FAQ Category: Lumbar Spine

Conservative (nonoperative) care is often advised for sciatica. This is because so many studies show that after six to eight weeks, most cases of back pain radiating down the leg go away completely.

But that isn’t always the case. Sometimes people just don’t get better. Some even get worse. In the presence of severe pain or motor symptoms (muscle weakness, paralysis), surgery is indicated. And making the decision to have surgery doesn’t label you a failure.

The medical community would say that in your case (or cases like yours), the outcomes of conservative care weren’t satisfactory. That’s a signal to explore other options, including surgery. Approximately 40 per cent of patients fall into this category of crossing over from nonoperative to operative treatment. Most do so after 12 to 14 weeks of conservative care.

There’s even some research to suggest that recovery is better and faster for patients who have surgery early in the course of their sciatica (within the first two weeks after onset of symptoms). That goes against everything we’ve been told about the importance of following a prolonged course of nonoperative care before considering surgery.

So, clearly there are factors that remain unknown in predicting the success or failure of treatment for sciatica. More studies are needed to define just what these factors are and help patients navigate nonoperative care versus surgical management and the timing of both.

In Greek, the word sciatica translates to mean hip pain. But most people use this term today to mean back pain that radiates (travels) down the leg.

Lumbosacral radicular syndrome is a more accurate scientific term to describe intense leg pain from irritation of the sciatic nerve. You may also see the term sciatic neuralgia used to describe this condition. Although it’s medically more accurate, it’s not freqently used in the medical literature.

But the term syndrome is important here. Besides pain, there may be numbness, muscular weakness, and difficulty in moving or controlling the leg. All of these are symptoms, not a disease.

Most of the time, the syndrome is caused by pressure on one of the five nerve roots that form the sciatic nerve. This usually comes from a protruding or herniated disc. But it could also be caused by bone spurs, tumors, or spinal stenosis creating the same effect of compression or irriation of the nerve.

If you are seeing a physical therapist who is prescribing physical activity and exercises, then you are being cared for according to current guidelines. And these guidelines are based on scientific evidence gathered to date.

That doesn’t mean the future rehab of low back pain won’t change again. But for now, it’s clear that a successful outcome depends on staying active. Physical therapists are encouraged to use passive treatments such as heat/cold modalities, electrical stimulation, laser therapy, and so on with careful consideration and close follow-up.

Most of the time, a program of general activities and specific exercises is provided each patient on a one-to-one basis. This type of rehab program is based on the therapist’s physical assessment of each individual patient.

Other factors must be considered and evaluated such as fear-avoidance behavior or pain catastrophizing. These are behavioral issues that affect how patients perceive pain and/or movement. A specific program of behavioral counseling is needed for patients who fall into either of these groups.

There are two basic costs associated with low back pain. The direct cost of health care and services is the easiest to calculate. This includes visits to the doctor, physical therapist, or chiropractor. It also covers the cost of imaging studies, steroid injections, visits to the emergency department, or surgery.

Indirect costs can be a little more difficult to estimate. Time lost from work can be judged using absenteeism. But loss of work productivity in dollars and cents is a little more difficult to figure out. This is especially true if the patient returns to work but at a different job or with a reduced workload.

And that’s just for first-time episodes of back pain. It doesn’t account for repeat episodes and recurring costs for office visits, urgent care, additional surgeries, or prescription medications.

Researchers are continuing to look at this problem carefully. Guidelines for treatment based on evidence suggest an active approach to rehab and recovery. A recent study from the University of Utah Department of Physical Therapy has added to our knowledge of how to treat low back pain. They showed that patients who receive active exercise and activity-based intervention (versus passive modality-based treatment) have reduced costs and better long-term results.

It looks like an effort is being made to identify ways to reduce healthcare utilization and costs for low back pain. Physical therapy following current evidence-based guidelines providing active care is one important way to reduce the economic burden of caring for patients with back pain.

There isn’t a lot of information available to help with treatment decisions for disc herniation in children and adolescents (teenagers) with apophyseal ring fractures. What little we do know suggests that apophyseal ring fractures don’t always require surgery to remove the fragments.

Without surgery, large fragments in patients who have severe symptoms can result in chronic low back pain later on. Small fractures don’t seem to have any long-term effects. In either case, the first step is to try conservative (nonoperative) care. Even if the X-rays or CT scans show extensive involvement, the surgeon must base treatment on the patient symptoms, not on radiologic studies.

Many young athletes have X-ray signs of apophyseal fractures without ever knowing they had an injury. These findings suggest that disc herniations with apophyseal fractures probably occur together at the same time. A traumatic injury may not be the most likely cause. It appears that chronic, repetitive physiologic stress on the disc and surrounding soft tissues is the real problem.

It was thought that instability following discectomy would preclude the use of total disc replacement in lieu of fusion. A recent study for the Federal Drug Administration compared results of total disc replacement, TDR, in 20 patients who had previous lumbar discectomy, and 67 patients who had not had previous lumbar surgery for disc herniation. The results showed that there was no significant difference between the two groups based on all four of the outcomes that were measured at follow up.

The greatest benefit is likely the maintenance of range of motion with total disc replacement. This is thought to decrease the likelihood of accelerated degeneration of adjacent levels as seen following fusion. Accelerated degeneration can sometimes necessistate extension of the fusion.

A recent study of 104 patients with rheumatoid arthritis for 10 years or longer showed that 45 percent had changes in the lumbar spine identified on either Xray or magnetic resonance imaging.

There are various techniques for performing lumbar fusion surgery. It is important for the surgeon to consider what approach will allow the best decompression of neural structures, best placement of instrumentation or fusion materials, and restoration or maintenance of the normal saggital curve of the spine. The goals are to lessen the likelihood of pseudarthrosis or nonunion of the fusion, improve neurological function, and minimize the need for further surgery.

Not necessarily, though you should bring your question and your concerns to your surgeon for clarification. What has changed in the last 10 years is our understanding of the cost-savings associated with early surgical intervention for disc herniation.

We know that the long-term outcomes are the same whether you have disc surgery or stick with conservative (nonoperative) care. But some patients don’t want to wait the full year (or longer) that it takes to reach full healing and maximum potential. Severe sciatica and low back pain from disc herniation can be extremely painful and very disabling.

If your pain is mild to moderate, then it might be better to manage it with other less invasive modalities. This could include medications, physical therapy, chiropractic care or other complementary and alternative modalities. Keep in mind that there’s a financial cost to conservative care along with the lost wages and reduced work productivity you incur while you are off work.

While there is general agreement that exercise is a key factor in recovery from low back pain, the optimal type, frequency, intensity, or duration of exercise remains unknown.

The most recent trend in research is to look for subgroups of patients who respond well to one type of exercise versus another. These groups could be based on age, length of time with back pain, presence of back pain alone or back pain and leg pain, and so on.

Part of the problem in identifying exercise guidelines has been with the researchers. Studies aren’t always of the highest quality, so the results can’t be used to develop exercise guidelines. Some studies introduce bias without realizing it. Others may not report the results in a way that is helpful to others when reviewing the evidence.

A recent meeting of experts in the Netherlands has resulted in a call for improved design, conduct, and reporting of clinical trials. Some variables can’t be changed, but there are many ways the research itself could be improved. Reducing flaws in study designs and improving the quality of research could go a long way in improving our knowledge of exercise as a treatment tool for low back pain.

Total disc replacement (TDR) for disc disease degeneration (DDD) is a fairly new treatment method available. We have only just begun to scratch the surface in understanding how well these implants work and how one compares to the other.

There are two metal-on-polymer implants: the ProDisc II and the CHARITÉ. The most important factor in outcome is probably the surgeon’s familiarity with the procedure and surgical technique. Most surgeons choose one implant device to become familiar with and gain experience using the one selected.

Having said this much, let’s look at the known differences between these two implants. The ProDisc II is a constrained device. This means it is implanted into the bone with very little movement of the implant allowed inside the disc space. Despite front-to-back and side-to-side forces, the implant stays in one place. It is necessary to distract the two vertebral bodies more to insert the implant than with the CHARITÉ.

The CHARITÉ model is unconstrained. This gives the patient greater spinal range of motion but also puts the person at risk of an implant dislocation. It depends on the facet joint to maintain stability. But that puts more potential stress and strain on these joints.

Both the ProDisc II and the CHARITÉ allow axial rotation (twisting) motions. There is some concern that this feature can cause further facet joint damage. Some early studies suggest that changes in the facet joints are likely at the level of the implant. Researchers will be following patients to see if anything comes of this as more time passes.

Disc height increases dramatically from before to after implantation of a total disc replacement (TDR). That’s good because that is what the implant is supposed to do. Restoring normal disc height takes pressure off the nearby facet (spinal) joints, too.

At first, when the implant is inserted, there is a small space between the curved, upper endplate of the vertebra and the flat top of the disc replacement plate. The two shapes don’t match exactly. Over time, the bone settles down around the implant and there’s a slight loss of space.

But it’s also possible for the implant to sink down into the bone. This is called subsidence. Loss of disc height can occur from progressive subsidence. That’s why it’s important to keep your follow-up appointments and have periodic imaging tests. The surgeon will follow your progress and let you know if the changes are within normal limits or something to be concerned about.

Back pain certainly does have our attention. Around the world, it is the same story: eight out of every 10 adults will have back pain sometime in their lives. It is a major cause of medical expenses. And along with that comes absenteeism and loss of productivity. Billions of dollars are lost each year from the indirect and direct costs of low back pain.

When acute low back pain lasts more than a couple of months, then it becomes a chronic problem. Quality of life is affected. Loss of function and disability become concerns. Teams of specialists around the world continue to focus on the problem of back pain. It appears to be a rather complex condition with social, physical, and mental factors.

Nonspecific low back pain continues to baffle and befuddle many people — patients and doctors alike. Studies have shown us that there are many factors to consider. Besides the mechanical disorder in the spine, there can be stressors and social factors that aggravate the condition.

Some people can predict the change in weather by their aching joints and increased back pain. This may be caused by receptors in the joints that respond to changes in pressure such as the barometric pressure. You may be one of those people without knowing it.

Others are aware that their own fears and phobias set them off. Fear-avoidance behaviors (FABs) have become a new phrase in our vocabulary. Patients who are afraid of reinjury or increased pain, stop moving or change the way they move to avoid back pain. This response to pain can actually result in increased painful symptoms and may be part of your clinical picture.

One good way to tell for sure is to keep a journal of events, activities, and stresses. At the same time, log in how you are feeling, what you’ve been eating, and how many hours of sleep you are getting. Exercise is also important. Keep track of the type, frequency, intensity, and duration of any exercise program you may be following.

By looking back over records of behavior and back pain, you may be able to identify a pattern to help you. This could be both factors that improve your symptoms and the things that seem to aggravate your symptoms. Then you can modify your lifestyle to include more of the positive factors and slowly reduce or eliminate those things that seem to aggravate your condition.

According to a recent literature review, 34 percent of patients who had fusion of the lumbar spine developed adjacent segment disease. In the literature reviewed, the rate ranged from 5 percent to 100 percent of patients. Adjacent segment disease is progressive degeneration of the spine either above or below the fusion level at a rate greater than would be expected. It is asymptomatic. Adjacent segment disease shows progressive degeneration and is symptomatic, causing symptoms which correlate with the segment involved.

The authors of a recent literature review felt that there was a correlation between fusion and the development of adjacent segment degeneration compared to total disc replacement. The authors also felt there was a stronger correlation between fusion and the development of adjacent segment disease compared to total joint replacement. Because the studies that were available to review were not high in quality, they could only make a weak recommendation for the use of total disc replacement versus fusion.

A recent study showed that at two weeks following SNRB driver reaction time on average can remain slowed. At six weeks following SNRB, driver reaction time had returned to baseline on average. Testing at three, four, and five weeks was not performed.

No formal recommendations have been made to date. A recent study evaluated driver reaction time, DRT, in persons with lumbar radiculopathy who underwent selective nerve root block, SNRB. Whether the block was done on the right or left, immediately following SNRB driver reaction times on average were slower. At two weeks, the DRT remained slower than prior to the procedure in those with right sided SNRB. At six weeks after SNRB, DRTs were at baseline on average. Of the persons tested in this study, even though slower than controls, DRT was still within the range of normal subjects when tested on the road.

Back school for health education about back pain started in 1969 in Sweden. At first it was thought that a weak back and back-straining work increased the risk of low back trouble.

Back school has proven most effective for patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain (LBP). In nonspecific LBP the cause is unknown but is likely related to the soft tissues, joints, ligaments, and sometimes disc problems. There is no infection, tumor, or fracture present.

Today, there are many variations in the content and intensity of back schools. You’ll find programs offered by people with various training and background. Exercise physiologists, physical therapists, chiropractors, and sports trainers are just a few of the disciplines with training in this area.

The daily program or intense six-week program of the 1970s and 1980s has been replaced by a shorter course of instruction. Patients meet with a physical therapist for one to four sessions spread out over several weeks to a month. Some programs are extended up to eight weeks. Some offer a specific 3-hour question and answer session. Most programs cover basic anatomy, pathologies, and biomechanics. Advice on lifting, exercise, and general fitness is usually included.

Updated programs that incorporate new ideas based on more recent evidence may not be referred to as Back School. Other names such as Back Care Boot Camp have replaced this one.