ObjectivesEvidence comparing the effectiveness of surgical and conservative treatment of symptomatic lumbar disc herniation is controversial. We sought to compare short-term and long-term effectiveness of surgical and conservative treatment in sciatica symptom severity and quality of life in patients with lumbar disc herniation in a routine clinical setting.MethodsA prospective cohort study of a routine clinical practice registry consisting of 370 patients. Outcome measures were the North American Spine Society questionnaire and the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey to assess patient-reported back pain, physical function, neurogenic symptoms and quality of life. Primary outcomes were back pain at 6 and 12 weeks. Standard open discectomy was assessed versus conservative interventions at 6, 12, 52 and 104 weeks. We filled in missing outcome variable values with multiple imputation, accounted for repeated measures within patients with mixed-effects models and adjusted baseline group differences in relevant prognostic indicators by inverse probability of treatment weighting.ResultsSurgical treatment patients reported less back pain at 6 weeks than those receiving conservative therapy (−0.97; 95% CI −1.89 to −0.09), were more likely to report ≥50% decrease in back pain symptoms from baseline to 6 weeks (48% vs 17%, risk difference: 0.34; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.47) and reported less physical function disability at 52 weeks (−3.7; 95% CI −7.4 to −0.1). The other assessments showed minimal between-group differences with CIs, including the null effect.ConclusionsCompared with conservative therapy, surgical treatment provided faster relief from back pain symptoms in patients with lumbar disc herniation, but did not show a benefit over conservative treatment in midterm and long-term follow-up.

The questionnaire reliably measures symptoms and disabilities in orthopaedic disease. Interactive collection of patient history renders it more objective. The questionnaire can be used in outpatient consultations, for initial and differential diagnosis, to improve communication, and to measure outcome.

Calculation of the REPP and the subsequent allocation to outcome groups is simple. The distribution of outcomes depends on the intervention (THR results better than TKR) and the patient questionnaire used (better results with a condition-specific than a generic questionnaire). The proportion of "unchanged" and "moderate" outcomes was greater with the generic questionnaire than with the condition-specific questionnaire, while the proportion of "worse" outcomes was similar for the two instruments. Partitioning of the degree of success into sub-groups, based on the REPP, provides more information for both the patient and the orthopaedic surgeon.

No abstract

A routine structured assessment can be performed with extra effort. A structured assessment provides patient information in a standardised form so that such information can be compared as well as allow a differential diagnosis. It is possible that answers to the questionnaire represent patients' subjective assessment rather than reality.