| Literature DB >> 31372127 |
Bilge Kesikburun1, Emel Eksioglu2, Aynur Turan3, Emre Adiguzel4, Serdar Kesikburun5, Aytul Cakci6.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the natural history of lumbar extruded disc with conservative treatment on MRI and to assess relation between the radiologic changes and clinical outcome.Entities:
Keywords: Low back pain; Lumbar disc herniation; Pain; Spine; Spontaneous regression
Year: 2019 PMID: 31372127 PMCID: PMC6659070 DOI: 10.12669/pjms.35.4.346
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pak J Med Sci ISSN: 1681-715X Impact factor: 1.088
Fig. 1Flow chart.
Demographic and clinical features of the patients (n=40).
| Non-regression (n=4) | Partial Regression (n=6) | Complete Resolution (n=30) | p | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 60.2±15.5 [65.5(43.7-71.5)] | 54.6±14.0 [57.0(39.7-66.7)] | 48.3±10.1 [50.5(41.7-57.0)] | 0.119 |
| Sex | 0.732 | |||
| 3 (75.0%) | 3 (50.0%) | 12 (40.0%) | ||
| 1 (25.0%) | 3 (50.0%) | 18 (60.0%) | ||
| BMI (kg/m2) | 29.3±4.2 [28.8(25.6-33.7)] | 27.8±4.2 [28.2(23.9-31.9)] | 28.7±5.6 [27.9(24.9-30.3)] | 0.891 |
| Marital Status | 0.386 | |||
| 4 (100.0%) | 6 (100.0%) | 25 (83.3%) | ||
| 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 5 (16.7%) | ||
| Occupation | 0.449 | |||
| 4 (100.0%) | 4 (66.7%) | 22 (73.3%) | ||
| 0 (0.0%) | 2 (33.3%) | 8 (26.7%) | ||
| Duration of Pain (months) | 6.2±0.9 [6.5(5.2-7.0)] | 6.0±1.0 [6.0(5.5-7.0)] | 5.9±1.8 [6.0(4.7-7.2)] | 0.657 |
| Level of Extruded Disc Herniations | 0.471 | |||
| 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (3.3%) | ||
| 0 (0.0%) | 2 (33.3%) | 2 (6.7%) | ||
| 0 (0.0%) | 1 (16.7%) | 2 (6.7%) | ||
| 3 (75.0%) | 2 (33.3%) | 12 (40.0%) | ||
| 1 (25.0%) | 1 (16.7%) | 13 (43.3%) | ||
| Baseline Volume of Herniation (mm3) | 1367.0±828.8 [1420.0(567.0-2114.0)] | 1433.1±558.5 [1397.5(855.0-2044.0)] | 1045.6±736.2 [844.0(583.0-1327.5)] | 0.190 |
| Follow-up Time (months) | 21.5±7.5 [22.0(14.0-28.5)] | 18.0±13.0 [13.5(10.5-23.7)] | 16.2±6.3 [13.5(12.0-18.2)] | 0.328 |
BMI: body mass index,
Mean±SD [Median (Interquartile Range)].
Clinical outcome data.
| n | Baseline | Follow-up | p | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NRS | ||||
| 4 | 6.0±1.1[6.0(5.0-7.0)] | 4.7±0.9[6.0(5.0-7.0)] | 0.102 | |
| 6 | 6.6±1.2[6.5(5.7-8.0)] | 3,6±2,2[2,5(2.0-6.2)] | 0.063 | |
| 30 | 6.9±1.7[7.0(5.7-8.0)] | 2.9±2.0[3.0(1.0-4.2)] | <0.001 | |
| ODI | ||||
| 4 | 25.5±7.5[23.0(20.0-33.5)] | 19.2±7.8[22.0(11.0-24.7)] | 0.109 | |
| 6 | 28.6±10.3[29.5(18.7-38.5)] | 14.3±9.9[12.0(6.2-22.7)] | 0.043 | |
| 30 | 23.3±11.8[20.0(14.0-32.2)] | 12.1±9.3[11.0(4.0-18.5)] | <0.001 | |
| Muscle Weakness | 0.281 | |||
| 4 | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | ||
| 6 | 1 (16.7%) | 0 (0.0%) | ||
| 30 | 5 (16.7%) | 2 (6.7%) | ||
NRS: Numeric Rating Scale, ODI: Oswestry Disability Index,
Mean±SD [Median (Interquartile Range)].
Fig. 2Comparison of changes in the NRS (a) and ODI (b) scores over time between the groups.
*Significant difference in complete resolution group compared to non-regression group (p<0.017, Mann-Whitney test).