Abstract
Introduction: Lumbar discectomy is now the operation of choice for lumbosacral radicular syndrome. Few studies of high quality have been performed on the post surgical management of these cases. The studies that have been reported compare one exercise regime to another.
The aim of this study was to compare long term outcomes of usual surgical advice, involving no formal post-surgical rehabilitation, with a non-aggravating six month gym rehabilitation programme post lumbar discectomy. This study is a prospective randomized controlled trial using a cohort followed for three years.
Methods: The patients were computer randomised into two groups. Group A, the control group followed usual surgical advice which was to resume normal activity as soon as pain allowed. Group B, undertook the gym rehabilitation programme. Inclusion criteria were: Age 17 to 65 years, good health and no major medical problems. The surgical level had to be L3, L4, or L5. Patients were excluded if they had central neurological disorders, communication difficulties, any condition making gym-based exercises unsafe, or if the surgery was indicated for spinal infection, tumour or inflammatory disease. Patients were followed for a three year period using validated outcome measures (Roland-Morris Questionnaire and Oswestry Low Back Pain Index) and an annual Quality of Life (QoL) questionnaire. A sample of 40 per group provided the study with 80% power (P< 0.05) to detect a 3.5 point change in the RMQ and a 10% change in the ODI. The annual questionnaire reported information on number of GP visits, other therapist visits, medication levels and time off work.
Results: Ninety three participants were randomised; Control n=46 and trial n=47. Eighty nine participants completed the study. Randomisation achieved a balance of confounding factors, with the exception of work heaviness, where there were a greater number of participants in the very heavy and heavy categories in the trial group (P< 0.01). Thirty nine of 47 participants completed the gym programme (83%). Functional outcome measures did not show statistically significant differences between groups over the three year period. Key findings of cumulative 3 year data for the QoL questionnaire are: on intent-to-treat analysis; fewer patients having GP visits in the trial group P=0.048 (18% vs 5%). In the per protocol subset; fewer episodes off work P=0.074 (range control 0–3 vs trial 0–2), GP visits P= 0.089 (range control 0–12 vs trial 0–3) and in the per-protocol minus re-operation group; GP visits P< 0.008 (range control 0–3 vs trial 0–2), patients requiring medication use P=0.05 (37% control vs 17% trial) days off work P=0.099 (range control 0–30 vs trial 0–3).
Discussion: The results reveal an advantage in terms of episodes off work, GP visits and medication use for participants in the trial group who completed the programme. Time off work is a significant consideration for funding providers. These results suggest that surgeons should consider referral of discectomy patients to appropriate post-surgical rehabilitation programmes.
Correspondence should be addressed to Dr Owen Williamson, Editorial Secretary, Spine Society of Australia, 25 Erin Street, Richmond, Victoria 3121, Australia.
