腰椎管狭窄症单纯减压或减压加融合术:随机临床试验的五年临床结果。

IF 4.9 1区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS
Thomas Karlsson, Peter Försth, Patrik Öhagen, Karl Michaëlsson, Bengt Sandén
{"title":"腰椎管狭窄症单纯减压或减压加融合术:随机临床试验的五年临床结果。","authors":"Thomas Karlsson, Peter Försth, Patrik Öhagen, Karl Michaëlsson, Bengt Sandén","doi":"10.1302/0301-620X.106B7.BJJ-2023-1160.R2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>We compared decompression alone to decompression with fusion surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis, with or without degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS). The aim was to evaluate if five-year outcomes differed between the groups. The two-year results from the same trial revealed no differences.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The Swedish Spinal Stenosis Study was a multicentre randomized controlled trial with recruitment from September 2006 to February 2012. A total of 247 patients with one- or two-level central lumbar spinal stenosis, stratified by the presence of DS, were randomized to decompression alone or decompression with fusion. The five-year Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were the EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D), visual analogue scales for back and leg pain, and patient-reported satisfaction, decreased pain, and increased walking distance. The reoperation rate was recorded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five-year follow-up was completed by 213 (95%) of the eligible patients (mean age 67 years; 155 female (67%)). After five years, ODI was similar irrespective of treatment, with a mean of 25 (SD 18) for decompression alone and 28 (SD 22) for decompression with fusion (p = 0.226). Mean EQ-5D was higher for decompression alone than for fusion (0.69 (SD 0.28) vs 0.59 (SD 0.34); p = 0.027). In the no-DS subset, fewer patients reported decreased leg pain after fusion (58%) than with decompression alone (80%) (relative risk (RR) 0.71 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.97). The frequency of subsequent spinal surgery was 24% for decompression with fusion and 22% for decompression alone (RR 1.1 (95% CI 0.69 to 1.8)).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Adding fusion to decompression in spinal stenosis surgery, with or without spondylolisthesis, does not improve the five-year ODI, which is consistent with our two-year report. Three secondary outcomes that did not differ at two years favoured decompression alone at five years. Our results support decompression alone as the preferred method for operating on spinal stenosis.</p>","PeriodicalId":48944,"journal":{"name":"Bone & Joint Journal","volume":"106-B 7","pages":"705-712"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Decompression alone or decompression with fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis: five-year clinical results from a randomized clinical trial.\",\"authors\":\"Thomas Karlsson, Peter Försth, Patrik Öhagen, Karl Michaëlsson, Bengt Sandén\",\"doi\":\"10.1302/0301-620X.106B7.BJJ-2023-1160.R2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>We compared decompression alone to decompression with fusion surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis, with or without degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS). The aim was to evaluate if five-year outcomes differed between the groups. The two-year results from the same trial revealed no differences.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The Swedish Spinal Stenosis Study was a multicentre randomized controlled trial with recruitment from September 2006 to February 2012. A total of 247 patients with one- or two-level central lumbar spinal stenosis, stratified by the presence of DS, were randomized to decompression alone or decompression with fusion. The five-year Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were the EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D), visual analogue scales for back and leg pain, and patient-reported satisfaction, decreased pain, and increased walking distance. The reoperation rate was recorded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five-year follow-up was completed by 213 (95%) of the eligible patients (mean age 67 years; 155 female (67%)). After five years, ODI was similar irrespective of treatment, with a mean of 25 (SD 18) for decompression alone and 28 (SD 22) for decompression with fusion (p = 0.226). Mean EQ-5D was higher for decompression alone than for fusion (0.69 (SD 0.28) vs 0.59 (SD 0.34); p = 0.027). In the no-DS subset, fewer patients reported decreased leg pain after fusion (58%) than with decompression alone (80%) (relative risk (RR) 0.71 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.97). The frequency of subsequent spinal surgery was 24% for decompression with fusion and 22% for decompression alone (RR 1.1 (95% CI 0.69 to 1.8)).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Adding fusion to decompression in spinal stenosis surgery, with or without spondylolisthesis, does not improve the five-year ODI, which is consistent with our two-year report. Three secondary outcomes that did not differ at two years favoured decompression alone at five years. Our results support decompression alone as the preferred method for operating on spinal stenosis.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48944,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bone & Joint Journal\",\"volume\":\"106-B 7\",\"pages\":\"705-712\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bone & Joint Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.106B7.BJJ-2023-1160.R2\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bone & Joint Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.106B7.BJJ-2023-1160.R2","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:我们对腰椎管狭窄症(伴有或不伴有退行性脊椎滑脱症(DS))的单纯减压术和减压加融合术进行了比较。目的是评估两组患者的五年疗效是否存在差异。同一试验的两年结果显示两组之间没有差异:瑞典椎管狭窄症研究是一项多中心随机对照试验,招募时间为 2006 年 9 月至 2012 年 2 月。共有247名患有一或两级中央型腰椎管狭窄症的患者根据是否存在DS进行了分层,并随机接受单纯减压或减压加融合术治疗。主要结果是五年的Oswestry残疾指数(ODI)。次要结果是欧洲五维度问卷(EQ-5D)、背部和腿部疼痛视觉模拟量表,以及患者报告的满意度、疼痛减轻程度和步行距离增加程度。此外,还记录了再手术率:符合条件的患者中有 213 人(95%)完成了五年随访(平均年龄 67 岁;女性 155 人(67%))。五年后,无论采用哪种治疗方法,ODI都相似,单纯减压术的平均ODI为25(标清18),减压加融合术的平均ODI为28(标清22)(P = 0.226)。单纯减压术的 EQ-5D 平均值高于融合术(0.69 (SD 0.28) vs 0.59 (SD 0.34);p = 0.027)。在无 DS 子集中,融合术后腿部疼痛减轻的患者(58%)少于单纯减压术后(80%)(相对风险 (RR) 0.71(95% 置信区间 (CI) 0.53 至 0.97)。融合减压术和单纯减压术的后续脊柱手术频率分别为24%和22%(RR为1.1(95% CI为0.69至1.8)):结论:在椎管狭窄手术(无论是否伴有椎体滑脱)中,在减压的基础上增加融合术并不能改善五年的ODI,这与我们两年前的报告一致。在两年内无差异的三个次要结果在五年内更倾向于单纯减压。我们的结果支持将单纯减压作为椎管狭窄手术的首选方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Decompression alone or decompression with fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis: five-year clinical results from a randomized clinical trial.

Aims: We compared decompression alone to decompression with fusion surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis, with or without degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS). The aim was to evaluate if five-year outcomes differed between the groups. The two-year results from the same trial revealed no differences.

Methods: The Swedish Spinal Stenosis Study was a multicentre randomized controlled trial with recruitment from September 2006 to February 2012. A total of 247 patients with one- or two-level central lumbar spinal stenosis, stratified by the presence of DS, were randomized to decompression alone or decompression with fusion. The five-year Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were the EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D), visual analogue scales for back and leg pain, and patient-reported satisfaction, decreased pain, and increased walking distance. The reoperation rate was recorded.

Results: Five-year follow-up was completed by 213 (95%) of the eligible patients (mean age 67 years; 155 female (67%)). After five years, ODI was similar irrespective of treatment, with a mean of 25 (SD 18) for decompression alone and 28 (SD 22) for decompression with fusion (p = 0.226). Mean EQ-5D was higher for decompression alone than for fusion (0.69 (SD 0.28) vs 0.59 (SD 0.34); p = 0.027). In the no-DS subset, fewer patients reported decreased leg pain after fusion (58%) than with decompression alone (80%) (relative risk (RR) 0.71 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.97). The frequency of subsequent spinal surgery was 24% for decompression with fusion and 22% for decompression alone (RR 1.1 (95% CI 0.69 to 1.8)).

Conclusion: Adding fusion to decompression in spinal stenosis surgery, with or without spondylolisthesis, does not improve the five-year ODI, which is consistent with our two-year report. Three secondary outcomes that did not differ at two years favoured decompression alone at five years. Our results support decompression alone as the preferred method for operating on spinal stenosis.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Bone & Joint Journal
Bone & Joint Journal ORTHOPEDICS-SURGERY
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
10.90%
发文量
318
期刊介绍: We welcome original articles from any part of the world. The papers are assessed by members of the Editorial Board and our international panel of expert reviewers, then either accepted for publication or rejected by the Editor. We receive over 2000 submissions each year and accept about 250 for publication, many after revisions recommended by the reviewers, editors or statistical advisers. A decision usually takes between six and eight weeks. Each paper is assessed by two reviewers with a special interest in the subject covered by the paper, and also by members of the editorial team. Controversial papers will be discussed at a full meeting of the Editorial Board. Publication is between four and six months after acceptance.
×
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