| Literature DB >> 35368945 |
ZhaoWu Meng1, JinYang Zheng1, Kai Fu1, YiZhao Kang1, Liang Wang1.
Abstract
Lumbar disc herniation is a common and frequently-occurring disease in pain clinics. The incidence rate of affliction is increasing with every passing year. Besides the aged, young people also suffer from long-term pain, which not only affects their daily routines but may also lead to serious impairment. The causes of chronic low back and leg pain caused by lumbar disc herniation are mainly related to mechanical compression, the adhesion of epidural space, intervertebral space, and aseptic inflammatory reaction. The treatment of lumbar disc herniation should follow the principle of step-by-step treatment. An appropriate treatment scheme needs to be adopted according to the patient's condition. About 80% of patients received nonsurgical treatment to get relief from the pain symptoms. However, 10% to 15% of patients still need traditional open surgery. Spinal foraminal surgery is a new method for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation, lumbar surgery failure syndrome, and lumbar spinal stenosis. However, there are only scattered clinical reports on the efficacy of spinal foraminal surgery. Based on it, this paper proposes a method to explore the efficacy of spinal foraminal mirror surgery in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation. Besides, postoperative wearable lumbar protective equipment is proposed to ensure a seamless rehabilitation effect on the patients. Statistical analysis performed using a t-test revealed that there was a significant difference between the visual analog scales (VAS) scores of the two groups after 3 and 6 months of treatment (P < 0.05). The paper analyzes and summarizes the cases with definite and poor curative effects, which not only provides the basis for clinical practice but also paves the way to multicenter clinical research.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35368945 PMCID: PMC8975632 DOI: 10.1155/2022/6463863
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Healthc Eng ISSN: 2040-2295 Impact factor: 2.682
Figure 1Schematic diagram of the lumbar intervertebral disc.
Figure 2The main factors of lumbar disc herniation.
Figure 3Research flow chart of experiment.
Figure 4Basic principle diagram of support vector machine.
Figure 5Overall structure diagram of lumbar protection equipment.
Figure 6Treatment posture diagram of lumbar spine protection equipment after lying down.
General information of two groups of patients.
| Observation items | ENP | TFSI | T |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | 15/12 | 23/28 | 0.773 | 0.379 |
| Age | 51.07 ± 16.13 | 47.78 ± 15.15 | 0.892 | 0.375 |
| Body mass index | 23.61 ± 1.81 | 22.93 ± 1.44 | 1.799 | 0.076 |
| Course of disease | 9.52 ± 5.65 | 8.84 ± 4.61 | 0.573 | 0.569 |
Effect of BMI on VAS score.
| Time | ENP | TFSI | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BMI | T |
| BMI | T |
| |
| Zero | 5.36 ± 1.03 | 0.918 | 0.368 | 5.81 ± 1.38 | 0.757 | 0.453 |
| One | 2.09 ± 1.04 | 0.828 | 0.415 | 2.56 ± 1.67 | 0.883 | 0.382 |
| Three | 2.09 ± 1.14 | 0.384 | 0.704 | 2.25 ± 1.00 | 0.112 | 0.911 |
| Six | 2.82 ± 1.60 | 0.010 | 0.992 | 2.81 ± 1.42 | 0.031 | 0.975 |
Figure 7VAS score changes of the two groups before and after treatment.
Comparison results of the proportion of people with changes in the VAS score.
| Time | Unchanged | Rise | Reduce | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TFSI | ENP | TFSI | ENP | TFSI | ENP | |
| 1 month | 1 (51) | 0 (27) | 0 (51) | 1 (27) | 38 (51) | 18 (27) |
| 3 months | 5 (51) | 1 (27) | 0 (51) | 0 (27) | 27 (51) | 21 (27) |
| 6 months | 7 (15) | 3 (27) | 2 (15) | 0 (27) | 15 (15) | 15 (27) |
Figure 8Comparison of patients with VAS reduction ≥ 2 cm 1 month after treatment.