Cruz-Medina E, León-Hernández SR, Arellano-Hernández A, Martínez-Gonzaga E, García-Guerrero E, Coronado-Zarco R

Language: Spanish
References: 27
Page: 373-380
PDF size: 64.29 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Background: The hallmark of success in orthopedic surgery is the quantification of functional results. In the search for this quantification approach, the evolution of isokinetic assessment has made a significant contribution to the advancement of orthopedic assessment and rehabilitation. Our objective was to compare trunk isokinetic and functional assessments in surgically treated patients for herniated lumbar disc.
Methods: We included surgically treated patients for herniated lumbar disc from 6 months to 2 years of evolution. We used the analog visual scale to assess lumbar and low extremity pain, Oswestry index and isokinetic evaluation of trunk in flexionextension. Descriptive statistics and multivariate analysis were used.
Results: We included 32 patients, 10 males (31%) and 22 females (68.8%) (ligamentoplasty, discectomy with ligamentoplasty, nuclear prosthesis and total arthroplasty). Women had significant differences in education, weight and postsurgical time. The outcome flexion measures of isokinetic evaluation had significant differences according to type of surgery, with better results for disc arthroplasty. Oswestry scale showed an association with older age (p = 0.003, rho = 0.603) and a decrease in trunk strength; higher Oswestry was associated with less strength (p = 0.07, rho = 0.388). If we controlled weight in men, covariance analysis had a significant difference for strength for discectomy + ligamentoplasty and arthroplasty (p = 0.036 flexion, p = 0.003 extension) and Oswestry (p = 0.006).
Conclusions: In women, functional status and muscle strength are determined by age and type of surgery. In men, weight influences trunk strength and functionality.

REFERENCES

1. Puddu G, Giombini A, Selvanti A. Rehabilitation of Sports Injuries: Current Concepts. New York: Springer-Verlag;2001. p. 194.

2. Postacchini F. Management of herniation of the lumbar disc. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 1999;81-B:567-576.

3. Koebbe C, Maroon J, Abla A, El-Kadi H, Bost J. Lumbar microdiscectomy: a historical perspective and current technical considerations. Neurosurg Focus 2002;13:E3.

4. Chien-Lin L, Shih-Tien W, Chien-Fu J, Cheng-Kung C, Chih-Lian W, Huann C, et al. Isokinetic evaluation of the ankle before and after surgical treatment of the lumbar disc herniation. Clin Biomech 13(suppl 1):S46-S51.

5. Reyes SA, Ortega J, Miramontes V, Rosales L, Alpízar A. Experiencia con prótesis Prodisc II en discopatía lumbar en el Grupo Ángeles. Acta Médica Grupo Ángeles 2003;1:217-224.

6. Javedan S, Sonntag VK. Lumbar disc hernation: microsurgical approach. Neurosurgery 2003;52:160-164.

7. Park Y, Kim J, Chung H. Outcome analysis of patients after ligament sparing microdiscectomy for lumbar disc herniation. Neurosurg Focus 2002;13:E4.

8. Guyer RD, Ohnmeiss D. Intervertebral disc prostheses. Spine 2003;28:S15-S23.

9. Cinotti G, David T, Postacchini F. Results of disc prosthesis after a minimum follow-up period of 2 years. Spine 1996;21:995-1000.

10. Jin D, Qu D, Zhao L, Chen J, Jiang J. Prosthetic disc nucleus (PDN) replacement for lumbar disc herniation. J Spinal Disord Techniques 2003;16:331-337.

11. Phillips PJ. Innovations in artificial disc replacement. 16th Annual Meeting of the North American Spine Society. Oct 31-Nov 3, 2001. Seattle, Washington.

12. Kostuik J. Intervertebral disc replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1997;337:27-41.

13. Bao QB, Yuan HA. Artificial disc technology. Neurosurg Focus 2000;9:e14.

14. Lemaire JP, Skalli W, Lavaste F, Templier A, Mendes F, Diop A, et al. Intervertebral disc prosthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1997;337:64-67.

15. Dvir Z. Differentiation of submaximal from maximal trunk extension effort: an isokinetic study using a new testing protocol. Spine 1997;22:2672-2676.

16. Berumen HR, Coronado R, Chávez D, Diez MP, León SR, Martínez E. Valoración isocinética del tronco en sujetos asintomáticos del Centro Nacional de Rehabilitación. Acta Ortop Mex 2005;19:49-55.

17. Langrana NA, Lee CK. Quantitative assessment of back strength using isokinetic testing. Spine 1984;9:289-290.

18. Dvir Z, Keating J. Reproducibility and validity of a new test protocol for measuring isokinetic trunk extension strength. Clin Biomech 2001;16:627-630.

19. White AA, Panjabi MM. Clinical Biomechanics of the Spine. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins;1990. pp. 1-10.

20. Miralles R, Rull M. Valoración de los resultados del tratamiento del dolor lumbar y las secuelas. Rev Soc Esp Dolor 2001;8(suppl II):131-139.

21. Keller A, Johansen J, Hellesnes J, Brox J. Predictors of isokinetic back muscle strength in patients with low back pain. Spine 1999;24:275-280.

22. Bayramoglu M, Akman MN, Kilinc S, Cetin N, Yavuz N, Özker R. Isokinetic measurement of trunk muscle strength in women with chronic low back pain. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2001;80:650-655.

23. Toru A, Satoru S, Hiroshi H, Hiroshi G. Factors affecting the variability of torque curves at isokinetic trunk strength testing. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1998;79:33-35.

24. Shim CS, Lee SH, Park CW, Choi WC, Choi G, Choi WG, et al. Partial disc replacement with the PDN prosthetic disc nucleus device: early clinical results. J Spinal Disord Tech 2003;16:324-330.

25. Zigler JE, Burd TA, Vialle E, Sach BL, Rashbaum RF, Ohnmeiss D. Lumbar spine arthroplasty. Early results using theoridisc II: a prospective randomized trial of arthroplasty versus fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech 2003;16:352-361.

26. Norris C. Spinal stabilization. Stabilization mechanism of the lumbar spine. Physiotherapy 1995;31:72-78.

27. Barr KP, Griggs M, Caby T. Lumbar stabilization: core concept and current literature. I. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2005;84:473-480.