To unlock this feature and to subscribe to our weekly evidence emails, please create a FREE orthoEvidence account.

SIGNUP

Already Have an Account?

Loading...
Visit our Evidence-Based Covid-19 Website and Stay Up to Date with the latest Research.
Ace Report Cover

Statistical, but not clinically relevant, differences of TDR vs multidisciplinary rehab for cLBP

Download
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Ace Report Cover
November 2017

Statistical, but not clinically relevant, differences of TDR vs multidisciplinary rehab for cLBP

Vol: 6| Issue: 11| Number:33| ISSN#: 2564-2537
Study Type:Therapy
OE Level Evidence:2
Journal Level of Evidence:N/A

Total disc replacement versus multidisciplinary rehabilitation in patients with chronic low back pain and degenerative discs: 8-year follow-up of a randomized controlled multicenter trial

Spine J. 2017 Oct;17(10):1480-1488

Contributing Authors:
JI Brox C Hellum K Storheim LG Johnsen L Sandvik TK Solberg H Furunes JS Skouen E Franssen

Did you know you're eligible to earn 0.5 CME credits for reading this report? Click Here

Synopsis

173 patients with chronic low back pain due to single-level lumbar degenerative disease were randomized to either total disc replacement or a multidisciplinary rehabilitation program. Patients were followed up for 8 years after treatment for outcome on the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), as well as pain, quality of life, occupational status, satisfaction, drug use, complications and additional ba...

CME Image

Did you know that you’re eligible to earn 0.5 CME credits for reading this report!

LEARN MORE

Join the Conversation

Please Login or Join to leave comments.

Learn about our AI Driven
High Impact Search Feature

High Impact Icon

Our AI driven High Impact metric calculates the impact an article will have by considering both the publishing journal and the content of the article itself. Built using the latest advances in natural language processing, OE High Impact predicts an article’s future number of citations better than impact factor alone.

Continue