Recovery of impaired muscle function in severe sciatica

Abstract

This is a prospective cohort study of patients with acute treated severe sciatica. The objectives of the study are, firstly, to describe the recovery of muscle performance by manual and isokinetic muscle testing in patients with acute severe sciatica over 1 year, and secondly, to discuss the potential clinical relevance of the isokinetic testing of the ankle for patients with acute sciatica. In clinical daily practice, muscle performance is evaluated by means of isometric manual tests. Different authors using manual muscle tests have reported the long-term outcome of the muscle function in patients with sciatica. Overall, the results are good in terms of the recovery of muscle strength. However, it is not clear whether the isometric strength is sufficiently relevant to evaluate the more complete muscle performance of the affected muscles in patients with sciatica. This study presents data on the muscle recovery measured with manual testing and isokinetic testing of patients with severe sciatica. Consecutive patients admitted to the Cantonal Hospital for conservative management of severe acute sciatica were eligible for inclusion in the study. Patients were evaluated at admission, discharge, and follow-up at 3, 6, and 12 months. All the visits included a standardized clinical examination and the completion of questionnaires. Imaging and electromyography were conducted at the first visit. Isokinetic muscle tests at 30°/s and 120°/s were performed at discharge and follow-up visits. Manual and isokinetic tests were performed on foot and ankle flexor and extensor muscles. Eighty-two consecutive patients (66% men), with a mean age of 43 (±10.3) years, entered the study. The prevalence of major muscle weakness was low, with 7% of patients unable to perform toe walking and 11% unable to walk on the heel at visit one. Moreover, motor deficit defined as a score of 4 or less (out of 5) was found in 15% of subjects at the first evaluation. Such severe deficits were not found during the last three visits. The isokinetic tests showed a higher prevalence of muscle function impairment. At visit 5, the isokinetic test showed impaired muscle function recovery from 23% to 32%, while the manual test showed almost full recovery. The issues of agreement between manual and isokinetic muscle testing are discussed. In this selected and homogeneous cohort of patients, the prevalence of motor deficit was rather low and the outcome excellent according to the results of the manual testing. Isokinetic muscle tests showed a higher prevalence of deficit and a much slower recovery. The manual muscle test is a crude clinical test. For more in-depth muscle performance evaluation, additional testing may be necessary, especially for those patients with physically demanding jobs or activities.