V. Smirnov, M. Savvova, Anna Lyudagovskaya, V. Smirnov
{"title":"CLINICAL AND NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS IN PATIENTS WITH REFLEX AND COMPRESSION SPONDYLOGENIC SYNDROMES IN CASE OF LUMBAR OSTEOCHONDROSIS","authors":"V. Smirnov, M. Savvova, Anna Lyudagovskaya, V. Smirnov","doi":"10.54504/1684-6753-2023-4-68-74","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"An analysis of the clinical and neurological fi ndings showed that the main diff erence between refl ex \nspondylogenic syndromes and compression syndromes was the presence of prolapse symptoms in the \nform of signifi cant prevalence of the loss of tendon and periosteal refl exes as well as sensory and motor \ndisorders of the segmental type. Moreover, autonomic-trophic disturbances with lateralization toward the \npain syndrome in the form of sympathetic and angiospastic disturbances were defi nitely more frequent (p \n< 0.05) in refl ex spondylogenic pain syndromes, while in compressive ones, neurodystrophic disturbances \nprevailed. Lumbar spine pathology was signifi cantly more common in men. The leading risk factors were \nweight lifting and uncoordinated movement (36% and 11.5%, respectively). Clinical manifestations of \ncompression radicular syndromes were defi nitely more frequent (p < 0.05) in the lumbar spine. At the same \ntime, compression syndromes featured greater severity of clinical manifestations in the form of the \npredominance of pain, muscle-tonic and statodynamic, autonomic and trophic disorders. The level of \nradicular compression syndrome corresponds to the level of the pathomorphological substrate. The \npresence of the pathomorphological substrate may remain clinically insignifi cant for a long time and \nmanifest itself only under certain conditions (venous stasis, edema, aseptic infl ammation).","PeriodicalId":49889,"journal":{"name":"Manual Therapy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Manual Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54504/1684-6753-2023-4-68-74","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
An analysis of the clinical and neurological fi ndings showed that the main diff erence between refl ex
spondylogenic syndromes and compression syndromes was the presence of prolapse symptoms in the
form of signifi cant prevalence of the loss of tendon and periosteal refl exes as well as sensory and motor
disorders of the segmental type. Moreover, autonomic-trophic disturbances with lateralization toward the
pain syndrome in the form of sympathetic and angiospastic disturbances were defi nitely more frequent (p
< 0.05) in refl ex spondylogenic pain syndromes, while in compressive ones, neurodystrophic disturbances
prevailed. Lumbar spine pathology was signifi cantly more common in men. The leading risk factors were
weight lifting and uncoordinated movement (36% and 11.5%, respectively). Clinical manifestations of
compression radicular syndromes were defi nitely more frequent (p < 0.05) in the lumbar spine. At the same
time, compression syndromes featured greater severity of clinical manifestations in the form of the
predominance of pain, muscle-tonic and statodynamic, autonomic and trophic disorders. The level of
radicular compression syndrome corresponds to the level of the pathomorphological substrate. The
presence of the pathomorphological substrate may remain clinically insignifi cant for a long time and
manifest itself only under certain conditions (venous stasis, edema, aseptic infl ammation).