Literature DB >> 15846617

Surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylosis.

J N A Gibson1, G Waddell.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Surgical investigations and interventions account for large health care utilisation and costs, but the scientific evidence for most procedures is still limited.
OBJECTIVES: Degenerative conditions affecting the lumbar spine are variously described as lumbar spondylosis or degenerative disc disease (which we regarded as one entity) and may be associated with back pain and associated leg symptoms, instability, spinal stenosis and/or degenerative spondylolisthesis. The objective of this review was to assess current scientific evidence on the effectiveness of surgical interventions for degenerative lumbar spondylosis. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PubMed, Spine and ISSLS abstracts, with citation tracking from the retrieved articles. We also corresponded with experts. All data found up to 31 March 2004 are included. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised (RCTs) or quasi-randomised trials of surgical treatment of lumbar spondylosis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors assessed trial quality and extracted data from published papers. Additional information was sought from the authors if necessary. MAIN
RESULTS: Thirty-one published RCTs of all forms of surgical treatment for degenerative lumbar spondylosis were identified. The trials varied in quality: only the more recent trials used appropriate methods of randomization, blinding and independent assessment of outcome. Most of the earlier published results were of technical surgical outcomes with some crude ratings of clinical outcome. More of the recent trials also reported patient-centered outcomes of pain or disability, but there is still very little information on occupational outcomes. There was a particular lack of long term outcomes beyond two to three years. Seven heterogeneous trials on spondylolisthesis, spinal stenosis and nerve compression permitted limited conclusions. Two new trials on the effectiveness of fusion showed conflicting results. One showed that fusion gave better clinical outcomes than conventional physiotherapy, while the other showed that fusion was no better than a modern exercise and rehabilitation programme. Eight trials showed that instrumented fusion produced a higher fusion rate (though that needs to be qualified by the difficulty of assessing fusion in the presence of metal-work), but did not improve clinical outcomes, while there is other evidence that it may be associated with higher complication rates. Three trials with conflicting results did not permit any conclusions about the relative effectiveness of anterior, posterior or circumferential fusion. Preliminary results of two small trials of intra-discal electrotherapy showed conflicting results. Preliminary data from three trials of disc arthroplasty did not permit any firm conclusions. AUTHORS'
CONCLUSIONS: Limited evidence is now available to support some aspects of surgical practice. Surgeons should be encouraged to perform further RCTs in this field.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15846617     DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001352.pub2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev        ISSN: 1361-6137


  42 in total

Review 1.  Diagnostic discography: what is the clinical utility?

Authors:  David A Provenzano
Journal:  Curr Pain Headache Rep       Date:  2012-02

Review 2.  The rationale for a spine registry.

Authors:  C Röder; U Müller; M Aebi
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-11-16       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 3.  Methodological aspects of outcomes research.

Authors:  Rudi Hiebert; Margareta Nordin
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-11-30       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Does lumbar surgery for chronic low-back pain make a difference?

Authors:  Mohit Bhandari; Brad Petrisor; Jason W Busse; Brian Drew
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2005-08-16       Impact factor: 8.262

5.  [Lumbar disc arthroplasty: indications, biomechanics, types, and radiological criteria].

Authors:  A Baur-Melnyk; C Birkenmaier; M F Reiser
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 0.635

6.  Is the sedimentation sign associated with spinal stenosis surgical treatment effect in SPORT?

Authors:  Rachel A Moses; Wenyan Zhao; Lukas P Staub; Markus Melloh; Thomas Barz; Jon D Lurie
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2015-02-01       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 7.  Outcome of invasive treatment modalities on back pain and sciatica: an evidence-based review.

Authors:  Maurits W van Tulder; Bart Koes; Seppo Seitsalo; Antti Malmivaara
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-12-01       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 8.  The evidence on surgical interventions for low back disorders, an overview of systematic reviews.

Authors:  Wilco C H Jacobs; Sidney M Rubinstein; Paul C Willems; Wouter A Moojen; Ferran Pellisé; Cumhur F Oner; Wilco C Peul; Maurits W van Tulder
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-05-17       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  The Felix-trial. Double-blind randomization of interspinous implant or bony decompression for treatment of spinal stenosis related intermittent neurogenic claudication.

Authors:  Wouter A Moojen; Mark P Arts; Ronald Brand; Bart W Koes; Wilco C Peul
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2010-05-27       Impact factor: 2.362

10.  Four-year follow-up of surgical versus non-surgical therapy for chronic low back pain.

Authors:  Jens Ivar Brox; Øystein P Nygaard; Inger Holm; Anne Keller; Tor Ingebrigtsen; Olav Reikerås
Journal:  Ann Rheum Dis       Date:  2009-07-26       Impact factor: 19.103

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.