Literature DB >> 17443505

Surgical interventions for lumbar disc prolapse.

J N A Gibson1, G Waddell.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Disc prolapse accounts for five percent of low-back disorders but is one of the most common reasons for surgery.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to assess the effects of surgical interventions for the treatment of lumbar disc prolapse. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, PubMed, Spine and abstracts of the main spine society meetings within the last five years. We also checked the reference lists of each retrieved articles and corresponded with experts. All data found up to 1 January 2007 are included. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized trials (RCT) and quasi-randomized trials (QRCT) of the surgical management of lumbar disc prolapse. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors assessed trial quality and extracted data from published papers. Additional information was sought from the authors if necessary. MAIN
RESULTS: Forty RCTs and two QRCTs were identified, including 17 new trials since the first edition of this review in 1999. Many of the early trials were of some form of chemonucleolysis, whereas the majority of the later studies either compared different techniques of discectomy or the use of some form of membrane to reduce epidural scarring. Despite the critical importance of knowing whether surgery is beneficial for disc prolapse, only four trials have directly compared discectomy with conservative management and these give suggestive rather than conclusive results. However, other trials show that discectomy produces better clinical outcomes than chemonucleolysis and that in turn is better than placebo. Microdiscectomy gives broadly comparable results to standard discectomy. Recent trials of an inter-position gel covering the dura (five trials) and of fat (four trials) show that they can reduce scar formation, though there is limited evidence about the effect on clinical outcomes. There is insufficient evidence on other percutaneous discectomy techniques to draw firm conclusions. Three small RCTs of laser discectomy do not provide conclusive evidence on its efficacy, There are no published RCTs of coblation therapy or trans-foraminal endoscopic discectomy. AUTHORS'
CONCLUSIONS: Surgical discectomy for carefully selected patients with sciatica due to lumbar disc prolapse provides faster relief from the acute attack than conservative management, although any positive or negative effects on the lifetime natural history of the underlying disc disease are still unclear. Microdiscectomy gives broadly comparable results to open discectomy. The evidence on other minimally invasive techniques remains unclear (with the exception of chemonucleolysis using chymopapain, which is no longer widely available).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17443505      PMCID: PMC7028003          DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001350.pub4

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


  79 in total

1.  Single-blind randomised controlled trial of chemonucleolysis and manipulation in the treatment of symptomatic lumbar disc herniation.

Authors:  A K Burton; K M Tillotson; J Cleary
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Chymoral in the treatment of lumbar disc prolapse.

Authors:  T Gibson; T F Dilke; R Grahame
Journal:  Rheumatol Rehabil       Date:  1975-08

3.  Discectomy strategies for lumbar disc herniation: results of the LAPDOG trial.

Authors:  Stephen J Haines; Neil Jordan; James R Boen; John A Nyman; Neil B Oldridge; Bruce R Lindgren
Journal:  J Clin Neurosci       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 1.961

4.  ENZYME DISSOLUTION OF THE NUCLEUS PULPOSUS IN HUMANS.

Authors:  L SMITH
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1964-01-11       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  [Complication of disk nucleolysis with chymopapain].

Authors:  R Bouillet
Journal:  Acta Orthop Belg       Date:  1987       Impact factor: 0.500

6.  Cost effectiveness evaluation of ADCON-L adhesion control gel in lumbar surgery.

Authors:  D S McKinley; L M Shaffer
Journal:  Neurol Res       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 2.448

7.  Outcome after lumbar sequestrectomy compared with microdiscectomy: a prospective randomized study.

Authors:  Claudius Thomé; Martin Barth; Johann Scharf; Peter Schmiedek
Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine       Date:  2005-03

8.  Radiographic changes after lumbar discectomy. Sequential enhanced computed tomography in relation to clinical observations.

Authors:  T Tullberg; J Rydberg; J Isacsson
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1993-06-01       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  [Comparative study of disk surgery with or without microscopy. A prospective study of 80 cases].

Authors:  J Lagarrigue; P Chaynes
Journal:  Neurochirurgie       Date:  1994       Impact factor: 1.553

10.  The effect of interposition membrane on the outcome of lumbar laminectomy and discectomy.

Authors:  M A MacKay; J S Fischgrund; H N Herkowitz; L T Kurz; B Hecht; M Schwartz
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1995-08-15       Impact factor: 3.468

View more
  20 in total

1.  Letter to the editor concerning "transforaminal endoscopic surgery for lumbar stenosis: a systematic review" (Nellensteijn et al.).

Authors:  Carl Hans Fürstenberg; Ralf Wagner; Michael Schubert; Florian Maria Alfen; Guntram Krzok; Alastair Gibson
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-11-26       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Surgery for disc disease.

Authors:  J N Alastair Gibson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2007-11-10

Review 3.  Surgical interventions for lumbar disc prolapse.

Authors:  J N A Gibson; G Waddell
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2007-04-18

Review 4.  Systematic review of microendoscopic discectomy for lumbar disc herniation.

Authors:  Nick Smith; James Masters; Cyrus Jensen; Almas Khan; Andrew Sprowson
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-06-23       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Spontaneously disappearing lumbar disc protrusion.

Authors:  Shungu Ushewokunze; Naeem Abbas; Ronan Dardis; Ian Killeen
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 5.386

6.  A randomised controlled trial of transforaminal endoscopic discectomy vs microdiscectomy.

Authors:  J N Alaistair Gibson; Ashok S Subramanian; Chloe E H Scott
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-11-24       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  A meta-analysis of endoscopic discectomy versus open discectomy for symptomatic lumbar disk herniation.

Authors:  Lin Cong; Yue Zhu; Guanjun Tu
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-01-30       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

Review 9.  Diagnosis and management of low-back pain in primary care.

Authors:  Adrian Traeger; Rachelle Buchbinder; Ian Harris; Chris Maher
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2017-11-13       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 10.  Surgery or physical activity in the management of sciatica: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Matthew Fernandez; Manuela L Ferreira; Kathryn M Refshauge; Jan Hartvigsen; Isabela R C Silva; Chris G Maher; Bart W Koes; Paulo H Ferreira
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-07-26       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.