Sciatica Presentations and Predictors of Poor Outcomes Following Surgical Decompression of Herniated Lumbar Discs: A Review Article

Cureus. 2020 Nov 21;12(11):e11605. doi: 10.7759/cureus.11605.

Abstract

Pain associated with sciatica is one of the most common indications for surgery. The annual rate of discectomy has increased over recent years, with a significant number of patients reporting a poor outcome or symptom recurrence after surgery. This study aims to evaluate the predictors of poor outcome for patients undergoing lumbar discectomy for sciatica. A comprehensive search was conducted to find relevant literature published between 1985 and 2019. All literature with a clear methodology were included. Many factors that affect postoperative recovery after lumbar discectomy have been reported. Some evidence suggests that sociodemographic factors, including female gender, smoking, increased age, low socioeconomic status, and low education level may be associated with less favorable outcomes after surgery. Symptom duration does not appear to be associated with a significant difference in long-term outcomes; however, early surgery (within one year) may result in a faster postoperative recovery with better early results. Furthermore, patients who had discectomy for predominant leg pain had better outcomes compared to those who had the surgery for back pain as the main presentation. There was no evidence to suggest a correlation between the size of the herniated disc and long-term outcomes of sciatica; however, a higher anatomical level of herniation (L1-2, L2-3) was associated with poorer outcomes compared to the lower level of herniation (L3-4, L4-5). A few studies suggested slow postoperative recovery correlates with unemployment and depression. We recommend that the predictors of postoperative outcomes should be taken into consideration when selecting or counseling patients for lumbar disc decompression.

Keywords: backache; disc.; lumbar disc herniation; radiculopathy; sciatica.

Publication types

  • Review

Grants and funding

The paper was professionally edited for language revision. this service was provided by "Emareye Medical Editing" service, and authors had to pay for it.