Study Design. Cross sectional Objective. To investigate the ability of the neurological examination to identify the specific level of a disc herniation in patients with sciatica and confirmed disc... Show moreStudy Design. Cross sectional Objective. To investigate the ability of the neurological examination to identify the specific level of a disc herniation in patients with sciatica and confirmed disc herniation. Summary of Background Data. Tests included in a neurological examination theoretically provide accurate diagnostic information about the level of the herniated disc. However, there is currently very little evidence about the diagnostic accuracy of individual tests or combinations of tests. Methods. The study included 283 patients with sciatica and confirmed disc herniation from a previous randomized controlled trial. The reference test for the current study was the MRI scan, reported for level of disc herniation. Index tests investigated were a neurologist's overall impression of the level of disc herniation, individual neurological tests (e. g., sensation testing) and multiple test findings (i.e., the number of positive tests). The index tests were performed blinded to the MRI results. The diagnostic accuracy of the index tests in predicting herniations at the lower three lumbar discs was investigated using area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity and specificity. Results. None of the individual neurological tests from the clinical examination were highly accurate for identifying the level of disc herniation (AUC > 0.75). The outcome of multiple test findings was slightly more accurate but did not produce high sensitivity and specificity. The dermatomal pain location was generally the most informative individual neurological test. The overall suspected level of disc herniation rated by the neurologist after a full examination of the patient was more accurate than individual tests. At L4/5 and L5/S1 herniations the AUC for neurologist ratings was 0.79 and 0.80 respectively. Conclusion. The current study did not find evidence to support the accuracy of individual tests from the neurological examination in identifying the level of disc herniation demonstrated on MRI. A neurologist's overall impression was moderately accurate in identifying the level of disc herniation. Show less
Jacobs, W.C.H.; Tulder, M. van; Arts, M.; Rubinstein, S.M.; Middelkoop, M. van; Ostelo, R.; ... ; Peul, W.C. 2011
The effectiveness of surgery in patients with sciatica due to lumbar disc herniations is not without dispute. The goal of this study was to assess the effects of surgery versus conservative therapy... Show moreThe effectiveness of surgery in patients with sciatica due to lumbar disc herniations is not without dispute. The goal of this study was to assess the effects of surgery versus conservative therapy (including epidural injections) for patients with sciatica due to lumbar disc herniation. A comprehensive search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and PEDro up to October 2009. Randomised controlled trials of adults with lumbar radicular pain, which evaluated at least one clinically relevant outcome measure (pain, functional status, perceived recovery, lost days of work) were included. Two authors assessed risk of bias according to Cochrane criteria and extracted the data. In total, five studies were identified, two of which with a low risk of bias. One study compared early surgery with prolonged conservative care followed by surgery if needed; three studies compared surgery with usual conservative care, and one study compared surgery with epidural injections. Data were not pooled because of clinical heterogeneity and poor reporting of data. One large low-risk-of-bias trial demonstrated that early surgery in patients with 6-12 weeks of radicular pain leads to faster pain relief when compared with prolonged conservative treatment, but there were no differences after 1 and 2 years. Another large low-risk-of-bias trial between surgery and usual conservative care found no statistically significant differences on any of the primary outcome measures after 1 and 2 years. Future studies should evaluate who benefits more from surgery and who from conservative care. Show less
Nellensteijn, J.; Ostelo, R.; Bartels, R.; Peul, W.; Royen, B. van; Tulder, M. van 2010
Transforaminal endoscopic techniques have become increasingly popular in surgery of patients with lumbar stenosis. The literature has not yet been systematically reviewed. A comprehensive... Show moreTransforaminal endoscopic techniques have become increasingly popular in surgery of patients with lumbar stenosis. The literature has not yet been systematically reviewed. A comprehensive systematic literature review up to November 2009 to assess the effectiveness of transforaminal endoscopic surgery in patients with symptomatic lumbar stenosis was made. Two reviewers independently checked all retrieved titles and abstracts and relevant full text articles for inclusion criteria. Included articles were assessed for quality, and relevant data, including outcomes, were extracted by two reviewers independently. No randomized controlled trials were identified, but seven observational studies. The studies were of poor methodological quality and heterogeneous regarding patient selection, indications, operation techniques, follow-up period and outcome measures. Overall, 69-83% reported the outcome as satisfactory and a complication rate of 0-8.3%. The reported re-operation rate varied from 0 to 20%. At present, there is no valid evidence from randomized controlled trials on the effectiveness of transforaminal endoscopic surgery for lumbar stenosis. Randomized controlled trials comparing transforaminal endoscopic surgery with other surgical techniques are direly needed. Show less
Nellensteijn, J.; Ostelo, R.; Bartels, R.; Peul, W.; Royen, B. van; Tulder, M. van 2010
The study design includes a systematic literature review. The objective of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of transforaminal endoscopic surgery and to compare this with open... Show moreThe study design includes a systematic literature review. The objective of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of transforaminal endoscopic surgery and to compare this with open microdiscectomy in patients with symptomatic lumbar disc herniations. Transforaminal endoscopic techniques for patients with symptomatic lumbar disc herniations have become increasingly popular. The literature has not yet been systematically reviewed. A comprehensive systematic literature search of the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases was performed up to May 2008. Two reviewers independently checked all retrieved titles and abstracts and relevant full text articles for inclusion criteria. Included articles were assessed for quality and outcomes were extracted by the two reviewers independently. One randomized controlled trial, 7 non-randomized controlled trials and 31 observational studies were identified. Studies were heterogeneous regarding patient selection, indications, operation techniques, follow-up period and outcome measures and the methodological quality of these studies was poor. The eight trials did not find any statistically significant differences in leg pain reduction between the transforaminal endoscopic surgery group (89%) and the open microdiscectomy group (87%); overall improvement (84 vs. 78%), re-operation rate (6.8 vs. 4.7%) and complication rate (1.5 vs. 1%), respectively. In conclusion, current evidence on the effectiveness of transforaminal endoscopic surgery is poor and does not provide valid information to either support or refute using this type of surgery in patients with symptomatic lumbar disc herniations. High-quality randomized controlled trials with sufficiently large sample sizes are direly needed to evaluate if transforaminal endoscopic surgery is more effective than open microdiscectomy. Show less
