4.5 Article

The probability of spontaneous regression of lumbar herniated disc: a systematic review

期刊

CLINICAL REHABILITATION
卷 29, 期 2, 页码 184-195

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0269215514540919

关键词

Low back pain; disc herniation; systematic review; regression of hernation; probability

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To determine the probability of spontaneous disc regression among each type of lumbar herniated disc, using a systematic review. Data sources: Medline, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and Web of Science were searched using key words for relevant original articles published before March 2014. Articles were limited to those published in English and human studies. Review methods: Articles had to: (1) include patients with lumbar disc herniation treated conservatively; (2) have at least two imaging evaluations of the lumbar spine; and (3) exclude patients with prior lumbar surgery, spinal infections, tumors, spondylolisthesis, or spinal stenosis. Two reviewers independently extracted study details and findings. Thirty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. Furthermore, if the classification of herniation matched the recommended classification of the combined Task Forces, the data were used for combined analysis of the probability of disc regression of each type. Nine studies were applicable for probability calculation. Results: The rate of spontaneous regression was found to be 96% for disc sequestration, 70% for disc extrusion, 41% for disc protrusion, and 13% for disc bulging. The rate of complete resolution of disc herniation was 43% for sequestrated discs and 15% for extruded discs. Conclusions: Spontaneous regression of herniated disc tissue can occur, and can completely resolve after conservative treatment. Patients with disc extrusion and sequestration had a significantly higher possibility of having spontaneous regression than did those with bulging or protruding discs. Disc sequestration had a significantly higher rate of complete regression than did disc extrusion.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据