Literature DB >> 16235281

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 2005 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 any improvement in clinical outcomes is probably marginal, 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: 16235281      PMCID: PMC7028012          DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001352.pub3

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


  67 in total

1.  A randomized double-blind prospective study of the efficacy of pulsed electromagnetic fields for interbody lumbar fusions.

Authors:  V Mooney
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1990-07       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 2.  Patient outcomes after lumbar spinal fusions.

Authors:  J A Turner; M Ersek; L Herron; J Haselkorn; D Kent; M A Ciol; R Deyo
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1992-08-19       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Hydroxyapatite coating improves fixation of pedicle screws. A clinical study.

Authors:  B Sandén; C Olerud; M Petrén-Mallmin; S Larsson
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2002-04

4.  1997 Volvo Award winner in clinical studies. The effect of pedicle screw instrumentation on functional outcome and fusion rates in posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion: a prospective, randomized clinical study.

Authors:  K Thomsen; F B Christensen; S P Eiskjaer; E S Hansen; S Fruensgaard; C E Bünger
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1997-12-15       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  Allograft versus autograft in instrumented posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion: a randomized control trial.

Authors:  Suzy Gibson; Ian McLeod; Douglas Wardlaw; Stanislaw Urbaniak
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2002-08-01       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  The surgical treatment of central lumbar stenosis. Multiple laminotomy compared with total laminectomy.

Authors:  F Postacchini; G Cinotti; D Perugia; S Gumina
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1993-05

Review 7.  Critical analysis of trends in fusion for degenerative disc disease over the past 20 years: influence of technique on fusion rate and clinical outcome.

Authors:  Christopher M Bono; Casey K Lee
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2004-02-15       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Evaluation of lumbar spine fusion. Plain radiographs versus direct surgical exploration and observation.

Authors:  A P Kant; W J Daum; S M Dean; T Uchida
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1995-11-01       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Decompression with and without arthrodesis.

Authors:  D Grob; T Humke; J Dvorak
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1995-07       Impact factor: 5.284

10.  A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of intradiscal electrothermal therapy for the treatment of discogenic low back pain.

Authors:  Kevin J Pauza; Susan Howell; Paul Dreyfuss; John H Peloza; Kathryn Dawson; Nikolai Bogduk
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2004 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 4.166

View more
  14 in total

1.  Minimally invasive laminectomy in spondylolisthetic lumbar stenosis.

Authors:  Ilias N Caralopoulos; Cuong J Bui
Journal:  Ochsner J       Date:  2014

Review 2.  Interspinous implants: are the new implants better than the last generation? A review.

Authors:  Michael Pintauro; Alexander Duffy; Payman Vahedi; George Rymarczuk; Joshua Heller
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2017-06

3.  A meta-analysis of artificial total disc replacement versus fusion for lumbar degenerative disc disease.

Authors:  Wu Yajun; Zhu Yue; Han Xiuxin; Cui Cui
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-04-04       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Telephone-Based Intervention to Improve Rehabilitation Engagement After Spinal Stenosis Surgery: A Prospective Lagged Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Richard L Skolasky; Anica M Maggard; Stephen T Wegener; Lee H Riley
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2018-01-03       Impact factor: 5.284

5.  Cox decompression chiropractic manipulation of a patient with postsurgical lumbar fusion: a case report.

Authors:  Ralph A Kruse; Jerrilyn A Cambron
Journal:  J Chiropr Med       Date:  2011-12

6.  Artificial discs for lumbar and cervical degenerative disc disease -update: an evidence-based analysis.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ont Health Technol Assess Ser       Date:  2006-04-01

7.  A randomised controlled trial of post-operative rehabilitation after surgical decompression of the lumbar spine.

Authors:  Anne F Mannion; Raymond Denzler; Jiri Dvorak; Markus Müntener; Dieter Grob
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2007-06-26       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Instrumentation in lumbar fusion improves back pain but not quality of life 2 years after surgery. A study of 1,310 patients with degenerative disc disease from the Swedish Spine Register SWESPINE.

Authors:  Yohan Robinson; Karl Michaëlsson; Bengt Sandén
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2013-01-31       Impact factor: 3.717

9.  Surgery with disc prosthesis versus rehabilitation in patients with low back pain and degenerative disc: two year follow-up of randomised study.

Authors:  Christian Hellum; Lars Gunnar Johnsen; Kjersti Storheim; Oystein P Nygaard; Jens Ivar Brox; Ivar Rossvoll; Magne Rø; Leiv Sandvik; Oliver Grundnes
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2011-05-19

10.  Spine imaging after lumbar disc replacement: pitfalls and current recommendations.

Authors:  Yohan Robinson; Bengt Sandén
Journal:  Patient Saf Surg       Date:  2009-07-20
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.