Interactivity and Web 2.0: Getting in touch with other bloggers

This week I again went through the blogosphere in search of quality orthopedic blogs. Thanks to Google Directory, I was able to find two such excellent blogs. The first, Doctor Tarlow on Knees, is maintained by Dr. Stephan Tarlow, an orthopedic surgeon from Scottsdale, Arizona. One of the more recent posts on this blog talked about a new computer program that might be able to help surgeons align replacement knees with greater accuracy. I had a few clarification questions to ask Dr. Tarlow, and the full text of my comment is available below.

The second blog that I found myself reading is actually About.com’s section on orthopedics. I read an interesting post about minimally invasive procedures, and decided to share my opinion with the author, Dr. Jonathan Cluett. Again, the full text of my comment can be found below.

“Otis Med: Shape Matching Custom Fit Total Knee Replacement”
Comment:

Dr. Tarlow,

Very interesting post. I just recently stumbled upon your blog, so let me begin by saying that I am very grateful to read the thoughts of a surgeon who clearly cares very much about providing the best, and sometimes newest treatments for his patients. I am currently an undergrad at the University of Southern California and I am very interested in pursuing a career in surgery, particularly orthopedics.

So as for your post, I have a few questions regarding knee replacement surgery. You mentioned in your post that in a traditional replacement, the knee is aligned with its axis perpendicular to a line running from hip to ankle. Is a normal knee not always aligned like this? As far as I understood, this is the driving concept behind the Otis Med system, but it seems to me that most knees ought to be pretty close to this ideal that is used in the traditional replacement. In other words, is “customization” really worth the two or three degrees that a patient’s knee may be off by? As you said, the majority of traditional knee replacements can be expected to last several decades.

Additionally, why is it that the Otis Med system looks at the degenerated knee and tries to reconstruct it to pick a replacement? Wouldn't it be easier to look at the healthy knee and assume symmetry? That way, no computer reconstruction would be necessary.

Forgive me if my comments seem uninformed or off-base. This is all very interesting to me, so I'm just trying to understand as much as I can.

Thanks,

JDM

“Are surgeries done through small incisions better?”
Comment:

Dr. Cluett,

This is a topic that has interested me for quite some time now. It seems to me that surgeons are constantly on the look out for ways to do less and less invasive surgery. In fact, I have even read about natural-orifice surgeries being performed on patients who really don't want scars. But what intrigues me the most is that often times these minimally invasive surgeries (particularly orthopedic ones, it seems) are very difficult for surgeons to perform, and thus increase the risk of surgical error. Do you think that this is indeed the case? Take, for example, a mini-hip replacement. I have read that there is concern about the ultimate alignment of the prosthesis with this technique.

Other minimally invasive surgeries, though, I feel are done because of a greater understanding of human anatomy. The Quad-sparing knee replacement provides an excellent. This procedure works around the quadriceps instead of through it so that the new joint can be better stabilized post-op. I think that it should be reasons like this, not cosmetic ones, that lead surgeons to create new surgical techniques. Thoughts?

Quad-Sparing Knee Replacement Surgery: The New Gold Standard

All aspects of surgery are being affected by a new minimally invasive trend. No matter what procedure is being performed, if there is a way to do it with less negative impact on the body, today’s surgeons are working on ways to make it happen. A few weeks ago I wrote a post about the mini hip replacement that has developed recently. This week I will write a similar post about a relatively new procedure known as a quadriceps-sparing total knee replacement. It has the same end result as a traditional total knee replacement, or TKR, but it does so with considerably less damage to the surrounding tissue in the operating room. I believe that this new procedure, unlike the total hip replacement, is a great improvement on the traditional surgery. While it is a more difficult operation when compared to the traditional TKR, its advantages are more than just cosmetic and I believe it is a superior choice for all people looking for a knee replacement.

During a traditional knee replacement surgery, a vertical incision is made along the top of the knee that exposes the quadriceps muscle. A secondary incision is then made through the quadriceps to expose the knee joint. At this stage, many tendons and much muscle tissue has been cut, resulting in unavoidable blood loss and a need for major anesthesia. The knee prosthesis is then inserted by a method similar to the total hip replacement. A plastic cup is placed on one end of the joint and a metal ball is attached to the other, as can be seen in the x-ray at left. The new joint is then assembled and aligned and tested for mobility. Once the surgeon is satisfied with the functionality of the prosthesis the soft tissue is sutured and the incisions are closed. Traditional knee replacement patients will typically stay in the hospital for three to four days, and then have up to eight weeks of physical therapy to recover completely.

This is the area in which the quad-sparing procedure becomes most attractive. Patients who undergo this surgery can expect to leave the hospital in less than one day, and the reasons are multi-fold. First of all, the incision is much smaller. In the traditional surgery, the incision is approximately eight to twelve inches in length. With the new technique it can be as small as three inches, with most being about four (see image below right). The incision is made on the side of the knee, which allows the joint to be exposed without severing any tendons or disturbing much muscle tissue. Because of this, there is less blood loss compared to the traditional TKR and less anesthesia is needed. Less anesthesia is almost always preferred by surgeons since surgery itself is a very traumatic experience for the body and heavy sedation only complicates the recovery process.

After the surgery is complete, the patient can usually be walking around as soon as he/she wakes up. Since there is no major structural trauma caused by the surgery, the road to recovery is a very quick one. The success rate is astounding. Take this study done by Rush University Medical Center, for example. In their trial run of fifty patients, ninety-six percent were able to go home the same day as their surgery. Granted, each patient was the first one treated that day (allowing maximum same-day recovery time), but it is still quite impressive. Additionally, all patients were required to pass an inspection before discharge. A patient was deemed fit to go home if he/she could get out of bed unassisted, stand up from a sitting position, walk 100 feet, and ascend and descend a full flight of stairs. When one considers the fact that these patients were able to perform these basic actions on the very day that they had a total knee replacement surgery, it is really quite remarkable.

As for the long-term reliability of this procedure, only time will tell. It has still been less than five years since the first one was performed, so longevity has not yet come into play. There is the obvious concern that the prosthesis may not be properly aligned in the quad-sparing method due to a lack of direct visual confirmation during surgery. However, unlike in the mini hip replacement, I feel that there are enough alignment tools available to the surgeon to confirm a good placement without the need for a direct line of sight. While the alignment process may take longer with the quad-sparing method due to a need for x-rays in the operating room, the whole procedure takes the same time. Both techniques take about two hours to complete, although prep time may be longer for the quad-sparing method.

As I said earlier, I think that the quad-sparing method is going to become the new standard for knee replacement. Since the quadriceps is the dominant muscle responsible for stabilizing the knee, it makes perfect sense that it should be preserved rather than aggravated during surgery. As surgical imaging advances in the future, it will only become easier for this surgery to be performed with the same kind of accuracy associated with the traditional method. I look at this as great news for the millions of Americans who are aging and becoming candidates for knee replacement surgery. Knowing that the recovery will be so quick will surely make it a less stressful experience.

Back to the Linkroll: Further Efforts to Increase the Value of my Blog

A few weeks ago, I decided to update my linkroll by trolling through the web in search of high quality sites to link to. I am continuing this charge with my newest post because I want my blog to become more than just a dead-end sink for my own writing. I want to provide links to other quality sites so that my readers will be able to use my blog as a multi-dimensional source of information. As with my previous post, I relied on the Webby Awards and the IMSA criteria to determine what sites were of a quality high enough to link to from my blog.

I started by choosing medical journals with a focus on orthopedics. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, the Stone Clinic, and the Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics are three such organizations, and their web sites are easy to use. The main flaw with all of these sites is that they are written for orthopedic specialists, so some of the articles are hard to understand. Edheads, on the other hand, is an interactive site with flash animations of hip and knee replacement surgeries. It is directed more toward the layman than the specialist, which makes it easy to follow but also gives it a childish air. Orthoseek.com and Swarm Interactive strike a nice balance between these two extremes. Orthoseek.com contains medical definitions in an easy to use format but does not overwhelm the reader with medical jargon. Swarm Interactive is a wonderful site with animated descriptions of many surgical procedures. It is designed for patient education, so the videos are simple enough to be easy to understand but detailed enough to provide a valuable learning experience. YourSurgery.com is another site that aims to educate patients getting ready to have surgery. Unlike Swarm Interactive, Yoursurgery.com is not a free service. To watch one video costs five dollars, and a year-long membership costs one hundred dollars. I am nevertheless including it on my linkroll because it looks like it could be an invaluable resource to any of my readers who do not mind paying for high-quality information. Last but not least is World Ortho (provider of the image above), a site whose navigation system alone won it high marks in my opinion. Possibly the most interesting piece of information on this site is a series of lecture notes from an Orthopedics class. It was very enriching for me to read them, and I hope my readers will find them equally stimulating.

Total or Mini: Will a New Hip Replacement Technique Take Over?

As I mentioned I would in my previous post, this week I used my linkroll to find a topic on which to write. What I found was quite interesting. There is a new orthopedic procedure for hip replacement known as a mini, or minimally invasive hip replacement. This is an alternative to the standard total hip replacement. The intriguing thing about this new procedure is that the surgeons performing it claim to be able to create the same end result as a traditional open hip replacement without the long hospital stay associated with such an operation. I feel that this is simply not the case. While it is true that the recovery time is shorter for patients who undergo the mini hip replacement, there are greater risks for long-term complications that negate any initial benefits of the less-invasive surgery.

The total hip replacement procedure is one of the oldest and most successful orthopedic operations performed today. No other joint can be replaced as easily or completely as the hip. The procedure is performed exactly the way it sounds. The entire hip joint is removed from its socket and sawn off of the top of the femur. An artificial prosthesis (image to the right) is then inserted into the core of the femur and locked into place with methyl methacrylate, a bony cement. Younger or more physically demanding patients can chose a cementless prosthesis which fuses naturally to the bone. Cementless prostheses have micropores that the femur can grow into and create a strong permanent bond. The other end of the prosthesis is inserted into an artificial cup that is placed within the socket of the existing joint in the pelvis.

There are several options for the material and design of the replacement hip. One common pairing is a metal and plastic combination wherein the replacement socket is plastic and the ball joint is metal. Stainless steel is often chosen for its low reactivity, although some patients opt for titanium instead. A newer option is a ceramic prosthesis, although these have not been around long enough to prove their longevity. They have a high standard to meet, though. Traditional total hip replacement with a stainless steel and plastic prosthesis can be expected to last well over twenty years. Eighty percent of all replacements last longer than twenty years, and over half last longer than thirty. Of course, the younger a patient is, the more physically demanding they will be on it and the longer they will need it to last. This is an inherent flaw in the process of joint replacement that can only be solved through the eventual replacement of the replaced joint. A second replacement is known as a revision hip replacement. Revisions do not last as long as the initial replacement, but it is rare for a patient to need more than one revision.

This is due to the fact that a typical candidate for total hip replacement surgery is older (above the age of fifty) with osteoarthritis of the hip. Osteoarthritis is caused by normal wear and tear on the joint as a component of the aging process, and is detailed in the image at left. In this common form of arthritis, the cartilage separating the two bones wears away and leaves the bones to rub against each other. This can be very painful and in some cases will render the joint immobile. Men around the age of forty-five begin to become candidates for osteoarthritis, and women catch up by around age fifty-five. With this in mind, it is easy to see how pretty much anyone could find themselves in need of a hip replacement at some point in their life. According to the Central Ohio Orthopedics Center, Over 166,000 hip replacements are done annually in the United States, with more than one third of those going to patients below the age of sixty-five.

Given that so many patients are elderly, it is imperative that infection and post-operative complications be kept to a minimum. This is where the mini hip replacement comes in. In the traditional surgery, a relatively large incision is made either posterior, lateral or anterior to the joint. This incision is made large enough to allow the surgeon full access to the joint and the surrounding muscle, tendons, and ligaments. With the entire area in full view, replacement and alignment is a fairly straightforward process. The mini hip replacement, on the other hand, involves two smaller incisions. One of these incisions is made posterior to the joint and the other is lateral. These smaller incisions reduce the risk of infection by limiting the amount of exposure to everything outside of the body. With the two access points it is possible for the surgeon to remove the deteriorated joint, insert the prosthesis, and cement it in place without ever actually seeing what is going on directly. Instead, x-rays and cameras help with the alignment of the prosthesis within the body.

As one can imagine, this is a difficult procedure. In spite of the fact that patients who undergo a mini hip replacement can be walking again the next day, not many surgeons are performing it because it is so much more difficult than the open procedure. Since the surgery itself is more difficult, there is a greater chance for error on behalf of the surgeon. These mistakes usually appear minor, such as a slight misalignment of the prosthesis, but they can lead to larger consequences later. Mini hip replacement recipients are at a greater risk for prosthesis dislocation than total hip replacement recipients. Dislocation of a prosthesis is a very serious problem that can only be corrected by a revision replacement.

From what I have read in the available literature, it seems to me that the mini hip replacement is not yet ready to completely replace the full hip replacement. The benefits of the mini procedure do not outweigh the possible consequences of a surgical mistake. After all, what good does it do to get out of the hospital a few days sooner if you may be setting yourself up for a revision ten years sooner? I cannot say that there is no hope for this new technique though. In the future, surgeons may very well become more proficient at the mini procedure. When they do it will be an excellent alternative for someone who needs a hip replacement but due to poor health cannot risk an open procedure.

Building a Better Blog: Getting My Linkroll Up To Date

This week, I again chose not to write a specific blog post, but instead opted to search around the web to find excellent sites that I could add to my linkroll (on the right). Using the Webby Awards and the IMSA criteria, I was able to find high quality personal blogs, Surgical Societies, and other useful sources of information relevant to orthopedics. Ten of these excellent sites are now imbedded in my linkroll and arranged alphabetically. I am sure you will be happy with both their ease of navigation and quality of material. These sites are not maintained by amateurs – they are of the highest caliber and I am extremely happy to link to them through my blog.

Alphabetically, the first of these sites is the Orthopedics page of About.com. It is a bit busy with advertisements, but the content is written in an easy manner and the site is very user-friendly. Next is Dr. Davis’ Back and Wrist Pain Blog, which I left a comment on last week. Dr. Davis’ blog is very informative, but he uses it to promote his own practice so sometimes readers may feel like they are being advertised to indirectly. Netsurgery.com is an excellent source of videos and articles on many aspects of surgery, although the content on their site could probably be about twice the size. The North American Spine Society is, as the name suggests, our continent’s premier society for spine care awareness. Their site is beautifully done, and I found the information on their site to be very professional. Unfortunately, the formatting does not work properly with Firefox on the Mac. The Southern California Orthopedic Institute is a group with a broader interest in Orthopedics (they do not limit themselves to the spine) located in Van Nuys, California. It is hard for me to think of anything I would criticize on this site, as they have been updating and perfecting it since 1995. Spine University is an excellent source of information specifically regarding the spine, as is Spine-Health.com. They are both easy to read since they are directed at patients, but I think Spine-Health was a little busy. As far as information is concerned, though, they are both excellent. The American Association for the Surgery of Trauma is a group dedicated to teaching the proper treatment of traumatic injuries requiring surgery. Many such injuries require orthopedic surgery, so I deemed this site relevant to my blog. Their site is directed at surgeons more than patients, to the information can be a bit hard to read, but it is quality nonetheless. The American Medical Association is one of the foremost societies for physicians in America, and their site reflects that fact. Like the AAST though, their site is directed at doctors rather than patients, so the site can be hard to use. The Knee Foundation is dedicated to raising money for helping those with knee problems, so their site is focused more on explaining the need for aid than providing information to patients. Trauma.org is an organization very similar to the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma, and their site includes some great photos and videos of trauma surgery. Last, but not least, is Wheeless’ Textbook of Orthopedics, which is an outstanding site full of and encyclopedic amount of information on Orthopedics. The site is very intuitive, and is elegant in design. Navigation is as easy as clicking on a body part represented by the skeleton at right (note: clicking the skeleton here will merely link to the Wheeless' site, clicking on it there will direct you to the area of your interest). If anything, tere is simply too much information on this site, so getting lost or distracted is a definite possibility.

I hope you enjoy these links, as they have proved to be very helpful to me in my general search for information on Orthopedics. I will certainly be citing them in the next few weeks, and I enthusiastically look forward to doing so.

Learning More: Cutting-Edge Treatment For Back Pain

This week I decided to check out other blogs to see what more I could learn about treatment of lower back pain. I was pleased to find that there are many blogs dedicated to this very subject. One such blog described a new spinal decompression machine that looks to be a good step forward in limiting the role of surgery in back pain treatment. I read the post concerning this machine and found that I had a few questions to ask the author, Dr. Eben Davis. Dr. Davis is a chiropractor in San Francisco who specializes in non-surgical methods of back and wrist pain treatment. I left a comment on his blog asking for help understanding the benefits of the new decompression machine, and I hope to hear back from him soon. For your convenience, I am also including the full text of my comment below. As I continued searching through the blogosphere, I came upon another excellent blog dealing with orthopedics, aptly titled "Orthopedic." One post on this blog was dedicated to the discussion of spinal surgical techniques. As I had a few questions about these procedures, I also left a comment there. As with my first post, it is also available in full text below.

"What is Degenerative Disc Disease? Can the DRX9000 Help?"
Comment:
"Hi Dr. Davis, I’m a student at the University of Southern California and I have a great interest in spinal therapy for a couple of reasons. First of all, I suffer from sciatica due to a herniated disc. Secondly, I plan to go to med school after graduation and I’m currently looking at orthopedics as a specialty.

I think that this new machine looks like a great treatment method for people with back pain. Surgery should be kept as a last resort, and innovative ideas like this will surely help reinforce that. How long does one session on the DRX machine provide relief for a patient? I saw on the DRX website that the treatment effectively relieves pressure on lumbar discs that are bulging or even ruptured. What I don’t understand is how the disc returns to normal after the pressure is relieved. If a disc has ruptured, how does it pull itself back together all of a sudden during this treatment? I can imagine that a herniated disc might be able to reassume a normal shape, but is there really any way that a patient with a ruptured disc can get an effective resolution of pain non-surgically?

Additionally, how do you feel about this new article published in the British Medical Journal last week (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080131214541.htm) saying that stretching does not effectively decrease back pain? I personally disagree with these results, as I have achieved almost complete success through stretching and exercising my back over the last 18 months since my injury. Basic yoga has done worlds of good for me. When my back tightens up, whether as a result of stress or bad posture, I always find the most relief from stretching on the floor in the Cobra Pose. I also have worked to strengthen my lower back with the Full Locust Pose. Of course, my personal success with this kind of treatment does not necessarily prove its validity in general.

I am looking forward to learning more about this field, so any insights you could offer would be greatly appreciated."

"What are the Spinal Orthopedic Procedures?"
Comment:
"Great post – it’s hard to find good information on these techniques online. I hadn’t realized that some surgeons operate from the front of the patient when operating on the spine. What is the benefit of this approach? I had thought that herniations occurred on the posterior side of lumbar and/or cervical discs.

What are your thoughts on non-surgical treatments for disc herniations? I have been researching this for a while, and it seems like many people have personal success stories with alternative treatments like yoga and spinal decompression with a chiropractor, but the medical community at large seems to disagree. What, in your opinion, is the best treatment plan from injury to full resolution of pain? I suffered a herniated lumbar disc about 18 months ago, and I have always kept surgery as a last resort. I have instead taken the non-invasive route and tried my best at yoga, with some dramatic success. As of now, I am almost 100% pain free.

I think that the idea of minimally invasive spinal surgery is a great one. It’s amazing that the same goal can be met either with a hazardous open procedure or a relatively benign laparoscopic one. How long have minimally invasive surgeries been around for the spine? I have read on numerous sites that they are new, but I haven’t seen any actual dates.

Once again, thank you for posting this here – a good resource is invaluable for someone looking for information on back pain treatments. Surgery, especially, is never really discussed in any sense other than outcomes. Plenty of people write about their own experiences with surgery, but you are the first I have seen to write in detail about each of the different options."

Lower Back Pain Treatment: Are Orthopedic Surgeons Hiding Something From Their Patients?

There are several key areas of orthopedic surgery that are current and developing enough to warrant timely blog posts. One of these is the treatment of lower back pain. This is of particular interest to me, as I have herniated a lumbar disc myself. I am not in a rare situation though. Lower back pain is a major financial burden for Americans, as a Duke University study found that the annual cost of lower back pain treatment in America exceeded $25 billion, or 2.5% of all national healthcare expenses.

Lower back pain manifests itself in two forms: axial and radicular. Axial pain is concentrated in the lower back and can be caused by aggravation of the soft tissue surrounding the spine. Improper lifting technique, for example, can put strain on the tendons and ligaments that support the spine, and thus allow more severe damages to take place. These can lead to radicular pain, or pain that is no longer confined to the lower back. Radicular pain is often referred to as sciatica. A patient typically suffers from pain that shoots down one or both legs, either intermittently or chronically. At its worst, this pain can be accompanied by numbness or loss of strength in the affected limb or limbs.

The anatomy of a sciatica-stricken lower back is fairly simple. Each vertebra in the spine is separated from its neighbor by a lumbar disc. The primary function of this disc is shock absorption. Lumbar discs are shaped like a jelly doughnut. They have a tough outer layer, known as the annulus fibrosus, and a softer inner layer, called the nucleus pulposus. See diagram below for clarification. When a disc ruptures or becomes herniated, the nucleus pulposus pushes out into the space normally contained by the annulus fibrosus. This makes the disc as a whole bulge out into the surrounding space. A bulging disc can impinge on nerve roots that exit the spine next to the discs, and in doing so cause pain to be experienced all along the path of that nerve. When the bulging disc is in the lower back, the impinged nerve tends to run to one of the legs.

For many years, the gold standard treatment for radial lower back pain was surgery. There are several different procedures that are in common practice today, and each one has pros and cons for a given patient’s situation. In each procedure, the basic goal is the same: to relieve pain caused by nerve root impingement. One method involves shaving down the herniated portion of the disc, thus returning the outer shape of the disc to its natural curve. This releases pressure on the nerve, but permanently weakens the annulus fibrosus. Another method, known as a discectomy, involves either the removal or dissolution of the herniated disc. The two vertebrae are then fused together to prevent any motion between them. This method can be a great relief for some patients, but it decreases flexibility in and permanently weakens the lower back. One of the more recent developments is called a total disc replacement. An interactive video detailing this procedure can be seen here.

In contrast to this newest procedure, over the past few years surgical techniques have generally become less and less invasive. Orthopedic surgeons are now commonly performing laparoscopic microdiscectomies rather than open surgeries to speed up recovery time and lessen any chance of infection. Treatment plans have similarly taken a step away from the traditional surgery route. Many surgeons now advise that surgery is not necessary for any patients but those with the most serious disc herniations. Each of the twenty-four orthopedic surgeons who gave their opinions on back.com felt that the best course of action is to start with rest and non-steriodal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), then advance to exercise and stretching, then try cortisone injections around the affected area, and finally to proceed to surgery if nothing else has given the patient relief. It is amazing how uniform this treatment plan is from doctor to doctor. It is not by any means the only method prescribed by doctors around the country, but it evidently has a pretty strong following.

There are a few issues with this treatment plan. Several recently published studies contradict the idea that following this protocol will lead to resolution of lower back pain. The first, a recent review of 65 studies comprising over 11,000 subjects with lower back pain, has concluded that NSAIDs like ibuprofen are no more effective at treating symptoms from radial pain than simple painkillers such as Tylenol. It also concluded that NSAIDs were only slightly effective at relieving pain for these subjects. Another study published by the British Medical Journal has shown that exercises and lifting technique education are not effective at relieving back pain. As written in Science Daily, “a group receiving both training and an assistive device was compared to a group receiving training only and another control group which received nothing -- there was no difference in back pain [after one year].”

I find it very odd that orthopedic surgeons would be advocating a treatment plan that calls for NSAIDs, education on posture and lifting, and stretching and exercises for the back considering that these elements of the treatment have been shown to be ineffective. Is it possible that these surgeons know that eventually their patients will come crawling back for surgery after months of ineffective exercise and stretching? Many people are averse to the idea of having surgery on their back and will only consent when they feel it is their only option for relief. If surgeons were only promoting alternative therapies to add credence to their own surgical specialty, then what a wicked game that would be.

I cannot believe that any medical professional would knowingly give out bad information to a patient simply to make surgery seem like a better option. Instead, I think that these surgeons believe that many back pain sufferers can simply get better on their own. Given time, many (some estimate up to 80%) patients will regain most of their strength and learn to live with whatever pain lingers. I believe that what the common treatment plan does is give the majority of patients the time that is necessary to begin to heal themselves without surgery. After all, this has been my own personal experience with back pain. I herniated a disc in my lower back almost 18 months ago, and I am finally to the point where I could declare myself as being 90% better. I was given the standard treatment plan – first rest and painkillers, then stretching and exercise, and I was told that surgery would be held as a last resort. I ended up not taking that last resort because my pain went away quickly enough. The stretching and exercise involved with this treatment plan worked well for me because it gave me something to do while I waited for my pain to go away. Whether it went away because of what I was doing or simply on its own does not matter because in either case, I recovered. And when it comes to lower back pain, that’s really what counts.