Dataset Information

Return to Play After Symptomatic Lumbar Disc Herniation in Elite Athletes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Operative Versus Nonoperative Treatment.

ABSTRACT:

Context

The prevalence of symptomatic lumbar disc herniation (LDH) in athletes can be as high as 75%. For elite athletes diagnosed with LDH, return to play (RTP) is a major concern, and thus comparing surgical with nonoperative care is essential to guide practitioners and athletes, not just in terms of recovery rates but also speed of recovery.

Objective

The purpose of this systematic review is to provide an update on RTP outcomes for elite athletes after lumbar discectomy versus nonoperative treatment of LDHs.

Data sources

A search of the literature was conducted using 3 online databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed) to identify pertinent studies.

Study selection

Yielded studies were screened according to the inclusion criteria.

Study design

Systematic review with meta-analysis.

Level of evidence

Level 4.

Data extraction

Relevant data were extracted. A meta-analysis was performed comparing RTP rate for all comparative studies.

Results

Twenty studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. Overall, 663 out of 799 patients (83.0%) returned to play in the surgical group and 251 out of 308 patients (81.5%) returned to play in the nonoperative group. No statistically significant difference for RTP rate was found (odds ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.58-3.34; P = 0.46; I2, 71%). The mean time to RTP for patients undergoing lumbar discectomy was 5.19 months (range 1.00-8.70 months), and 4.11 months (range 3.60-5.70 months) for those treated conservatively.

Conclusion

There was no significant difference in RTP rate between athletes treated with operative or nonoperative management of LDHs, nor did operative management have a faster time to RTP. Athletes should consider the lack of difference in RTP rate in addition to the potential risks associated with spinal surgery when choosing a treatment option. Future randomized controlled trials are needed on this topic to allow for high-powered conclusions.

SUBMITTER: Sedrak P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8404721 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe effectiveness of operative compared with nonoperative treatment at initial presentation (no prior fusion) for adult lumbar scoliosis has not, to our knowledge, been evaluated in controlled trials. The goals of this study were to evaluate the effects of operative and nonoperative treatment and to assess the benefits of these treatments to help treating physicians determine whether patients are better managed operatively or nonoperatively.MethodsPatients with adult symptomatic lumbar scoliosis (aged 40 to 80 years, with a coronal Cobb angle measurement of ≥30° and an Oswestry Disability Index [ODI] score of ≥20 or Scoliosis Research Society [SRS]-22 score of ≤4.0) from 9 North American centers were enrolled in concurrent randomized or observational cohorts to evaluate operative versus nonoperative treatment. The primary outcomes were differences in the mean change from baseline in the SRS-22 subscore and ODI at 2-year follow-up. For the randomized cohort, the initial sample-size calculation estimated that 41 patients per group (82 total) would provide 80% power with alpha equal to 0.05, anticipating 10% loss to follow-up and 20% nonadherence in the nonoperative arm. However, an interim sample-size calculation estimated that 18 patients per group would be sufficient.ResultsSixty-three patients were enrolled in the randomized cohort: 30 in the operative group and 33 in the nonoperative group. Two hundred and twenty-three patients were enrolled in the observational cohort: 112 in the operative group and 111 in the nonoperative group. The intention-to-treat analysis of the randomized cohort found that, at 2 years of follow-up, outcomes did not differ between the groups. Nonadherence was high in the randomized cohort (64% nonoperative-to-operative crossover). In the as-treated analysis of the randomized cohort, operative treatment was associated with greater improvement at the 2-year follow-up in the SRS-22 subscore (adjusted mean difference, 0.7 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.5 to 1.0]) and in the ODI (adjusted mean difference, -16 [95% CI, -22 to -10]) (p < 0.001 for both). Surgery was also superior to nonoperative care in the observational cohort at 2 years after treatment on the basis of SRS-22 subscore and ODI outcomes (p < 0.001). In an overall responder analysis, more operative patients achieved improvement meeting or exceeding the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in the SRS-22 subscore (85.7% versus 38.7%; p < 0.001) and the ODI (77.4% versus 38.3%; p < 0.001). Thirty-four revision surgeries were performed in 24 (14%) of the operative patients.ConclusionsOn the basis of as-treated and MCID analyses, if a patient with adult symptomatic lumbar scoliosis is satisfied with current spine-related health, nonoperative treatment is advised, with the understanding that improvement is unlikely. If a patient is not satisfied with current spine health and expects improvement, surgery is preferred.Level of evidenceTherapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Project description:Study designSecondary analysis of data from a concurrent randomized trial and cohort study.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to determine risks and predictors of recurrent pain following standard open discectomy for subacute/chronic symptomatic lumbar disc herniation (SLDH).Summary of background dataMost previous studies of recurrence after discectomy do not explicitly define pain resolution and recurrence, and do not account for variable durations of time at risk for recurrence.MethodsWe used survival analysis methods to examine predictors of leg pain recurrence. For individuals with initial resolution of leg pain, we defined recurrent leg pain as having leg pain, receiving lumbar epidural steroid injections, or undergoing lumbar surgery subsequent to initial leg pain resolution. We calculated cumulative risks of leg pain recurrence using Kaplan-Meier survival curves, and examined predictors of recurrence using Cox proportional hazards models. We used similar methods to examine LBP recurrence.ResultsOne- and three-year cumulative risks of leg pain recurrence were 20% and 45%, respectively. One- and three- year leg pain recurrence risks were substantially lower in participants with complete initial resolution of leg pain (17% and 41%, respectively) than in those without (27% and 54%, respectively). In multivariate analyses, complete leg pain resolution (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.52-0.90), smoking (aHR 1.68 [95% CI 1.22-2.33]), and depression (aHR 1.74 [95% CI 1.18-2.56]) predicted leg pain recurrence. The 1- and 3-year risk of LBP recurrence was 29% and 65%, respectively. LBP recurrence risk at 3 years was substantially lower in participants with complete initial resolution of LBP than in those without, but not at 1 year.ConclusionRecurrence of leg pain and LBP is common after discectomy for SLDH. Cumulative risks of both leg pain and LBP recurrence were generally lower in participants achieving complete initial resolution of pain post-discectomy.Level of evidence2.

Project description:A prospective study with randomized and observational cohorts.The aim of this study was to determine baseline variables affecting adult symptomatic lumbar scoliosis (ASLS) decision making to participate in randomization (RAND), observational nonsurgical (OBS-NS), or observational surgical (OBS-S) cohorts.Multiple factors play a key role in a patient's decision to be randomized or to choose an OBS-NS or OBS-S course for ASLS. Studies evaluating these factors are limited.Eligible candidates (patients with ASLS and no prior spinal fusion deformity surgery) from 9 centers participated in a RAND, OBS-NS, or OBS-S cohort study. Baseline variables (demographics, socioeconomics, patient-reported outcomes [PROs], Functional Treadmill Test, radiographs) were analyzed.Two hundred ninety-five patients were enrolled: 67 RAND, 115 OBS-NS, 113 OBS-S. Subanalysis of older patients (60-80 years) found 54% of OBS-NS had college degrees compared with 82% of RAND and 71% of OBS-S (P = 0.010). Patients deciding to be part of a RAND cohort have similar clinical characteristics to the OBS-S cohort. OBS-S had more symptomatic spinal stenosis (57% vs. 39%, P = 0.029) and worse scores than OBS-NS on the basis of PROs (Back Pain Numerical Rating Scale [NRS 6.3 vs. 5.5, P = 0.007]; Scoliosis Research Society [SRS] Pain [2.8 vs. 3.0, P = 0.018], Function [3.1 vs. 3.4, P = 0.019] and Self-Image [2.7 vs. 3.1, P = 0.002]; Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) [36.9 vs. 31.8, P = 0.029]; post-Treadmill back [5.8 vs. 4.4, P = 0.002] and leg [4.3 vs. 3.1, P = 0.037] pain NRS and larger lumbar coronal Cobb angles (56.5 degrees vs. 48.8 degrees, P < 0.001). RAND had more baseline motor deficits (10.4% vs. 1.7%, P = 0.036) and worse scores than OBS-NS on the basis of ODI (38.8 vs. 31.8, P = 0.006), SRS Function [3.1 vs. 3.4, P = 0.034], and Self-Image [2.7 vs. 3.1, P = 0.007].Patients with worse PROs, more back pain, more back and leg pain with ambulation, and larger lumbar Cobb angles are more inclined to select surgical over nonsurgical management.