Surgeon Recommendation and Outcomes of Decompression With vs Without Fusion in Patients With Degenerative Spondylolisthesis.

IF 10.5 1区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Andreas Seip, Christian Hellum, Morten Wang Fagerland, Tore Solberg, Jens Ivar Brox, Kjersti Storheim, Erland Hermansen, Clemens Weber, Helena Brisby, Hasan Banitalebi, Håvard Furunes, Kari Indrekvam, Inger Ljøstad, Ivar Magne Austevoll
{"title":"Surgeon Recommendation and Outcomes of Decompression With vs Without Fusion in Patients With Degenerative Spondylolisthesis.","authors":"Andreas Seip, Christian Hellum, Morten Wang Fagerland, Tore Solberg, Jens Ivar Brox, Kjersti Storheim, Erland Hermansen, Clemens Weber, Helena Brisby, Hasan Banitalebi, Håvard Furunes, Kari Indrekvam, Inger Ljøstad, Ivar Magne Austevoll","doi":"10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.53466","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>The ability of surgeons to choose the right patient for fusion in addition to decompression when operating for degenerative spondylolisthesis with symptomatic spinal stenosis is debated. The addition of fusion increases risk, morbidity, and costs but has been claimed to give better results for selected patients.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To investigate whether following surgeons' opinions regarding fusion was associated with clinical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Design, setting, and participants: </strong>This cohort study was conducted alongside the Norwegian Degenerative Spondylolisthesis and Spinal Stenosis randomized clinical trial, which showed noninferiority for decompression alone compared with decompression with fusion. From February 12, 2014, to December 18, 2017, trial surgeons from 16 Norwegian departments denoted their preferred treatment for 222 of 267 patients with symptomatic spinal stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis. For this analysis, the clinical outcomes of the patients who were and were not randomized to the recommended treatment were compared.</p><p><strong>Main outcome and measures: </strong>The primary outcome was a reduction of at least 30% from baseline to 2 years after surgery on the Oswestry Disability Index, ranging from 0 (no impairment) to 100 (maximum impairment). Secondary outcomes included the Zürich Claudication Questionnaire, leg and back pain scores, and the EuroQol 5-Dimension score.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 222 patients (155 [70%] female; mean [SD] age, 66.2 [7.7] years), decompression alone was recommended for 112 patients, of whom 59 received only decompression, and additional fusion for 110 patients, of whom 57 received fusion. At 2-year follow-up, 87 of 116 patients (75%) who received surgery in agreement with the surgeons' recommendations and 77 of 106 (73%) who received surgery in disagreement with the surgeons' recommendations reached the primary outcome (difference, 2.4 percentage points; 95% CI, -9.1 to 13.9 percentage points). All secondary outcomes were in the same direction as the primary outcome.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>In this cohort study of 222 patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis who participated in a randomized clinical trial, surgeons' recommendations were not associated with better outcomes than a random allocation when deciding between decompression alone and decompression with instrumented fusion. The results suggest that surgeons performing degenerative spondylolisthesis surgery could rely safely on evidence of operating with decompression alone, despite the conflict of expert opinion.</p>","PeriodicalId":14694,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Network Open","volume":"8 1","pages":"e2453466"},"PeriodicalIF":10.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11707628/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAMA Network Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.53466","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Importance: The ability of surgeons to choose the right patient for fusion in addition to decompression when operating for degenerative spondylolisthesis with symptomatic spinal stenosis is debated. The addition of fusion increases risk, morbidity, and costs but has been claimed to give better results for selected patients.

Objective: To investigate whether following surgeons' opinions regarding fusion was associated with clinical outcomes.

Design, setting, and participants: This cohort study was conducted alongside the Norwegian Degenerative Spondylolisthesis and Spinal Stenosis randomized clinical trial, which showed noninferiority for decompression alone compared with decompression with fusion. From February 12, 2014, to December 18, 2017, trial surgeons from 16 Norwegian departments denoted their preferred treatment for 222 of 267 patients with symptomatic spinal stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis. For this analysis, the clinical outcomes of the patients who were and were not randomized to the recommended treatment were compared.

Main outcome and measures: The primary outcome was a reduction of at least 30% from baseline to 2 years after surgery on the Oswestry Disability Index, ranging from 0 (no impairment) to 100 (maximum impairment). Secondary outcomes included the Zürich Claudication Questionnaire, leg and back pain scores, and the EuroQol 5-Dimension score.

Results: Among 222 patients (155 [70%] female; mean [SD] age, 66.2 [7.7] years), decompression alone was recommended for 112 patients, of whom 59 received only decompression, and additional fusion for 110 patients, of whom 57 received fusion. At 2-year follow-up, 87 of 116 patients (75%) who received surgery in agreement with the surgeons' recommendations and 77 of 106 (73%) who received surgery in disagreement with the surgeons' recommendations reached the primary outcome (difference, 2.4 percentage points; 95% CI, -9.1 to 13.9 percentage points). All secondary outcomes were in the same direction as the primary outcome.

Conclusions and relevance: In this cohort study of 222 patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis who participated in a randomized clinical trial, surgeons' recommendations were not associated with better outcomes than a random allocation when deciding between decompression alone and decompression with instrumented fusion. The results suggest that surgeons performing degenerative spondylolisthesis surgery could rely safely on evidence of operating with decompression alone, despite the conflict of expert opinion.

退行性椎体滑脱患者行减压与不融合术的外科医生建议和结果。
重要性:对于伴有症状性椎管狭窄的退行性椎体滑脱手术,外科医生选择合适的患者进行融合和减压的能力存在争议。融合术增加了风险、发病率和费用,但据称对某些患者有更好的疗效。目的:探讨外科医生对融合术的意见是否与临床结果相关。设计、环境和参与者:该队列研究与挪威退行性腰椎滑脱和椎管狭窄随机临床试验一起进行,结果显示单独减压与减压融合相比无效性。2014年2月12日至2017年12月18日,来自挪威16个科室的试验外科医生对267例症状性椎管狭窄和退行性椎体滑脱患者中的222例进行了优选治疗。在这项分析中,比较了被随机分配到推荐治疗组和未被随机分配到推荐治疗组患者的临床结果。主要结局和测量:主要结局是术后2年内Oswestry残疾指数从基线降低至少30%,范围从0(无损害)到100(最大损害)。次要结果包括z rich跛行问卷、腿部和背部疼痛评分以及EuroQol 5维评分。结果:222例患者中,女性155例(70%);平均[SD]年龄,66.2[7.7]岁),112例患者建议单独减压,其中59例患者仅行减压,110例患者建议行融合,其中57例患者建议行融合。在2年的随访中,116例接受手术的患者中有87例(75%)符合外科医生的建议,106例接受手术的患者中有77例(73%)不符合外科医生的建议,达到了主要结局(差异2.4个百分点;95% CI, -9.1至13.9个百分点)。所有次要结局与主要结局方向相同。结论和相关性:在这项222例退行性椎体滑脱患者的随机临床试验中,在决定是单独减压还是内固定融合减压时,外科医生的建议与随机分配的结果并不相关。结果表明,尽管专家意见存在冲突,但进行退行性椎体滑脱手术的外科医生可以安全地依靠单纯减压手术的证据。
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
JAMA Network Open
JAMA Network Open Medicine-General Medicine
CiteScore
16.00
自引率
2.90%
发文量
2126
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: JAMA Network Open, a member of the esteemed JAMA Network, stands as an international, peer-reviewed, open-access general medical journal.The publication is dedicated to disseminating research across various health disciplines and countries, encompassing clinical care, innovation in health care, health policy, and global health. JAMA Network Open caters to clinicians, investigators, and policymakers, providing a platform for valuable insights and advancements in the medical field. As part of the JAMA Network, a consortium of peer-reviewed general medical and specialty publications, JAMA Network Open contributes to the collective knowledge and understanding within the medical community.
×
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