XXXX Components in @entity1 with @entity2649 .

@entity1 @entity227 @entity2649 @entity613 @entity158 @entity717 @entity9
PURPOSE: To determine the prevalence and characteristics of @entity9 ( @entity9 ) in @entity1 with @entity2649 ( @entity2649 ) according to subgroup analysis of symptoms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively enrolled subjects with @entity2649 (n=86) who were scheduled to undergo spinal surgery. The @entity1 were divided into two groups according to a chief complaint of @entity158 or @entity613 . We measured @entity1 's @entity158 score using the @entity227 ( @entity227 ), @entity717 ( @entity717 ) and Leads Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (LANSS). According to LANSS value, the prevalence of @entity9 component @entity158 in @entity1 with @entity2649 was assessed. Statistical analysis was performed to find the relationship between LANSS scores and the other scores. RESULTS: From our sample of 86 @entity1 , 31 (36.0%) had a @entity9 component, with 24 (63.4%) in the @entity158 group having @entity9 . However, only seven @entity1 (15.6%) in the @entity613 group had @entity9 . The LANSS @entity158 score was not significantly correlated with @entity227 scores for back @entity158 , but did correlate with @entity227 scores for @entity158 (R=0.73, p<0.001) and with @entity717 back @entity158 scores (R=0.54, p<0.01). CONCLUSION: One-third of the @entity1 with @entity2649 had a @entity9 component. The presence of @entity158 correlated strongly with @entity9 . The severity of @entity158 and @entity717 score were also closely related to a @entity9 component. This data may prove useful to understanding the @entity158 characteristics of @entity2649 and in better designing clinical trials for @entity9 treatment in @entity1 with @entity2649 .
