Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Decompression Alone Versus Fusion for Predominant Back Pain

Pratyush Shahi, Tejas Subramanian, Omri Maayan, Nishtha Singh, Kasra Araghi, Sumedha Singh, Tomoyuki Asada, Maximilian K Korsun, Olivia Tuma, Anthony Pajak, Evan D. Sheha, James Dowdell, Sheeraz A Qureshi, S. Iyer
{"title":"Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Decompression Alone Versus Fusion for Predominant Back Pain","authors":"Pratyush Shahi, Tejas Subramanian, Omri Maayan, Nishtha Singh, Kasra Araghi, Sumedha Singh, Tomoyuki Asada, Maximilian K Korsun, Olivia Tuma, Anthony Pajak, Evan D. Sheha, James Dowdell, Sheeraz A Qureshi, S. Iyer","doi":"10.1177/15563316231223503","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Although a few recent studies showed good outcomes in back pain-predominant patients following decompression alone, none of the studies had a comparative fusion group. We sought to compare outcomes of minimally invasive decompression alone versus fusion in patients with predominant back pain. This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent minimally invasive decompression alone or fusion and had preoperative back pain > leg pain. Outcome measures were (1) patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), (2) minimal clinically important difference (MCID) achievement, (3) patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) achievement, and (4) global rating change (GRC). As a subgroup analysis, MCID, PASS, and GRC rates were also compared between the decompression and fusion groups for patients with preoperative back pain < leg pain. Of 510 patients included, there were statistically significant improvements in all PROMs in both groups at <6 and >6 months with no significant difference in the magnitude of improvement. The fusion group showed significantly higher MCID achievement rates for Visual Analog Scale (VAS) back at <6 months (85% vs 70%) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at >6 months (67% vs 51%). Proportion of patients achieving PASS and feeling better after surgery based on response to GRC showed no difference between the groups. The subgroup analysis for decompression versus fusion in patients with preoperative back pain < leg pain showed no differences in MCID, PASS, or GRC rates. This retrospective cohort study found that in patients with predominant back pain, minimally invasive decompression alone had significantly less MCID achievement rates in VAS back at <6 months and ODI at >6 months. However, it did lead to an overall significant improvement in PROMs, similar PASS achievement rates, and similar responses on the GRC scale.","PeriodicalId":253125,"journal":{"name":"HSS Journal®: The Musculoskeletal Journal of Hospital for Special Surgery","volume":"399 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"HSS Journal®: The Musculoskeletal Journal of Hospital for Special Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15563316231223503","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Although a few recent studies showed good outcomes in back pain-predominant patients following decompression alone, none of the studies had a comparative fusion group. We sought to compare outcomes of minimally invasive decompression alone versus fusion in patients with predominant back pain. This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent minimally invasive decompression alone or fusion and had preoperative back pain > leg pain. Outcome measures were (1) patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), (2) minimal clinically important difference (MCID) achievement, (3) patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) achievement, and (4) global rating change (GRC). As a subgroup analysis, MCID, PASS, and GRC rates were also compared between the decompression and fusion groups for patients with preoperative back pain < leg pain. Of 510 patients included, there were statistically significant improvements in all PROMs in both groups at <6 and >6 months with no significant difference in the magnitude of improvement. The fusion group showed significantly higher MCID achievement rates for Visual Analog Scale (VAS) back at <6 months (85% vs 70%) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at >6 months (67% vs 51%). Proportion of patients achieving PASS and feeling better after surgery based on response to GRC showed no difference between the groups. The subgroup analysis for decompression versus fusion in patients with preoperative back pain < leg pain showed no differences in MCID, PASS, or GRC rates. This retrospective cohort study found that in patients with predominant back pain, minimally invasive decompression alone had significantly less MCID achievement rates in VAS back at <6 months and ODI at >6 months. However, it did lead to an overall significant improvement in PROMs, similar PASS achievement rates, and similar responses on the GRC scale.
单用微创减压术与融合术治疗主要背痛的疗效对比
尽管最近有几项研究显示,背痛为主的患者在接受单纯减压术后疗效良好,但这些研究都没有将融合组作为对比组。我们试图比较背痛为主的患者接受单纯微创减压术和融合术的疗效。这项回顾性队列研究纳入了接受单纯微创减压术或融合术且术前背痛>腿痛的患者。结果测量包括:(1)患者报告结果测量(PROMs);(2)最小临床重要差异(MCID);(3)患者可接受症状状态(PASS);以及(4)总体评分变化(GRC)。作为亚组分析,还比较了减压组和融合组术前背痛<腿痛患者的MCID、PASS和GRC率。在纳入的 510 名患者中,两组患者在 6 个月后的所有 PROMs 均有统计学意义上的显著改善,改善程度无明显差异。融合组患者在6个月后的视觉模拟量表(VAS)MCID达标率明显更高(67% vs 51%)。根据对 GRC 的反应,达到 PASS 和术后感觉更好的患者比例在两组之间没有差异。对术前背痛<腿痛患者进行的减压与融合亚组分析显示,MCID、PASS或GRC率没有差异。这项回顾性队列研究发现,在以背痛为主的患者中,单纯微创减压术在6个月后的VAS背痛MCID达标率明显较低。不过,该疗法确实在 PROMs 方面带来了整体上的显著改善,PASS 达标率相似,GRC 量表上的反应也相似。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信