3.8 Article

Changes of low back pain after vascular reconstruction for abdominal aortic aneurysm and high aortic occlusion: a retrospective study

Journal

SURGICAL NEUROLOGY
Volume 66, Issue 2, Pages 172-177

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.surneu.2006.02.038

Keywords

low back pain; lumbar artery; blood flow; abdominal aortic aneurysm; high aortic occlusion

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The purpose of the present study is to clarify the influence of acute and chronic interruption of blood flow from lumbar arteries as well as the influence of vascular reconstruction on low back pain, back muscles, and lumbar discs. Methods: Subjects were 34 patients with AAA in whom vascular reconstruction was performed. A second group was comprised of 9 patients with HAO. The presence of low back pain before surgery and at follow-up examination was retrospectively examined in the AAA group and the HAO group to investigate postoperative changes. The CSA and degeneration of the multifidus muscle and the lumbar discs on magnetic resonance imaging were assessed in the AAA group and control group. Results: Low back pain, significant atrophy, or degeneration of the multifidus muscle or degeneration of the lumbar disc did not newly develop after surgery in the AAA group. These results indicated that acute interruption of lumbar arteries did not induce the development or deterioration of low back pain and organic changes in the back muscles or lumbar discs. The frequency of low back pain before surgery was significantly higher in the HAO group than that in the AAA group. However, the frequency of low back pain after surgery did not differ significantly between the 2 groups because low back pain in the HAO group was improved after surgery. Conclusion: The finding that low back pain was improved by merely performing treatment for the vascular system might provide support for the presence of vascular backache. (c) 2006 Published by Elsevier Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available