{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025186567164179104, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005597014925373134, 'mean_word_length': 5.349112426035503, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
First Randomized Trial Comparing Disc Replacement To Rehabilitation

from France appeared to provide a resounding endorsement for the artificial disc, finding disc replacement to be more effective than a modern rehabilitation program in addressing degenerative disc disease. On closer inspection, methodological issues appeared to compromise the conclusions of this study, perhaps fatally. Brice Ilharreborde, MD, presented the new study at the recent annual meeting of the International Society for the Study of the Lumbar Spine (ISSLS) in New York City. He reported that patients who underwent disc replacement had a statistically significant advantage in pain and disability scores at six-month follow-up over those who underwent nonsurgical treatment. The advantage persisted 12 months after surgery. Return-to-work also favored the surgical group. “In this study, total disc replacement seemed to be more efficient than rehabilitation in the management of very specific cases of chronic low back pain,” according to Ilharreborde et al. (See Iharreborde et al., 2005.)