Table 2 Patient characteristics and outcomes
From: Endoscopic decompression for intraforaminal and extraforaminal nerve root compression
Age, Sex | Level | Kemp Sign | SLRT | FNST | Sensory Disturb | Muscle Weakness | disc protrusion CT discogram | Preop conservative treatment | disc protrusion op-finding | Preop JOA score | Postop JOA score | Recovery Rate (%) | different outcomes | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 88, F | L5-S1 | + | - | - | L5 | - | + | 3 M | + | 3 | 11 | 30.8 | Contralateral side* |
2 | 69, F | L3-L4 | + | + | + | L4 | IP, QF, EHL | + | 5 M | + | 7 | 14 | 31.8 | Contralateral side |
3 | 70, F | L5-S1 | + | - | - | L5 | - | - | 2 M | - | 12 | 12 | 0 | no pain relief |
4 | 80, F | L5-S1 | + | - | - | L5 | EHL | - | 2 M | - | 12 | 19 | 41.2 | Ipsilateral side† |
5 | 70, F | L5-S1 | + | + | - | L5 | EHL | + | 5 M | + | 11 | 20 | 50 | |
6 | 56, M | L4-L5 | + | + | + | L4 | - | + | 14 M | + | 15 | 29 | 100 | |
7 | 76, F | L3-L4 | - | - | + | - | - | + | 6 M | + | 14 | 28 | 93.3 | Ipsilateral side |
8 | 75, F | L5-S1 | + | - | - | L5 | EHL | + | 8 M | + | 5 | 20 | 62.5 | |
9 | 67, M | L5-S1 | + | + | - | L5 | EHL | + | 9 M | + | 8 | 29 | 100 | |
10 | 60, M | L5-S1 | + | + | - | L5 | EHL | NA | 4 M | + | 11 | 27 | 88.9 | |
11 | 68, M | L5-S1 | - | - | - | L5 | - | + | 5 M | + | 11 | 21 | 55.6 | |
12 | 40, F | L5-S1 | - | + | - | L5, S1 | - | + | 2 M | + | 14 | 19 | 33.3 | |
13 | 78, M | L5-S1 | + | - | - | L5 | EHL | + | 6 M | + | 11 | 16 | 27.8 | |
14 | 66, M | L5-S1 | - | + | - | L5 | EHL | - | 4 M | - | 20 | 28 | 88.9 | Ipsilateral side |
15 | 63, F | L3-L4 | + | + | - | L3 | - | NA | 7 M | + | 13 | 20 | 43.8 | |
16 | 66, M | L3-L4 | + | - | + | L3 | IP, QF | + | 4 M | + | 13 | 20 | 43.8 | |
17 | 62, F | L4-L5 | + | - | + | - | EHL | NA | 18 M | + | 4 | 11 | 28 | |
10.8 ± 4.3 | 20.2 ± 6.2 | 54.1 ± 30.0 |