A Commentary on “Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines for Patients With Lumbar Disc Herniation With Radiculopathy in South Korea”
Article information
Introduction
Lumbar disc herniation (LDH) with radiculopathy is a prevalent and debilitating condition, significantly impacting patients’ quality of life and imposing substantial burdens on healthcare systems. The development of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) is crucial for standardizing care, optimizing treatment outcomes, and ensuring the cost-effectiveness of care. The recent publication of CPGs for the treatment of LDH with radiculopathy, specifically tailored to South Korean clinical settings, marks a step forward in this endeavor.
Summary of the Guidelines
The newly developed guidelines, as detailed in the article [1] “Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines for Patients With Lumbar Disc Herniation With Radiculopathy in South Korea,” represent a comprehensive effort to synthesize current evidence and expert consensus. The development process followed evidence-based medicine (EBM) principles, involving extensive literature searches across major databases, rigorous data extraction, and quality assessment using tools such as the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the GRADE method. The guidelines combine international evidence with multidisciplinary expert opinions, addressing four key clinical questions. These questions are systematically organized into sections covering surgical treatment, endoscopic treatment, interventional treatment, and physical treatment/exercise. The recommendations assigned strength grades (A, B, C, D, I) based on the reliability of the evidence, guide the management of LDH with radiculopathy. The focus on a tailored approach for the South Korean clinical setting recognizes the unique healthcare landscape and patient demographics, making the guidelines particularly relevant for local practitioners.
Context and Significance
This CPG is particularly timely given the continuous evolution of diagnostic and therapeutic modalities for LDH. While the guidelines provide a foundational framework, recent advancements in spine surgery, particularly in minimally invasive techniques, offer exciting new avenues for patient care. For instance, endoscopic discectomy has emerged as a less invasive alternative to traditional open and microdiscectomies and is re-evaluated with current evidence in this CPG.
This CPG also reevaluates the evidence in support of interventional procedures for chronic spine pain, particularly epidural injections. While the South Korean guidelines give this a grade B, it is important to consider broader international perspectives and recent evidence. A CPG published in the BMJ [2] on commonly used interventional procedures for noncancer chronic spine pain offers a contrasting view on some interventional approaches. Specifically, the BMJ guideline, for people living with chronic radicular spine pain (≥3 months), issued strong recommendations against epidural injection of local anesthetic, steroids, or their combination. This stands in contrast to some other guidelines, such as the 2021 ASIPP (American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians) comprehensive evidence-based guidelines, which strongly recommend fluoroscopically guided epidural injections for chronic spine pain associated with disc herniation [3]. This divergence highlights the inconsistencies that can exist across different guidelines and underscores the importance of critically evaluating the evidence base and context for each recommendation.
This inconsistency emphasizes the need for careful patient selection and shared decision-making when considering treatments for LDH with radiculopathy. While the South Korean guidelines provide a valuable local context, integrating insights from other robust guidelines can further refine clinical practice.
The South Korean guidelines, by providing a solid evidencebased foundation, can serve as a benchmark against which these newer techniques can be evaluated and integrated into practice, ensuring that technological progress aligns with patient safety and efficacy. The authors of this article alluded to one of the limitations of their article, the lack of domestic studies. As countries have varying healthcare structures, it is challenging to compare one country’s care practices with another. Increased research in Korea could help identify areas for improvement and better assess practice patterns within Korea.
Economic Perspective of Surgery Versus Conservative Management
From an economic perspective, evaluating the cost-effectiveness of surgical discectomy compared to conservative management for lumbar radiculopathy largely depends on the timeframe of analysis and the consideration of indirect costs. At first, surgical procedures involve considerably higher direct costs due to hospitalization, surgeon fees, and resource utilization. In contrast, conservative management, which includes physical therapy, medication, and injections, is significantly more affordable in the short term. Nonetheless, when assessing long-term outcomes, this balance often shifts. For well-selected patients, the swift and generally more complete relief from symptoms resulting from surgery can facilitate an earlier return to work, reduce dependence on chronic pain medications, and lessen the need for long-term healthcare services. By factoring in indirect costs, such as lost productivity, the economic advantages of surgery become clearer. Research employing Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) as a measure typically indicates that for patients experiencing persistent, disabling symptoms who have not improved after several months of nonoperative treatment, the additional cost per QALY gained from discectomy aligns with accepted cost-effectiveness thresholds, making the higher initial cost justified by improved long-term functional and economic results.
Discussion and Future Directions
The guidelines acknowledge their limitations, particularly regarding domestic data and the dynamic nature of healthcare circumstances, emphasizing the need for continuous revision. This self-awareness is a strength, highlighting a commitment to adaptability and improvement. As new evidence emerges and technological advancements become more widespread, regular updates will be crucial to maintain the relevance and applicability of the guidelines.
Furthermore, the guidelines could catalyze further research within South Korea. Identifying gaps in domestic data can stimulate local studies, contributing to more robust evidence base tailored to the specific needs of the South Korean population. Korea has a strategic opportunity to publish endoscopic surgery research as other countries adopt Korea’s practices. Collaborative research efforts, both nationally and internationally, could further refine these guidelines, ensuring they remain at the forefront of evidence-based spine care.
Notes
Conflict of Interest
The authors have nothing to disclose.