Literature DB >> 19584344

Tubular diskectomy vs conventional microdiskectomy for sciatica: a randomized controlled trial.

Mark P Arts1, Ronald Brand, M Elske van den Akker, Bart W Koes, Ronald H M A Bartels, Wilco C Peul.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: Conventional microdiskectomy is the most frequently performed surgery for patients with sciatica due to lumbar disk herniation. Transmuscular tubular diskectomy has been introduced to increase the rate of recovery, although evidence is lacking of its efficacy.
OBJECTIVE: To determine outcomes and time to recovery in patients treated with tubular diskectomy compared with conventional microdiskectomy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: The Sciatica Micro-Endoscopic Diskectomy randomized controlled trial was conducted among 328 patients aged 18 to 70 years who had persistent leg pain (>8 weeks) due to lumbar disk herniations at 7 general hospitals in The Netherlands from January 2005 to October 2006. Patients and observers were blinded during the follow-up, which ended 1 year after final enrollment.
INTERVENTIONS: Tubular diskectomy (n = 167) vs conventional microdiskectomy (n = 161). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was functional assessment on the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RDQ) for sciatica (score range: 0-23, with higher scores indicating worse functional status) at 8 weeks and 1 year after randomization. Secondary outcomes were scores on the visual analog scale for leg pain and back pain (score range: 0-100 mm) and patient's self-report of recovery (measured on a Likert 7-point scale).
RESULTS: Based on intention-to-treat analysis, the mean RDQ score during the first year after surgery was 6.2 (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.6 to 6.8) for tubular diskectomy and 5.4 (95% CI, 4.6 to 6.2) for conventional microdiskectomy (between-group mean difference, 0.8; 95% CI, -0.2 to 1.7). At 8 weeks after surgery, the RDQ mean (SE) score was 5.8 (0.4) for tubular diskectomy and 4.9 (0.5) for conventional microdiskectomy (between-group mean difference, 0.8; 95% CI, -0.4 to 2.1). At 1 year, the RDQ mean (SE) score was 4.7 (0.5) for tubular diskectomy and 3.4 (0.5) for conventional microdiskectomy (between-group mean difference, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.03 to 2.6) in favor of conventional microdiskectomy. On the visual analog scale, the 1-year between-group mean difference in improvement was 4.2 mm (95% CI, 0.9 to 7.5 mm) for leg pain and 3.5 mm (95% CI, 0.1 to 6.9 mm) for back pain in favor of conventional microdiskectomy. At 1 year, 107 of 156 patients (69%) assigned to tubular diskectomy reported a good recovery vs 120 of 151 patients (79%) assigned to conventional microdiskectomy (odds ratio, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.35 to 0.99]; P = .05).
CONCLUSIONS: Use of tubular diskectomy compared with conventional microdiskectomy did not result in a statistically significant improvement in the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire score. Tubular diskectomy resulted in less favorable results for patient self-reported leg pain, back pain, and recovery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN51857546.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19584344     DOI: 10.1001/jama.2009.972

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


  48 in total

1.  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

2.  Spine surgery: Minimally invasive spinal surgery--does size matter?

Authors:  Richard Mannion
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurol       Date:  2012-06-05       Impact factor: 42.937

Review 3.  Paradigm changes in spine surgery: evolution of minimally invasive techniques.

Authors:  Zachary A Smith; Richard G Fessler
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurol       Date:  2012-06-19       Impact factor: 42.937

4.  Cost-effectiveness of three treatment strategies for lumbar spinal stenosis: Conservative care, laminectomy, and the Superion interspinous spacer.

Authors:  Scott L Parker; Louise H Anderson; Teresa Nelson; Vikas V Patel
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2015-07-09

Review 5.  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

6.  Minimally invasive versus open surgery for cervical and lumbar discectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Nathan Evaniew; Moin Khan; Brian Drew; Desmond Kwok; Mohit Bhandari; Michelle Ghert
Journal:  CMAJ Open       Date:  2014-10-01

7.  Surgery for Herniated Lumbar Disk in Individuals 65 Years of Age or Older: A Multicenter Observational Study.

Authors:  Mattis A Madsbu; Tore K Solberg; Øyvind Salvesen; Øystein P Nygaard; Sasha Gulati
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2017-05-01       Impact factor: 14.766

8.  Letter regarding Chang et al.: The safety and efficacy of minimally invasive discectomy: a meta-analysis of prospective randomised controlled trials.

Authors:  Qiuming Hu; Xixi Wu
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2014-10-11       Impact factor: 3.075

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.  Function after spinal treatment, exercise and rehabilitation (FASTER): improving the functional outcome of spinal surgery.

Authors:  A H McGregor; C J Doré; T P Morris; S Morris; K Jamrozik
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2010-01-26       Impact factor: 2.362

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.