-
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and... Jan 2022The clinical outcomes of using a zero-profile for anterior cervical decompression and fusion were evaluated by comparison with anterior cervical plates. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Comparison of outcomes between Zero-p implant and anterior cervical plate interbody fusion systems for anterior cervical decompression and fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
PURPOSE
The clinical outcomes of using a zero-profile for anterior cervical decompression and fusion were evaluated by comparison with anterior cervical plates.
METHODS
All of the comparative studies published in the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Medline, Web of Science, EBSOChost, and EMBASE databases as of 1 October 2021 were included. All outcomes were analysed using Review Manager 5.4.
RESULTS
Seven randomized controlled studies were included with a total of 528 patients, and all studies were randomized controlled studies. The meta-analysis outcomes indicated that the use of zero-profile fixation for anterior cervical decompression and fusion was better than anterior cervical plate fixation regarding the incidence of postoperative dysphagia (P < 0.05), adjacent-level ossification (P < 0.05), and operational time (P < 0.05). However, there were no statistically significant differences in intraoperative blood loss, Visual Analogue Scale, Neck Disability Index, or Japanese Orthopaedic Association scale (all P > 0.05) between the zero-profile and anterior cervical plate groups.
CONCLUSIONS
The systematic review and meta-analysis indicated that zero-profile and anterior cervical plates could result in good postoperative outcomes in anterior cervical decompression and fusion. No significant differences were found in intraoperative blood loss, Visual Analogue Scale, Neck Disability Index, or Japanese Orthopaedic Association scale. However, the zero-profile is superior to the anterior cervical plate in the following measures: incidence of postoperative dysphagia, adjacent-level ossification, and operational time. PROSPERO registration CRD42021278214.
Topics: Blood Loss, Surgical; Bone Plates; Cervical Vertebrae; Decompression; Deglutition Disorders; Diskectomy; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Spinal Fusion; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35078496
DOI: 10.1186/s13018-022-02940-w -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2017Surgery is used to treat persistent pain and dysfunction at the base of the thumb when conservative management, such as splinting, or medical management, such as oral... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Surgery is used to treat persistent pain and dysfunction at the base of the thumb when conservative management, such as splinting, or medical management, such as oral analgesics, is no longer adequate in reducing disability and pain. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2005.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of different surgical techniques for trapeziometacarpal (thumb) osteoarthritis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following sources up to 08 August 2013: CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 8), MEDLINE (1950 to August 2013), EMBASE (1974 to August 2013), CINAHL (1982 to August 2013), Clinicaltrials.gov (to August 2013) and World Health Organization (WHO) Clinical Trials Portal (to August 2013).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs where the intervention was surgery for people with thumb osteoarthritis. Outcomes were pain, physical function, quality of life, patient global assessment, adverse events, treatment failure or trapeziometacarpal joint imaging.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by the Cochrane Collaboration. Two review authors independently screened and included studies according to the inclusion criteria, assessed the risk of bias and extracted data, including adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 11 studies with 670 participants. Seven surgical procedures were identified (trapeziectomy with ligament reconstruction and tendon interposition (LRTI), trapeziectomy, trapeziectomy with ligament reconstruction, trapeziectomy with interpositional arthroplasty (IA), Artelon joint resurfacing, arthrodesis and Swanson joint replacement). We did not find any studies that compared surgery with sham surgery or surgery with non-surgical interventions.Most included studies had an unclear risk of most biases which raises doubt about the results. No procedure demonstrated any superiority over another in terms of pain, physical function, quality of life, patient global assessment, adverse events, treatment failure (re-operation) or trapeziometacarpal joint imaging. One study demonstrated a difference in adverse events (mild-moderate swelling) between Artelon joint replacement and trapeziectomy with tendon interposition. However, the quality of evidence was very low due to a high risk of bias and imprecision of results.Low quality evidence suggests trapeziectomy with LRTI may not provide additional benefits or result in more adverse events over trapeziectomy alone. Mean pain (three studies, 162 participants) was 26 mm on a 0 to 100 mm VAS (0 is no pain) for trapeziectomy alone, trapeziectomy with LRTI reduced pain by a mean of 2.8 mm (95% confidence interval (CI) -9.8 to 4.2) or an absolute reduction of 3% (-10% to 4%). Mean physical function (three studies, 211 participants) was 31.1 points on a 0 to 100 point scale (0 is best physical function, or no disability) with trapeziectomy alone, trapeziectomy with LRTI resulted in sightly lower function scores (standardised mean difference 0.1, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.32), an equivalent to a worsening of 0.2 points (95% CI -5.8 to 6.1) on a 0 to 100 point scale (absolute decrease in function 0.03% (-0.83% to 0.88%)). Low quality evidence from four studies (328 participants) indicates that the mean number of adverse events was 10 per 100 participants for trapeziectomy alone, and 19 events per 100 participants for trapeziectomy with LRTI (RR 1.89, 95% CI 0.96 to 3.73) or an absolute risk increase of 9% (95% CI 0% to 28%). Low quality evidence from one study (42 participants) indicates that the mean scapho-metacarpal distance was 2.3 mm for the trapeziectomy alone group, trapeziectomy with LRTI resulted in a mean of 0.1 mm less distance (95% CI -0.81 to 0.61). None of the included trials reported global assessment, quality of life, and revision or re-operation rates.Low-quality evidence from two small studies (51 participants) indicated that trapeziectomy with LRTI may not improve function or slow joint degeneration, or produce additional adverse events over trapeziectomy and ligament reconstruction.We are uncertain of the benefits or harms of other surgical techniques due to the mostly low quality evidence from single studies and the low reporting rates of key outcomes. There was insufficient evidence to assess if trapeziectomy with LRTI had additional benefit over arthrodesis or trapeziectomy with IA. There was also insufficient evidence to assess if trapeziectomy with IA had any additional benefit over the Artelon joint implant, the Swanson joint replacement or trapeziectomy alone.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We did not identify any studies that compared surgery to sham surgery or to non-operative treatments. We were unable to demonstrate that any technique confers a benefit over another technique in terms of pain and physical function. Furthermore, the included studies were not of high enough quality to provide conclusive evidence that the compared techniques provided equivalent outcomes.
Topics: Hand Joints; Humans; Metacarpus; Osteoarthritis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Range of Motion, Articular; Recovery of Function; Thumb; Trapezium Bone
PubMed: 28368089
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004631.pub5 -
Journal of Biomechanics Jul 2021Distraction-based growing rods are frequently used to treat Early-Onset Scoliosis. These use intermittent spinal distractions to maintain correction and allow for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Distraction-based growing rods are frequently used to treat Early-Onset Scoliosis. These use intermittent spinal distractions to maintain correction and allow for growth. It is unknown how much spinal distraction can be applied safely. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical and biomechanical literature to identify such safety limits for the pediatric spine. This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Three systematic searches were performed including in-vivo, ex-vivo and in-silico literature. Study quality was assessed in all studies and data including patient- or specimen characteristics, distraction magnitude and spinal failure location and ultimate force at failure were collected. Twelve studies were included, 6 in-vivo, 4 ex-vivo and 2 in-silico studies. Mean in-vivo distraction forces ranged between 242 and 621 N with maxima of 422-981 N, without structural failures when using pedicle screw constructs. In the ex-vivo studies (only cervical spines), segment C0-C2 was strongest, with decreasing strength in more distal segments. Meta-regression analysis demonstrated that ultimate force at birth is 300-350 N, which increases approximately 100 N each year until adulthood. Ex-vivo and in-silico studies showed that yielding occurs at 70-90% of ultimate force, failure starts at the junction between endplate and intervertebral disc, after which the posterior- and anterior long ligament rupture. While data on safety of distraction forces is limited, this systematic review and meta-analysis may aid in the development of guidelines on spinal distraction and may benefit the development and optimization of contemporary and future distraction-based technologies.
Topics: Adult; Biomechanical Phenomena; Cervical Vertebrae; Child; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Intervertebral Disc; Pedicle Screws; Scoliosis; Spinal Fusion
PubMed: 34174488
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2021.110571 -
The Bone & Joint Journal Aug 2018The aim of this study was to determine how the short- and medium- to long-term outcome measures after total disc replacement (TDR) compare with those of anterior... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Total disc replacement versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review with meta-analysis of data from a total of 3160 patients across 14 randomized controlled trials with both short- and medium- to long-term outcomes.
AIMS
The aim of this study was to determine how the short- and medium- to long-term outcome measures after total disc replacement (TDR) compare with those of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), using a systematic review and meta-analysis.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
Databases including Medline, Embase, and Scopus were searched. Inclusion criteria involved prospective randomized control trials (RCTs) reporting the surgical treatment of patients with symptomatic degenerative cervical disc disease. Two independent investigators extracted the data. The strength of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. The primary outcome measures were overall and neurological success, and these were included in the meta-analysis. Standardized patient-reported outcomes, including the incidence of further surgery and adjacent segment disease, were summarized and discussed.
RESULTS
A total of 22 papers published from 14 RCTs were included, representing 3160 patients with follow-up of up to ten years. Meta-analysis indicated that TDR is superior to ACDF at two years and between four and seven years. In the short-term, patients who underwent TDR had better patient-reported outcomes than those who underwent ACDF, but at two years this was typically not significant. Results between four and seven years showed significant differences in Neck Disability Index (NDI), 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) physical component scores, dysphagia, and satisfaction, all favouring TDR. Most trials found significantly less adjacent segment disease after TDR at both two years (short-term) and between four and seven years (medium- to long-term).
CONCLUSION
TDR is as effective as ACDF and superior for some outcomes. Disc replacement reduces the risk of adjacent segment disease. Continued uncertainty remains about degeneration of the prosthesis. Long-term surveillance of patients who undergo TDR may allow its routine use. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:991-1001.
Topics: Cervical Vertebrae; Diskectomy; Humans; Intervertebral Disc Degeneration; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Range of Motion, Articular; Spinal Fusion; Total Disc Replacement; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30062947
DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.100B8.BJJ-2018-0120.R1 -
The Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery Jun 2022This study compares the outcomes of patients undergoing total ankle arthroplasty (TAA) and tibiotalar fusion (ankle arthrodesis) in patients with end-stage... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This study compares the outcomes of patients undergoing total ankle arthroplasty (TAA) and tibiotalar fusion (ankle arthrodesis) in patients with end-stage osteoarthritis. The primary outcome assessed was Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMS); secondary outcomes included the incidence of revision, re-operation, and complications.
METHODS
A systematic review of studies examining the outcomes of patients undergoing TAA and/or tibiotalar fusion from 2006 to 2020 was conducted. Individual cohort studies and randomized control trials were included. Outcomes were assessed at two and five years.
RESULTS
21 studies were included: 16 arthroplasty (2,016 patients) and 5 arthrodesis (256 patients) studies. No significant difference in PROMS was evident two years post-surgery - American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) scores were 78.8 (95% CI-confidence interval: 76.6-80.8; n=1548) and 80.8 (95% CI: 80.1-81.5; n=206 patients) for the arthroplasty and arthrodesis groups respectively. Two years post-surgery the revision rates for the arthroplasty and arthrodesis groups were similar - 3.5% (n=9) and 3.7% (n=61) respectively (OR-odds ratio: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.51-2.13); however, the re-operation rate was 2.5 times higher for the arthroplasty group (12.2%) in comparison to the arthrodesis group (5.1%) (OR: 2.57; 95% CI: 1.43-4.62). Documented complications in the arthroplasty group were half those documented in the arthrodesis group two years post-surgery (OR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.37-0.77). No arthrodesis studies were found which contained mean 5-year follow-up data within the study period.
CONCLUSION
Despite recent developments in TAA design, we found no clear evidence as to their superiority over ankle arthrodesis when considering patient outcomes two years postoperatively. However, this conclusion could be debatable in some types of patients such as diabetic patients, posttraumatic patients and patients with stiff hindfoot and midfoot.
PubMed: 35928907
DOI: 10.22038/ABJS.2021.55790.2778 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2015Surgery is used to treat persistent pain and dysfunction at the base of the thumb when conservative management, such as splinting, or medical management, such as oral... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Surgery is used to treat persistent pain and dysfunction at the base of the thumb when conservative management, such as splinting, or medical management, such as oral analgesics, is no longer adequate in reducing disability and pain. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2005.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of different surgical techniques for trapeziometacarpal (thumb) osteoarthritis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following sources up to 08 August 2013: CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 8), MEDLINE (1950 to August 2013), EMBASE (1974 to August 2013), CINAHL (1982 to August 2013), Clinicaltrials.gov (to August 2013) and World Health Organization (WHO) Clinical Trials Portal (to August 2013).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs where the intervention was surgery for people with thumb osteoarthritis. Outcomes were pain, physical function, quality of life, patient global assessment, adverse events, treatment failure or trapeziometacarpal joint imaging. We excluded trials that compared non-surgical interventions with surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by the Cochrane Collaboration. Two review authors independently screened and included studies according to the inclusion criteria, assessed the risk of bias and extracted data, including adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 11 studies with 670 participants. Seven surgical procedures were identified (trapeziectomy with ligament reconstruction and tendon interposition (LRTI), trapeziectomy, trapeziectomy with ligament reconstruction, trapeziectomy with interpositional arthroplasty (IA), Artelon joint resurfacing, arthrodesis and Swanson joint replacement).Most included studies had an unclear risk of most biases which raises doubt about the results. No procedure demonstrated any superiority over another in terms of pain, physical function, quality of life, patient global assessment, adverse events, treatment failure (re-operation) or trapeziometacarpal joint imaging. One study demonstrated a difference in adverse events (mild-moderate swelling) between Artelon joint replacement and trapeziectomy with tendon interposition. However, the quality of evidence was very low due to a high risk of bias and imprecision of results.Low quality evidence suggests trapeziectomy with LRTI may not provide additional benefits or result in more adverse events over trapeziectomy alone. Mean pain (three studies, 162 participants) was 26 mm on a 0 to 100 mm VAS (0 is no pain) for trapeziectomy alone, trapeziectomy with LRTI reduced pain by a mean of 2.8 mm (95% confidence interval (CI) -9.8 to 4.2) or an absolute reduction of 3% (-10% to 4%). Mean physical function (three studies, 211 participants) was 31.1 points on a 0 to 100 point scale (0 is best physical function, or no disability) with trapeziectomy alone, trapeziectomy with LRTI resulted in sightly lower function scores (standardised mean difference 0.1, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.32), an equivalent to a worsening of 0.2 points (95% CI -5.8 to 6.1) on a 0 to 100 point scale (absolute decrease in function 0.03% (-0.83% to 0.88%)). Low quality evidence from four studies (328 participants) indicates that the mean number of adverse events was 10 per 100 participants for trapeziectomy alone, and 19 events per 100 participants for trapeziectomy with LRTI (RR 1.89, 95% CI 0.96 to 3.73) or an absolute risk increase of 9% (95% CI 0% to 28%). Low quality evidence from one study (42 participants) indicates that the mean scapho-metacarpal distance was 2.3 mm for the trapeziectomy alone group, trapeziectomy with LRTI resulted in a mean of 0.1 mm less distance (95% CI -0.81 to 0.61). None of the included trials reported global assessment, quality of life, and revision or re-operation rates.Low-quality evidence from two small studies (51 participants) indicated that trapeziectomy with LRTI may not improve function or slow joint degeneration, or produce additional adverse events over trapeziectomy and ligament reconstruction.We are uncertain of the benefits or harms of other surgical techniques due to the mostly low quality evidence from single studies and the low reporting rates of key outcomes. There was insufficient evidence to assess if trapeziectomy with LRTI had additional benefit over arthrodesis or trapeziectomy with IA. There was also insufficient evidence to assess if trapeziectomy with IA had any additional benefit over the Artelon joint implant, the Swanson joint replacement or trapeziectomy alone.We did not find any studies that compared any other combination of the other techniques mentioned above or any other techniques including a sham procedure.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We did not identify any studies that compared surgery to sham surgery and we excluded studies that compared surgery to non-operative treatments. We were unable to demonstrate that any technique confers a benefit over another technique in terms of pain and physical function. Furthermore, the included studies were not of high enough quality to provide conclusive evidence that the compared techniques provided equivalent outcomes.
Topics: Hand Joints; Humans; Metacarpus; Osteoarthritis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Range of Motion, Articular; Recovery of Function; Thumb; Trapezium Bone
PubMed: 25702783
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004631.pub4 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Dec 2023Periprosthetic infection (PJI) after TAR is a serious complication, often requiring further surgery, including revision arthroplasty, conversion to ankle arthrodesis, or... (Review)
Review
Periprosthetic infection (PJI) after TAR is a serious complication, often requiring further surgery, including revision arthroplasty, conversion to ankle arthrodesis, or even amputation. This systematic review aims to summarize the current evidence on the management of TAR PJI and provide a comprehensive overview of this topic, especially from an epidemiologic point of view. Three different databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science) were searched for relevant articles, and further references were obtained by cross-referencing. Seventy-one studies met the inclusion criteria, reporting on cases of TAR PJI. A total of 298 PJIs were retrieved. The mean incidence of PJI was 3.8% (range 0.2-26.1%). Furthermore, 53 (17.8%) were acute PJIs, whereas most of them (156, 52.3%) were late PJIs. Most of the studies were heterogeneous regarding the treatment protocols used, with a two-stage approach performed in most of the cases (107, 35.9%). While the prevalence of ankle PJI remains low, it is potentially one of the most devastating complications of TAR. This review highlights the lack of strong literature regarding TAR infections, thus highlighting a need for multicentric studies with homogeneous data regarding the treatment of ankle PJI to better understand outcomes.
PubMed: 38137779
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12247711 -
European Spine Journal : Official... Feb 2014At present, most spinal surgeons undertake pedicle screw implantation using either anatomical landmarks or C-arm fluoroscopy. Reported rates of screw malposition using... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
At present, most spinal surgeons undertake pedicle screw implantation using either anatomical landmarks or C-arm fluoroscopy. Reported rates of screw malposition using these techniques vary considerably, though the evidence generally favors the use of image-guidance systems. A miniature spine-mounted robot has recently been developed to further improve the accuracy of pedicle screw placement. In this systematic review, we critically appraise the perceived benefits of robot-assisted pedicle screw placement compared to conventional fluoroscopy-guided technique.
METHODS
The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, and EMBASE databases were searched between January 2006 and January 2013 to identify relevant publications that (1) featured placement of pedicle screws, (2) compared robot-assisted and fluoroscopy-guided surgery, (3) assessed outcome in terms of pedicle screw position, and (4) present sufficient data in each arm to enable meaningful comparison (>10 pedicle screws in each study group).
RESULTS
A total of 246 articles were retrieved, of which 5 articles met inclusion criteria, collectively reporting placement of 1,308 pedicle screws (729 robot-assisted, 579 fluoroscopy-guided). The findings of these studies are mixed, with limited higher level of evidence data favoring fluoroscopy-guided procedures, and remaining comparative studies supporting robot-assisted pedicle screw placement.
CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence to unequivocally recommend one surgical technique over the other. Given the high cost of robotic systems, and the high risk of spinal surgery, further high quality studies are required to address unresolved clinical equipoise in this field.
Topics: Fluoroscopy; Humans; Pedicle Screws; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Spinal Fusion
PubMed: 23801017
DOI: 10.1007/s00586-013-2879-1 -
Foot & Ankle Orthopaedics Apr 2024Tibiocalcaneal arthrodesis (TCA) can be achieved by internal fixation (intramedullary nail or plate), external fixation, or a combination. Evidence for the optimal...
BACKGROUND
Tibiocalcaneal arthrodesis (TCA) can be achieved by internal fixation (intramedullary nail or plate), external fixation, or a combination. Evidence for the optimal approach is limited. This systematic review examines the outcomes of these different approaches to guide surgical management.
METHODS
A MEDLINE and Oxford SOLO search was performed using "tibiocalcaneal," "ankle," "fusion OR arthrodesis." The primary outcome was union. Secondary outcomes included rates of postoperative complications, weightbearing status, rates of revision surgery, and PROMs. We included any studies with follow-up greater than 6 months that contained our primary outcome and at least 1 secondary outcome.
RESULTS
The initial search yielded 164 articles, of which 9 studies totaling 53 cases met the criteria. The majority of articles were excluded because they were nonsurgical studies, or were not about isolated TCA but were for tibiotalocalcaneal arthrodesis, more complex reconstructions (eg, Charcot), case reports, and/or did not include the predetermined outcome measures.TCA union rate was 86.2% following external fixation, 82.4% for intramedullary nail fixation, and 83.3% for plate fixation. One patient underwent a hybrid of external and internal fixation, and the outcome was nonunion. The rate of complications following TCA was 69.8%.
CONCLUSION
There is limited evidence on the best operative approach for isolated tibiocalcaneal arthrodesis. Both external and internal fixation methods had comparable union rates. External fixation had frequent complications and a more challenging postoperative protocol. Novel techniques such as 3D-printed cages and talus replacement may become a promising alternative but require further investigation.
PubMed: 38726323
DOI: 10.1177/24730114241247547 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2005Surgical investigations and interventions account for large health care utilisation and costs, but the scientific evidence for most procedures is still limited. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Surgical investigations and interventions account for large health care utilisation and costs, but the scientific evidence for most procedures is still limited.
OBJECTIVES
Degenerative conditions affecting the lumbar spine are variously described as lumbar spondylosis or degenerative disc disease (which we regarded as one entity) and may be associated with back pain and associated leg symptoms, instability, spinal stenosis and/or degenerative spondylolisthesis. The objective of this review was to assess current scientific evidence on the effectiveness of surgical interventions for degenerative lumbar spondylosis.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PubMed, Spine and ISSLS abstracts, with citation tracking from the retrieved articles. We also corresponded with experts. All data found up to 31 March 2005 are included.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised (RCTs) or quasi-randomised trials of surgical treatment of lumbar spondylosis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors assessed trial quality and extracted data from published papers. Additional information was sought from the authors if necessary.
MAIN RESULTS
Thirty-one published RCTs of all forms of surgical treatment for degenerative lumbar spondylosis were identified. The trials varied in quality: only the more recent trials used appropriate methods of randomization, blinding and independent assessment of outcome. Most of the earlier published results were of technical surgical outcomes with some crude ratings of clinical outcome. More of the recent trials also reported patient-centered outcomes of pain or disability, but there is still very little information on occupational outcomes. There was a particular lack of long term outcomes beyond two to three years. Seven heterogeneous trials on spondylolisthesis, spinal stenosis and nerve compression permitted limited conclusions. Two new trials on the effectiveness of fusion showed conflicting results. One showed that fusion gave better clinical outcomes than conventional physiotherapy, while the other showed that fusion was no better than a modern exercise and rehabilitation programme. Eight trials showed that instrumented fusion produced a higher fusion rate (though that needs to be qualified by the difficulty of assessing fusion in the presence of metal-work), but any improvement in clinical outcomes is probably marginal, while there is other evidence that it may be associated with higher complication rates. Three trials with conflicting results did not permit any conclusions about the relative effectiveness of anterior, posterior or circumferential fusion. Preliminary results of two small trials of intra-discal electrotherapy showed conflicting results. Preliminary data from three trials of disc arthroplasty did not permit any firm conclusions.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Limited evidence is now available to support some aspects of surgical practice. Surgeons should be encouraged to perform further RCTs in this field.
Topics: Decompression, Surgical; Humans; Laminectomy; Lumbar Vertebrae; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Spinal Diseases; Spinal Fusion; Spinal Osteophytosis; Spinal Stenosis; Spondylolisthesis
PubMed: 16235281
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001352.pub3