bf00302137

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   3.134


  24 in total

1.  Protrusions of the lumbar intervertebral discs, a clinical review based on five hundred cases treated by excision of the protrusion.

Authors:  J E A O'CONNELL
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1951-02

2.  Anterior interbody lumbar spine fusion. Analysis of Mayo Clinic series.

Authors:  R N Stauffer; M B Coventry
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1972-06       Impact factor: 5.284

3.  Late results of laminectomy for lumbar disc prolapse. A review after ten to twenty-five years.

Authors:  A Naylor
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1974-02

4.  A study of the natural history of back pain. Part I: development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain.

Authors:  M Roland; R Morris
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1983-03       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  Lumbar discectomy. Results with limited disc excision and selective foraminotomy.

Authors:  D M Spengler
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1982 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Posterior-posterobilateral fusion of the lumbosacral spine.

Authors:  A F DePalma; M Prabhakar
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1966 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Microsurgical and standard removal of the protruded lumbar disc: a comparative study.

Authors:  D H Wilson; R Harbaugh
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  1981-04       Impact factor: 4.654

8.  Disc excision and spine fusion in the management of lumbar disc disease. A minimum ten-year followup.

Authors:  J W Frymoyer; E Hanley; J Howe; D Kuhlmann; R Matteri
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1978-03       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Factors predicting the result of surgery for lumbar intervertebral disc herniation.

Authors:  M Hurme; H Alaranta
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1987-11       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  Results of operative treatment of lumbar disc herniation. A survey of 886 patients.

Authors:  P Salenius; L E Laurent
Journal:  Acta Orthop Scand       Date:  1977
View more
  10 in total

Review 1.  A systematic review of bio-psychosocial risk factors for an unfavourable outcome after lumbar disc surgery.

Authors:  Jasper J den Boer; Rob A B Oostendorp; Tjemme Beems; Marten Munneke; Margreet Oerlemans; Andrea W M Evers
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-05-25       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  [Two-years' follow-up after lumbar disc surgery.].

Authors:  A Junge; M Fröhlich; S Ahrens; M Hasenbring; D Grob; J Dvorak
Journal:  Schmerz       Date:  1995-03       Impact factor: 1.107

3.  Severe sciatica: a 13-year follow-up of 342 patients.

Authors:  F Nykvist; M Hurme; H Alaranta; M Kaitsaari
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  1995       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Cost-effectiveness of percutaneous automated lumbar nucleotomy. Comparison with traditional macro-procedure discectomy.

Authors:  R Dullerud; H Lie; B Magnæs
Journal:  Interv Neuroradiol       Date:  2001-05-15       Impact factor: 1.610

5.  Functional results and the risk factors of reoperations after lumbar disc surgery.

Authors:  Bilge Kara; Zeliha Tulum; Umit Acar
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2004-10-13       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  The efficacy of coblation nucleoplasty for protrusion of lumbar intervertebral disc at a two-year follow-up.

Authors:  Hui Zhu; Xiao-Zhong Zhou; Mao-Hua Cheng; Yi-Xin Shen; Qi-Rong Dong
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2011-01-15       Impact factor: 3.075

7.  Effectiveness of behavioral graded activity after first-time lumbar disc surgery: short term results of a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  R W J G Ostelo; H C W de Vet; M W Berfelo; M R Kerckhoffs; J W S Vlaeyen; P M J C Wolters; P A van den Brandt
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2003-09-23       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Clinic-based training in comparison to home-based training after first-time lumbar disc surgery: a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Ann-Christin Johansson; Steven J Linton; Leif Bergkvist; Olle Nilsson; Michael Cornefjord
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2008-11-20       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  Lumbosacral arthrodesis with louis technique. Review of 186 cases.

Authors:  J L Beguiristain; R Martínez Peric; R H Barrios; C Villas
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  1994       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  Magnetic resonance imaging interpretation in patients with sciatica who are potential candidates for lumbar disc surgery.

Authors:  Abdelilah El Barzouhi; Carmen L A M Vleggeert-Lankamp; Geert J Lycklama À Nijeholt; Bas F Van der Kallen; Wilbert B van den Hout; Annemieke J H Verwoerd; Bart W Koes; Wilco C Peul
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-07-10       Impact factor: 3.240

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.