Literature DB >> 17119141

Surgical vs nonoperative treatment for lumbar disk herniation: the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) observational cohort.

James N Weinstein1, Jon D Lurie, Tor D Tosteson, Jonathan S Skinner, Brett Hanscom, Anna N A Tosteson, Harry Herkowitz, Jeffrey Fischgrund, Frank P Cammisa, Todd Albert, Richard A Deyo.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: For patients with lumbar disk herniation, the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) randomized trial intent-to-treat analysis showed small but not statistically significant differences in favor of diskectomy compared with usual care. However, the large numbers of patients who crossed over between assigned groups precluded any conclusions about the comparative effectiveness of operative therapy vs usual care.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the treatment effects of diskectomy and usual care. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Prospective observational cohort of surgical candidates with imaging-confirmed lumbar intervertebral disk herniation who were treated at 13 spine clinics in 11 US states and who met the SPORT eligibility criteria but declined randomization between March 2000 and March 2003.
INTERVENTIONS: Standard open diskectomy vs usual nonoperative care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Changes from baseline in the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) bodily pain and physical function scales and the modified Oswestry Disability Index (American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons/MODEMS version).
RESULTS: Of the 743 patients enrolled in the observational cohort, 528 patients received surgery and 191 received usual nonoperative care. At 3 months, patients who chose surgery had greater improvement in the primary outcome measures of bodily pain (mean change: surgery, 40.9 vs nonoperative care, 26.0; treatment effect, 14.8; 95% confidence interval, 10.8-18.9), physical function (mean change: surgery, 40.7 vs nonoperative care, 25.3; treatment effect, 15.4; 95% CI, 11.6-19.2), and Oswestry Disability Index (mean change: surgery, -36.1 vs nonoperative care, -20.9; treatment effect, -15.2; 95% CI, -18.5. to -11.8). These differences narrowed somewhat at 2 years: bodily pain (mean change: surgery, 42.6 vs nonoperative care, 32.4; treatment effect, 10.2; 95% CI, 5.9-14.5), physical function (mean change: surgery, 43.9 vs nonoperavtive care 31.9; treatment effect, 12.0; 95% CI; 7.9-16.1), and Oswestry Disability Index (mean change: surgery -37.6 vs nonoperative care -24.2; treatment effect, -13.4; 95% CI, -17.0 to -9.7).
CONCLUSIONS: Patients with persistent sciatica from lumbar disk herniation improved in both operated and usual care groups. Those who chose operative intervention reported greater improvements than patients who elected nonoperative care. However, nonrandomized comparisons of self-reported outcomes are subject to potential confounding and must be interpreted cautiously. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00000410.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17119141      PMCID: PMC2562254          DOI: 10.1001/jama.296.20.2451

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  20 in total

Review 1.  Understanding the relevance of measured change through studies of responsiveness.

Authors:  D E Beaton
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-12-15       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  Randomized trials or observational tribulations?

Authors:  S J Pocock; D R Elbourne
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2000-06-22       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  Nomenclature and classification of lumbar disc pathology. Recommendations of the Combined task Forces of the North American Spine Society, American Society of Spine Radiology, and American Society of Neuroradiology.

Authors:  D F Fardon; P C Milette
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2001-03-01       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 4.  Randomised trials in surgery: problems and possible solutions.

Authors:  Peter McCulloch; Irving Taylor; Mitsuru Sasako; Bryony Lovett; Damian Griffin
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2002-06-15

5.  "Are you better?" A qualitative study of the meaning of recovery.

Authors:  D E Beaton; V Tarasuk; J N Katz; J G Wright; C Bombardier
Journal:  Arthritis Rheum       Date:  2001-06

6.  Lumbar disc herniation. A controlled, prospective study with ten years of observation.

Authors:  H Weber
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1983-03       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  The clinical importance of changes in outcome scores after treatment for chronic low back pain.

Authors:  O Hägg; P Fritzell; A Nordwall
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2002-10-24       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  The MOS 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groups.

Authors:  C A McHorney; J E Ware; J F Lu; C D Sherbourne
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1994-01       Impact factor: 2.983

9.  Patient satisfaction with medical care for low-back pain.

Authors:  R A Deyo; A K Diehl
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1986 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  Design of the Spine Patient outcomes Research Trial (SPORT).

Authors:  Nancy J O Birkmeyer; James N Weinstein; Anna N A Tosteson; Tor D Tosteson; Jonathan S Skinner; Jon D Lurie; Richard Deyo; John E Wennberg
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2002-06-15       Impact factor: 3.468

View more
  200 in total

1.  Surgical versus nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis four-year results of the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial.

Authors:  James N Weinstein; Tor D Tosteson; Jon D Lurie; Anna Tosteson; Emily Blood; Harry Herkowitz; Frank Cammisa; Todd Albert; Scott D Boden; Alan Hilibrand; Harley Goldberg; Sigurd Berven; Howard An
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2010-06-15       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  The impact of diabetes on the outcomes of surgical and nonsurgical treatment of patients in the spine patient outcomes research trial.

Authors:  Mitchell K Freedman; Alan S Hilibrand; Emily A Blood; Wenyan Zhao; Todd J Albert; Alexander R Vaccaro; Christina V Oleson; Tamara S Morgan; James N Weinstein
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2011-02-15       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  The efficacy of minimally invasive discectomy compared with open discectomy: a meta-analysis of prospective randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Hormuzdiyar H Dasenbrock; Stephen P Juraschek; Lonni R Schultz; Timothy F Witham; Daniel M Sciubba; Jean-Paul Wolinsky; Ziya L Gokaslan; Ali Bydon
Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine       Date:  2012-03-09

Review 4.  The Michel Benoist and Robert Mulholland yearly European Spine Journal review: a survey of the "medical" articles in the European Spine Journal, 2011.

Authors:  Michel Benoist
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-12-22       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  A decade's experience in lumbar spine surgery in Belgium: sickness fund beneficiaries, 2000-2009.

Authors:  Marc Du Bois; Marek Szpalski; Peter Donceel
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-06-03       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Spontaneous regression of a large lumbar disc extrusion.

Authors:  Sung-Joo Ryu; In Soo Kim
Journal:  J Korean Neurosurg Soc       Date:  2010-09-30

7.  Overcoming obstacles to developing new analgesics.

Authors:  Clifford J Woolf
Journal:  Nat Med       Date:  2010-10-14       Impact factor: 53.440

8.  Cell-Seeded Adhesive Biomaterial for Repair of Annulus Fibrosus Defects in Intervertebral Discs.

Authors:  Michelle A Cruz; Warren W Hom; Tyler J DiStefano; Robert Merrill; Olivia M Torre; Huizi A Lin; Andrew C Hecht; Svenja Illien-Junger; James C Iatridis
Journal:  Tissue Eng Part A       Date:  2018-01-11       Impact factor: 3.845

9.  Surgical treatment of spinal stenosis with and without degenerative spondylolisthesis: cost-effectiveness after 2 years.

Authors:  Anna N A Tosteson; Jon D Lurie; Tor D Tosteson; Jonathan S Skinner; Harry Herkowitz; Todd Albert; Scott D Boden; Keith Bridwell; Michael Longley; Gunnar B Andersson; Emily A Blood; Margaret R Grove; James N Weinstein
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2008-12-16       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 10.  Interventional spine procedures for management of chronic low back pain-a primer.

Authors:  Jason D Iannuccilli; Ethan A Prince; Gregory M Soares
Journal:  Semin Intervent Radiol       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 1.513

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.