-
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jun 2011Herniated lumbar disc is a displacement of disc material (nucleus pulposus or annulus fibrosis) beyond the intervertebral disc space. The highest prevalence is among... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Herniated lumbar disc is a displacement of disc material (nucleus pulposus or annulus fibrosis) beyond the intervertebral disc space. The highest prevalence is among people aged 30 to 50 years, with a male to female ratio of 2:1. There is little evidence to suggest that drug treatments are effective in treating herniated disc.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of drug treatments, non-drug treatments, and surgery for herniated lumbar disc? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to June 2010 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 37 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: acupuncture, advice to stay active, analgesics, antidepressants, bed rest, corticosteroids (epidural injections), cytokine inhibitors (infliximab), discectomy (automated percutaneous, laser, microdiscectomy, standard), exercise therapy, heat, ice, massage, muscle relaxants, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), percutaneous disc decompression, spinal manipulation, and traction.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Diskectomy; Humans; Injections, Epidural; Intervertebral Disc Displacement; Manipulation, Spinal; Traction
PubMed: 21711958
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Mar 2009Herniated lumbar disc is a displacement of disc material (nucleus pulposus or annulus fibrosis) beyond the intervertebral disc space. The highest prevalence is among... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Herniated lumbar disc is a displacement of disc material (nucleus pulposus or annulus fibrosis) beyond the intervertebral disc space. The highest prevalence is among people aged 30-50 years, with a male to female ratio of 2:1. There is little evidence to suggest that drug treatments are effective in treating herniated disc.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of drug treatments, non-drug treatments, and surgery for herniated lumbar disc? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to July 2008 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 49 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: acupuncture, advice to stay active, analgesics, antidepressants, bed rest, corticosteroids (epidural injections), cytokine inhibitors (infliximab), discectomy (automated percutaneous, laser, microdisectomy, standard), exercise therapy, heat, ice, massage, muscle relaxants, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), percutaneous disc decompression, spinal manipulation, and traction.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Diskectomy; Humans; Intervertebral Disc Displacement; Manipulation, Spinal; Sciatica; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 19445754
DOI: No ID Found -
Acta Ortopedica Mexicana 2014Various programs and interventions are available for the rehabilitation of patients who have undergone surgery for symptomatic lumbar disc herniation (LDH). Our aim is... (Review)
Review
UNLABELLED
Various programs and interventions are available for the rehabilitation of patients who have undergone surgery for symptomatic lumbar disc herniation (LDH). Our aim is to determine the value of the different rehabilitation interventions included in the postoperative treatment of patients with symptomatic LDH.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Systematic review. Search in electronic data bases--from January 2000 to October 2012. Two independent reviewers certified in the use of the PEDro (Physiotherapy Evidence Data Base) scale assessed the clinical trials included in the final version; only those with high methodological quality were included. A third reviewer acted as arbitrator in case of discrepancy between reviewers. The reviewers were blinded to the authors, institutions and journals to increase the precision of their ratings and the inter-reviewer validity.
RESULTS
Fifteen clinical trials were reviewed by the reviewers; 8 (53.3%) were considered as having a high methodological quality (average of 7.7/10). Were randomized 1099 participants to different treatment groups. It was not possible to conduct a meta-analysis with the clinical trial data due to the multiple interventions and outcome measures used.
CONCLUSIONS
An immediate rehabilitation program is recommended in patients undergoing microiskectomy for the first time. Cognitive intervention with positive reinforcement together with exercise is an effective treatment. It is even considered as an alternative to vertebral fusion in patients who underwent LDH surgery with symptom recurrence after the first surgery. The results of early postoperative activity are usually excellent and involve no complications. The number and the methodological quality of the clinical trials on this topic need to be increased to justify the usefulness of these interventions in the daily clinical practice.
Topics: Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Diskectomy; Exercise Therapy; Humans; Intervertebral Disc Displacement; Lumbar Vertebrae; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Physical Therapy Modalities; Postoperative Period; Time Factors
PubMed: 26040154
DOI: No ID Found -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2014Several rehabilitation programmes are available for individuals after lumbar disc surgery. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Several rehabilitation programmes are available for individuals after lumbar disc surgery.
OBJECTIVES
To determine whether active rehabilitation after lumbar disc surgery is more effective than no treatment, and to describe which type of active rehabilitation is most effective. This is the second update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2002.First, we clustered treatments according to the start of treatment.1. Active rehabilitation that starts immediately postsurgery.2. Active rehabilitation that starts four to six weeks postsurgery.3. Active rehabilitation that starts longer than 12 months postsurgery.For every cluster, the following comparisons were investigated.A. Active rehabilitation versus no treatment, placebo or waiting list control.B. Active rehabilitation versus other kinds of active rehabilitation.C. Specific intervention in addition to active rehabilitation versus active rehabilitation alone.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (2013, Issue 4) and MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro and PsycINFO to May 2013.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Pairs of review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility and risk of bias. Meta-analyses were performed if studies were clinically homogeneous. The GRADE approach was used to determine the overall quality of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
In this update, we identified eight new studies, thereby including a total of 22 trials (2503 participants), 10 of which had a low risk of bias. Most rehabilitation programmes were assessed in only one study. Both men and women were included, and overall mean age was 41.4 years. All participants had received standard discectomy, microdiscectomy and in one study standard laminectomy and (micro)discectomy. Mean duration of the rehabilitation intervention was 12 weeks; eight studies assessed six to eight-week exercise programmes, and eight studies assessed 12 to 13-week exercise programmes. Programmes were provided in primary and secondary care facilities and were started immediately after surgery (n = 4) or four to six weeks (n = 16) or one year after surgery (n = 2). In general, the overall quality of the evidence is low to very low. Rehabilitation programmes that started immediately after surgery were not more effective than their control interventions, which included exercise. Low- to very low-quality evidence suggests that there were no differences between specific rehabilitation programmes (multidisciplinary care, behavioural graded activity, strength and stretching) that started four to six weeks postsurgery and their comparators, which included some form of exercise. Low-quality evidence shows that physiotherapy from four to six weeks postsurgery onward led to better function than no treatment or education only, and that multidisciplinary rehabilitation co-ordinated by medical advisors led to faster return to work than usual care. Statistical pooling was performed only for three comparisons in which the rehabilitation programmes started four to six weeks postsurgery: exercise programmes versus no treatment, high- versus low-intensity exercise programmes and supervised versus home exercise programmes. Very low-quality evidence (five RCTs, N = 272) shows that exercises are more effective than no treatment for pain at short-term follow-up (standard mean difference (SMD) -0.90; 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.55 to -0.24), and low-quality evidence (four RCTs, N = 252) suggests that exercises are more effective for functional status on short-term follow-up (SMD -0.67; 95% CI -1.22 to -0.12) and that no difference in functional status was noted on long-term follow-up (three RCTs, N = 226; SMD -0.22; 95% CI -0.49 to 0.04). None of these studies reported that exercise increased the reoperation rate. Very low-quality evidence (two RCTs, N = 103) shows that high-intensity exercise programmes are more effective than low-intensity exercise programmes for pain in the short term (weighted mean difference (WMD) -10.67; 95% CI -17.04 to -4.30), and low-quality evidence (two RCTs, N = 103) shows that they are more effective for functional status in the short term (SMD -0.77; 95% CI -1.17 to -0.36). Very low-quality evidence (four RCTs, N = 154) suggests no significant differences between supervised and home exercise programmes for short-term pain relief (SMD -0.76; 95% CI -2.04 to 0.53) or functional status (four RCTs, N = 154; SMD -0.36; 95% CI -0.88 to 0.15).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Considerable variation was noted in the content, duration and intensity of the rehabilitation programmes included in this review, and for none of them was high- or moderate-quality evidence identified. Exercise programmes starting four to six weeks postsurgery seem to lead to a faster decrease in pain and disability than no treatment, with small to medium effect sizes, and high-intensity exercise programmes seem to lead to a slightly faster decrease in pain and disability than is seen with low-intensity programmes, but the overall quality of the evidence is only low to very low. No significant differences were noted between supervised and home exercise programmes for pain relief, disability or global perceived effect. None of the trials reported an increase in reoperation rate after first-time lumbar surgery. High-quality randomised controlled trials are strongly needed.
Topics: Diskectomy; Exercise Therapy; Female; Humans; Intervertebral Disc; Laminectomy; Lumbar Vertebrae; Male; Postoperative Period; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recovery of Function
PubMed: 24627325
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003007.pub3 -
Medicine Feb 2019Systematic review with network meta-analysis.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review with network meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
To compare patient outcomes of lumbar discectomy with bone-anchored annular closure (LD + AC), lumbar discectomy (LD), and continuing conservative care (CC) for treatment of lumbar disc herniation refractory to initial conservative management.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA
Several treatment options are available to patients with refractory symptoms of lumbar disc herniation, but their comparative efficacy is unclear.
METHODS
A systematic review was performed to compare efficacy of LD + AC, LD, and CC for treatment of lumbar disc herniation. Outcomes included leg pain, back pain, disability (each reported on a 0-100 scale), reherniation, and reoperation. Data were analyzed using random effects network meta-analysis.
RESULTS
This review included 14 comparative studies (8 randomized) involving 3947 patients-11 studies of LD versus CC (3232 patients), 3 studies of LD + AC versus LD (715 patients), and no studies of LD + AC versus CC. LD was more effective than CC in reducing leg pain (mean difference [MD] -10, P < .001) and back pain (MD -7, P < .001). LD + AC was more effective than LD in reducing risk of reherniation (odds ratio 0.38, P < .001) and reoperation (odds ratio 0.33, P < .001). There was indirect evidence that LD + AC was more effective than CC in reducing leg pain (MD -25, P = .003), back pain (MD -20, P = .02), and disability (MD -13, P = .02) although the treatment effect was smaller in randomized trials.
CONCLUSIONS
Results of a network meta-analysis show LD is more effective than CC in alleviating symptoms of lumbar disc herniation refractory to initial conservative management. Further, LD + AC lowers risk of reherniation and reoperation versus LD and may improve patient symptoms more than CC.
Topics: Age Factors; Bone-Anchored Prosthesis; Conservative Treatment; Disability Evaluation; Diskectomy; Humans; Intervertebral Disc Displacement; Lumbar Vertebrae; Network Meta-Analysis; Pain; Reoperation; Sex Factors
PubMed: 30762743
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000014410 -
Spine Apr 2021Systematic review and meta-analysis. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
To give a systematic overview of effectiveness of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) compared with open microdiscectomy (OM) in the treatment of lumbar disk herniation (LDH).
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA
The current standard procedure for the treatment of sciatica caused by LDH, is OM. PTED is an alternative surgical technique which is thought to be less invasive. It is unclear if PTED has comparable outcomes compared with OM.
METHODS
Multiple online databases were systematically searched up to April 2020 for randomized controlled trials and prospective studies comparing PTED with OM for LDH. Primary outcomes were leg pain and functional status. Pooled effect estimates were calculated for the primary outcomes only and presented as standard mean differences (SMD) with their 95% confidence intervals (CI) at short (1-day postoperative), intermediate (3-6 months), and long-term (12 months).
RESULTS
We identified 2276 citations, of which eventually 14 studies were included. There was substantial heterogeneity in effects on leg pain at short term. There is moderate quality evidence suggesting no difference in leg pain at intermediate (SMD 0.05, 95% CI -0.10-0.21) and long-term follow-up (SMD 0.11, 95% CI -0.30-0.53). Only one study measured functional status at short-term and reported no differences. There is moderate quality evidence suggesting no difference in functional status at intermediate (SMD -0.09, 95% CI -0.24-0.07) and long-term (SMD -0.11, 95% CI -0.45-0.24).
CONCLUSION
There is moderate quality evidence suggesting no difference in leg pain or functional status at intermediate and long-term follow-up between PTED and OM in the treatment of LDH. High quality, robust studies reporting on clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness on the long term are lacking.Level of Evidence: 2.
Topics: Cost-Benefit Analysis; Diskectomy, Percutaneous; Endoscopy; Humans; Intervertebral Disc Degeneration; Intervertebral Disc Displacement; Lumbar Vertebrae; Microsurgery; Pain Measurement; Prospective Studies; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33290374
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000003843 -
Global Spine Journal Feb 2017Systematic review and meta-analysis. (Review)
Review
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
Anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion (ACDF) is an effective surgical option for patients with cervical radiculopathy, myelopathy, or deformity. Although ACDF is generally safe, dysphagia is a common complication. Despite its high incidence, prolonged postoperative dysphagia is poorly understood; its etiology remains relatively unknown, and its risk factors are widely debated.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase for studies reporting complications for cervical diskectomy with plating. We recorded dysphagia events from all included studies and calculated effect summary values, 95% confidence intervals (CIs), Q values, and values.
RESULTS
Of the 7,780 retrieved articles, 14 met inclusion criteria. The overall dysphagia rate was 8.5% (95% CI 5.7 to 11.3%). The rate of moderate or severe dysphagia was 4.4% (0.4 to 8.4%). Follow-up times of <12, 12 to 24, and >24 months reported rates of 19.9% (6.0 to 33.7%), 7.0% (5.2 to 8.7%), and 7.6% (1.4 to 13.8%), respectively. Studies utilizing the Bazaz Dysphagia Score resulted in an increase in dysphagia diagnosis relative to studies with no outlined criteria (19.8%, 5.9 to 33.7% and 6.9%, 3.7 to 10.0%, respectively), indicating that the criteria used for dysphagia identification are critical. There was no difference in dysphagia rate with the use of autograft versus allograft.
CONCLUSIONS
This review represents a comprehensive estimation of the actual incidence of dysphagia across a heterogeneous group of surgeons, patients, and criteria. The classification scheme for dysphagia varied significantly within the literature. To ensure its diagnosis and identification, we recommend the use of a standardized, well-outlined method for dysphagia diagnosis.
PubMed: 28451514
DOI: 10.1055/s-0036-1583944 -
Safety of outpatient anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European Journal of Medical Research Aug 2016Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is one of the most prevalent spine surgeries and neurosurgical procedures performed to treat a variety of disorders in the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is one of the most prevalent spine surgeries and neurosurgical procedures performed to treat a variety of disorders in the cervical spine. Over the last several years, ACDF has been done in the outpatient setting for less invasive approaches and exposures, as well as modified anesthetic and pain management techniques. Despite the fact that it may be innocuous in other parts of the body, complications in the spine can literally be fatal. The objective of this article is to evaluate the safety of outpatient surgery compared with inpatient surgery in the cervical spine for adult patients.
METHODS
The multiple databases including Pubmed, Springer, EMBASE, EBSCO and China Journal Full-text Database were adopted to search for the relevant studies in English or Chinese. Full-text articles involving to the safety of outpatient cervical spine surgery were selected. Review Manager 5.0 was adopted to estimate the effects of the results among selected articles. Forest plots, sensitivity analysis and bias analysis for the articles included were also conducted. Chi-square tests were conducted with SPSS 20.0 software.
RESULTS
Finally, 12 articles were included. The results of meta-analysis suggested that in the articles included, no death occurred, and compared with inpatient surgery, outpatient surgery has a similar risk (RR = 0.99, 95 % CI [0.98, 1.00], P = 0.02; P for heterogeneity = 0.47, I (2) = 0 %). An I (2) value of 0 % indicates no heterogeneity observed. All complications were occurred in both outpatients and inpatients. Among the studies selected, after the outpatient spine surgery, the highest incidences of complication were dysphagia (18/29) and hematoma (4/29). Compared with the overall complication rate in inpatient group, no significant difference was observed (x (2) = 1.820, P = 0.177).
CONCLUSION
In this study, outpatient surgery has a similar risk with inpatient surgery, and no difference of morbidity between outpatient and inpatient was found. Because of short operative time and moderate postoperative pain, we believe that outpatient cervical spine surgery is a safe and convenient alternative procedure, which also decrease the cost of care. Besides, postoperative complications including dysphagia and hematoma should be noticed.
Topics: Adult; Cervical Vertebrae; Deglutition Disorders; Diskectomy; Humans; Postoperative Hemorrhage; Spinal Fusion
PubMed: 27582129
DOI: 10.1186/s40001-016-0229-6 -
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and... Dec 2022Since there are currently no systematic evidence-based medical data on the efficacy and safety of PECD, this meta-analysis pooled data from studies that reported the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Since there are currently no systematic evidence-based medical data on the efficacy and safety of PECD, this meta-analysis pooled data from studies that reported the efficacy or safety of PECD for cervical disc herniation to examine the efficacy, recurrence and safety of using PECD to treat cervical disc herniation.
METHODS
We searched the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases for studies published from inception to July 2022. Nine nonrandomized controlled trials (non-RCTs) that reported the efficacy or safety of percutaneous endoscopic cervical discectomy for cervical disc herniation were included. We excluded duplicate publications, studies without full text, studies with incomplete information, studies that did not enable us to conduct data extraction, animal experiments and reviews. STATA 15.1 software was used to analyse the data.
RESULTS
The proportions of excellent and good treatment results after PECD for CDH were 39% (95% CI: 31-48%) and 47% (95% CI: 34-59%), respectively. The pooled results showed that the VAS scores at 1 week post-operatively (SMD = -2.55, 95% CI: - 3.25 to - 1.85) and at the last follow-up (SMD = - 4.30, 95% CI: - 5.61 to - 3.00) after PECD for cervical disc herniation were significantly lower than the pre-operative scores. The recurrence rate of neck pain and the incidence of adverse events after PECD for cervical disc herniation were 3% (95% CI: 1-6%) and 5% (95% CI: 2-9%), respectively. Additionally, pooled results show that the operative time (SMD = - 3.22, 95% CI: - 5.21 to - 1.43) and hospital stay (SMD = - 1.75, 95% CI: - 2.67to - 0.84) were all significantly lower for PECD than for ACDF. The pooled results also showed that the proportion of excellent treatment results was significantly higher for PECD than for ACDF (OR = 2.29, 95% CI: 1.06-4.96).
CONCLUSION
PECD has a high success rate in the treatment of CHD and can relieve neck pain, and the recurrence rate and the incidence of adverse events are low. In addition, compared with ACDF, PECD has a higher rate of excellent outcomes and a lower operative time and hospital stay. PECD may be a better option for treating CHD.
Topics: Animals; Humans; Intervertebral Disc Displacement; Neck Pain; Diskectomy, Percutaneous; Diskectomy; Endoscopy
PubMed: 36456964
DOI: 10.1186/s13018-022-03365-1 -
Pain Physician Mar 2016Traditional discectomy surgery (TDS) provides good or excellent results in clinical surgical discectomy but may induce neural adhesion, spinal structural damage,... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Traditional discectomy surgery (TDS) provides good or excellent results in clinical surgical discectomy but may induce neural adhesion, spinal structural damage, instability, and other complications. The potential advantages of full-endoscopic (FE) procedures over standard TDS include less blood loss, less postoperative pain, shorter hospitalization, and an earlier return to work. However, more evidence is needed to support this new technology in clinical applications.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the safety and efficacy of FE and TDS.
STUDY DESIGN
Comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature.
METHODS
Electronic databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, SinoMed, and Cochrane Library, were searched to identify clinical therapeutic trials comparing FE to TDS for discectomy.
RESULTS
Six trials comprising 730 patients were included, and the overall quality of the literature was moderate, including 4 Grade I levels of evidence (4 randomized controlled trials, [RCTs]) and 2 Grade II levels (2 non-RCTs). The pooled data revealed no difference in reoperation rates between FE and TDS (P = 0.94), but the complication rate was significantly lower in the FE group (3.86%) than in the TDS group (11.4%). Perioperative parameters (operation time, blood loss, hospitalization time, and return to work days) were significantly lower in the FE group (P < 0.05 for all groups using either score). Postoperative pain and neurology score assessments were conducted at 4 different time points at 3 months, 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months. Significant differences were detected in the following: lumbar North American Spine Society (NASS) pain at 6 months (P = 0.008); cervical NASS neurology at 6 months (P = 0.03); visual analog scale (VAS) score in leg at 3 months (P < 0.001); VAS score in arm at 24 months (P = 0.002); VAS score in neck at 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after therapy (P = 0.003, P = 0.004, P = 0.01); and VAS score in neck at 3 months and 6 months (P = 0.01, P = 0.004). Moreover, the pooled data revealed no statistically significant differences in improvements in the Oswestry disability index (ODI), instability (X-ray), and Hilibrand criteria (P > 0.05 for all groups).
LIMITATIONS
Only 6 studies were included, 4 of which had the same authors. Between-study heterogeneity due to differences in socioeconomic factors, nutrition, and matching criteria is difficult to avoid.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on this meta-analysis of 24 months of clinical results, we conclude that the FE procedure is as effective as TDS but has the additional benefits of lower complication rates and superior perioperative parameters. In addition, patients may experience less pain with FE techniques due to a smaller incision and less operative injury. However, large-volume, well-designed RCTs with extensive follow-up are needed to confirm and update the findings of this analysis.
Topics: Cervical Vertebrae; Clinical Trials as Topic; Diskectomy; Endoscopy; Humans; Low Back Pain; Pain, Postoperative; Reoperation
PubMed: 27008284
DOI: No ID Found