3.8 Article

Late postoperative results in 1000 work related lumbar spine conditions

Journal

SURGICAL NEUROLOGY
Volume 54, Issue 2, Pages 101-106

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0090-3019(00)00283-4

Keywords

failed back; Workman's Compensation; periradicular fibrosis; outcome analysis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND Poor results after lumbar spinal surgery have been recorded in compensation cases throughout the world medical literature. It seems that psychosocial factors play an important role in the delay in returning to gainful employment but that chronic postoperative lumbar and lower extremity pain is blamed for this state of affairs. The present series of late outcomes is based on actual physical examination by independent neurosurgical and orthopedic experts appointed by the Workman's Compensation Board, providing an impartial opinion as to the discrepancy between objective findings and failure to reintegrate into the work force. METHODS One thousand workmen's compensation patients who had undergone lumbar spinal. surgery were divided into two groups, one of 600 patients with single operations, evaluated on average 51 months after surgery, and the second of 400 with multiple operations, evaluated on average 38 months postoperatively. RESULTS Seventy-one percent of the single operation group had not returned to work more than 4 years after the operation, and 95% of the multiple operations group. In none of these cases was there a neurological deficit that precluded gainful employment, the failure to return to work being blamed on chronic postoperative pain. CONCLUSIONS Although motivational (that is, psychosocial) factors undoubtedly play a role in failure to return to work, the role of chronic pain cannot be ignored. Increased attention must be devoted to ascertaining the etiology of this pain and ways to prevent it. (C) 2000 by Elsevier Science 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