published_or_final_version / Medical Sciences / Master / Master of Medical Sciences

[Truncated abstract] There have been few studies into the effects of rehabilitation following lumbar microdiscectomy and consequently little evidence of its effect, if any, on outcome. Most studies cited fall into one of two categories: research involving a spinal surgery procedure without rehabilitation, or research involving spinal surgery with a nonspecific generic 'rehabilitation' or 'physical therapy'. In an era of evidence based medicine the efficacy of specific rehabilitation protocols following defined lumbar spine surgical procedures needs to be established for surgeons, therapists and patients to have confidence that the rehabilitation is appropriate and effective. The study was proposed to investigate the outcome of a specific and novel rehabilitation protocol commenced immediately after lumbar microdiscectomy. Data collected from the research cohort were compared to data collected from a contrast group who underwent standard rehabilitation at a distant site. A retrospective study (Phase One) was carried out with a cohort of post-operative microdiscectomy patients between February 2000 and December 2002. The outcome of surgery followed by the rehabilitation protocol was assessed using validated outcome instruments. A contrast or control group was not included. After reviewing the data limitations with the design and implementation of the study were identified. A prospective study (Phase Two) was proposed and changes made in the principal outcome measure used, in the demographic data to be retrieved, the addition of pain scales, and in the exclusion of compensable patients. A contrast group was included for the prospective study. ... The study group commenced exercise and posture correction the day following surgery. There were restrictions placed on activity involving bending. The contrast group followed the advice of the surgeon in Queensland and attended rehabilitation at local physiotherapy facilities. Both groups were followed for 12 months using outcome instruments. Strict comparison between WA and QLD cohorts were limited due to sample size, however trends were observed. Data of the prospective study showed that there was greater reduction in back pain with the early rehabilitation protocol (P<.0001) compared to standard rehabilitation (P=.09), while there was no difference between groups in leg pain. There was a significant improvement in the level of functional disability between time-points for the WA cohort, and overall change from pre-operative RMQ measures to 12 months in both groups were statistically significant. The WA group was less reliant on pain medication and was more satisfied with the results of their surgery. The primary hypothesis of this study that there would be a difference in outcome following lumbar microdiscectomy in patients who receive early specific rehabilitation compared to those who receive standard rehabilitation at another centre, was supported in both primary and secondary outcome data. The key finding of this study was that commencing the early exercise protocol resulted in significantly less back pain over the 12 month time period of the study. Other major findings were that the WA cohort demonstrated significant improvement in function at all time-points and between all time-points except six to 12 months, took less pain medication and were more satisfied with the outcome of their surgery than the QLD cohort.