An assessment of the variation in the practice of lumbar discectomy and its role in axial back pain.

IF 1.4 Q2 OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY
Sandeep Mishra, Kanwaljeet Garg, Bipin Chaurasia, Bhargavi R Budihal, Harsh Deora, Vivek Tandon, Manoj Phalak, Shashwat Mishra, Amandeep Kumar, G E Umana, Jesus Lafuente, Andreas K Demetriades, Yoon Ha, Manmohan Singh, P S Chandra, S S Kale, Mehmet Zileli
{"title":"An assessment of the variation in the practice of lumbar discectomy and its role in axial back pain.","authors":"Sandeep Mishra,&nbsp;Kanwaljeet Garg,&nbsp;Bipin Chaurasia,&nbsp;Bhargavi R Budihal,&nbsp;Harsh Deora,&nbsp;Vivek Tandon,&nbsp;Manoj Phalak,&nbsp;Shashwat Mishra,&nbsp;Amandeep Kumar,&nbsp;G E Umana,&nbsp;Jesus Lafuente,&nbsp;Andreas K Demetriades,&nbsp;Yoon Ha,&nbsp;Manmohan Singh,&nbsp;P S Chandra,&nbsp;S S Kale,&nbsp;Mehmet Zileli","doi":"10.4103/jcvjs.jcvjs_46_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Lumbar discectomy is performed for symptomatic lumbar disc herniation and is one of the most widely performed spinal surgical procedures worldwide in a variety of ways. This survey aimed at providing an overview/perspective of different practice patterns and the impact of lumbar discectomy on axial back pain with or without sciatica.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An online survey was performed using the application \"Google Forms.\" The link to the questionnaire was distributed to neurosurgeons through personal E-mail and social media platforms.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We received 333 responses. The largest percentage of responses across five continents was from Asia (66.97%, n = 223). The mean age of the respondents was 40.08 ± 10.5 years. A total of 66 respondents (20%) had a spine practice of 7%-90%, and 28 respondents had a spine practice of 90%-100% (8.4%). The number of respondents who practiced microscopic discectomy using a tubular retractor (<i>n</i> = 143 respondents, 42.9%) was nearly equal to the number of respondents who practiced open discectomy (<i>n</i> = 142 respondents, 42.6%). An almost equal proportion of respondents believed discectomy does not help in relieving axial back pain. Only 20.4% (<i>n</i> = 68) of respondents recommend bed rest for a longer duration postoperatively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our survey revealed that only 22.2% of spine surgeons recommended discectomy in patients with radiological disc herniation with axial back pain alone and preferred a minimally invasive method of discectomy. Almost half of them believed discectomy to be ineffective for axial low back pain and only a few recommended prolonged bed rest postoperatively.</p>","PeriodicalId":51721,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Craniovertebral Junction and Spine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/68/e6/JCVJS-14-259.PMC10583805.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Craniovertebral Junction and Spine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jcvjs.jcvjs_46_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Lumbar discectomy is performed for symptomatic lumbar disc herniation and is one of the most widely performed spinal surgical procedures worldwide in a variety of ways. This survey aimed at providing an overview/perspective of different practice patterns and the impact of lumbar discectomy on axial back pain with or without sciatica.

Methods: An online survey was performed using the application "Google Forms." The link to the questionnaire was distributed to neurosurgeons through personal E-mail and social media platforms.

Results: We received 333 responses. The largest percentage of responses across five continents was from Asia (66.97%, n = 223). The mean age of the respondents was 40.08 ± 10.5 years. A total of 66 respondents (20%) had a spine practice of 7%-90%, and 28 respondents had a spine practice of 90%-100% (8.4%). The number of respondents who practiced microscopic discectomy using a tubular retractor (n = 143 respondents, 42.9%) was nearly equal to the number of respondents who practiced open discectomy (n = 142 respondents, 42.6%). An almost equal proportion of respondents believed discectomy does not help in relieving axial back pain. Only 20.4% (n = 68) of respondents recommend bed rest for a longer duration postoperatively.

Conclusions: Our survey revealed that only 22.2% of spine surgeons recommended discectomy in patients with radiological disc herniation with axial back pain alone and preferred a minimally invasive method of discectomy. Almost half of them believed discectomy to be ineffective for axial low back pain and only a few recommended prolonged bed rest postoperatively.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

评估腰椎间盘切除术实践中的差异及其在轴性背痛中的作用。
背景:腰椎间盘切除术是针对症状性腰椎间盘突出症进行的,是世界上以各种方式进行的最广泛的脊柱外科手术之一。本调查旨在提供不同实践模式的概述/观点,以及腰椎间盘切除术对伴有或不伴有坐骨神经痛的轴性背痛的影响。方法:使用“谷歌表格”应用程序进行在线调查。问卷链接通过个人电子邮件和社交媒体平台分发给神经外科医生。结果:我们收到333份回复。五大洲的回复比例最大的是亚洲(66.97%,n=223)。受访者的平均年龄为40.08±10.5岁。共有66名受访者(20%)的脊椎练习率为7%-90%,28名受访者的脊椎手术率为90%-100%(8.4%)。使用管状牵开器进行显微椎间盘切除术的受访者人数(143名受访者,42.9%)几乎与进行椎间盘开放切除术的人数(142名受访者,4.26%)相等。几乎相同比例的受访者认为椎间盘切除手术无助于缓解轴性背痛。只有20.4%(n=68)的受访者建议术后长时间卧床休息。结论:我们的调查显示,只有22.2%的脊柱外科医生建议对仅伴有轴性背痛的放射性椎间盘突出症患者进行椎间盘切除术,并首选微创椎间盘切除法。他们中几乎一半的人认为椎间盘切除术对轴性腰痛无效,只有少数人建议术后长时间卧床休息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
9.10%
发文量
57
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信