Literature DB >> 24549392

Is NICE guidance for identifying lumbar nerve root compression misguided?

Tim Germon1, William Singleton, Jeremy Hobart.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine the extent to which the clinical manifestations of a cohort of people undergoing surgery for lumbosacral nerve root compression satisfy those described in The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance.
METHOD: We studied consecutive admissions for lumbar nerve root decompression surgery at two neurosurgical units. Pre-operatively, each person's clinical manifestations were documented and compared with NICE's description. Post-operatively, at three time points (within 48 h, 3 months, 12 months), each person rated their symptoms as either better, the same, or worse.
RESULTS: Pre-operatively, one person (0.8%), from 123 admissions, under 20 different consultant neurosurgeons, had manifestations consistent with NICE's clinical description of lumbar nerve root compression. Post-operatively, self-reported benefit associated with surgery appeared high, at all three time points (78-91%), supporting the diagnosis of symptomatic nerve root compression and the value of surgery.
CONCLUSIONS: In this small sample, from two units, NICE's description of the clinical manifestations of lumbar nerve root compression did not describe 99% of people having surgery for it. Using NICE's definition to triage people with low back pain could result in prolonged symptoms and delayed treatment. Diagnosing lumbar nerve root compression is complex. NICE's guidance requires examination.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24549392      PMCID: PMC3946090          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-014-3233-y

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


  12 in total

Review 1.  The prevalence of low back pain: a systematic review of the literature from 1966 to 1998.

Authors:  B F Walker
Journal:  J Spinal Disord       Date:  2000-06

Review 2.  Surgical interventions for lumbar disc prolapse.

Authors:  J N A Gibson; G Waddell
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2007-01-24

Review 3.  Rating scales as outcome measures for clinical trials in neurology: problems, solutions, and recommendations.

Authors:  Jeremy C Hobart; Stefan J Cano; John P Zajicek; Alan J Thompson
Journal:  Lancet Neurol       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 44.182

Review 4.  Sciatica: review of epidemiological studies and prevalence estimates.

Authors:  Kika Konstantinou; Kate M Dunn
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2008-10-15       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  Measuring outcomes in cervical spine surgery: think twice before using the SF-36.

Authors:  Rachel Baron; Abdurrahim Elashaal; Tim Germon; Jeremy Hobart
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2006-10-15       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Long-term outcomes of surgical and nonsurgical management of sciatica secondary to a lumbar disc herniation: 10 year results from the maine lumbar spine study.

Authors:  Steven J Atlas; Robert B Keller; Yen A Wu; Richard A Deyo; Daniel E Singer
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2005-04-15       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  Normality and reliability in the clinical assessment of backache.

Authors:  G Waddell; C J Main; E W Morris; R M Venner; P S Rae; S H Sharmy; H Galloway
Journal:  Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)       Date:  1982-05-22

8.  Lumbar disc herniation. A controlled, prospective study with ten years of observation.

Authors:  H Weber
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1983-03       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Lack of effectiveness of bed rest for sciatica.

Authors:  P C Vroomen; M C de Krom; J T Wilmink; A D Kester; J A Knottnerus
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1999-02-11       Impact factor: 91.245

10.  Surgical versus nonoperative treatment for lumbar disc herniation: four-year results for the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT).

Authors:  James N Weinstein; Jon D Lurie; Tor D Tosteson; Anna N A Tosteson; Emily A Blood; William A Abdu; Harry Herkowitz; Alan Hilibrand; Todd Albert; Jeffrey Fischgrund
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2008-12-01       Impact factor: 3.468

View more
  3 in total

1.  Stratified versus usual care for the management of primary care patients with sciatica: the SCOPiC RCT.

Authors:  Nadine E Foster; Kika Konstantinou; Martyn Lewis; Reuben Ogollah; Benjamin Saunders; Jesse Kigozi; Sue Jowett; Bernadette Bartlam; Majid Artus; Jonathan C Hill; Gemma Hughes; Christian D Mallen; Elaine M Hay; Danielle A van der Windt; Michelle Robinson; Kate M Dunn
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2020-10       Impact factor: 4.014

2.  Accelerometry-based physical activity, disability and quality of life before and after lumbar decompression surgery from a physiotherapeutic perspective: An observational cohort study.

Authors:  Caroline Aubry; Corina Nüesch; Oliver Fiebig; Thomas M Stoll; Markus Köhler; Alain Barth; Annegret Mündermann
Journal:  N Am Spine Soc J       Date:  2021-10-26

3.  A valid model for predicting responsible nerve roots in lumbar degenerative disease with diagnostic doubt.

Authors:  Xiaochuan Li; Xuedong Bai; Yaohong Wu; Dike Ruan
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2016-03-15       Impact factor: 2.362

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.