Dataset Information

Surgical versus nonsurgical treatment for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis.

ABSTRACT: Management of degenerative spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis is controversial. Surgery is widely used, but its effectiveness in comparison with that of nonsurgical treatment has not been demonstrated in controlled trials.Surgical candidates from 13 centers in 11 U.S. states who had at least 12 weeks of symptoms and image-confirmed degenerative spondylolisthesis were offered enrollment in a randomized cohort or an observational cohort. Treatment was standard decompressive laminectomy (with or without fusion) or usual nonsurgical care. The primary outcome measures were the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form General Health Survey (SF-36) bodily pain and physical function scores (100-point scales, with higher scores indicating less severe symptoms) and the modified Oswestry Disability Index (100-point scale, with lower scores indicating less severe symptoms) at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years.We enrolled 304 patients in the randomized cohort and 303 in the observational cohort. The baseline characteristics of the two cohorts were similar. The one-year crossover rates were high in the randomized cohort (approximately 40% in each direction) but moderate in the observational cohort (17% crossover to surgery and 3% crossover to nonsurgical care). The intention-to-treat analysis for the randomized cohort showed no statistically significant effects for the primary outcomes. The as-treated analysis for both cohorts combined showed a significant advantage for surgery at 3 months that increased at 1 year and diminished only slightly at 2 years. The treatment effects at 2 years were 18.1 for bodily pain (95% confidence interval [CI], 14.5 to 21.7), 18.3 for physical function (95% CI, 14.6 to 21.9), and -16.7 for the Oswestry Disability Index (95% CI, -19.5 to -13.9). There was little evidence of harm from either treatment.In nonrandomized as-treated comparisons with careful control for potentially confounding baseline factors, patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal stenosis treated surgically showed substantially greater improvement in pain and function during a period of 2 years than patients treated nonsurgically. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00000409 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).

SUBMITTER: Weinstein JN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2553804 | biostudies-literature | 2007 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Surgical versus nonsurgical treatment for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis.

Weinstein James N JN Lurie Jon D JD Tosteson Tor D TD Hanscom Brett B Tosteson Anna N A AN Blood Emily A EA Birkmeyer Nancy J O NJ Hilibrand Alan S AS Herkowitz Harry H Cammisa Frank P FP Albert Todd J TJ Emery Sanford E SE Lenke Lawrence G LG Abdu William A WA Longley Michael M Errico Thomas J TJ Hu Serena S SS

The New England journal of medicine 20070501 22

<h4>Background</h4>Management of degenerative spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis is controversial. Surgery is widely used, but its effectiveness in comparison with that of nonsurgical treatment has not been demonstrated in controlled trials.<h4>Methods</h4>Surgical candidates from 13 centers in 11 U.S. states who had at least 12 weeks of symptoms and image-confirmed degenerative spondylolisthesis were offered enrollment in a randomized cohort or an observational cohort. Treatment was standar ...[more]

PMID: 17538085

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPedicle screw invasion of the proximal articular process will cause local articular process degeneration and acceleration, which is an important factor affecting adjacent segment degeneration. Although lumbar spondylolisthesis is a risk factor for screw invasion of the proximal joint, there is no clear conclusion regarding the two different types of spondylolisthesis. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to explore the influence of pedicle screw placement on proximal facet invasion in the treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis and isthmic spondylolisthesis.MethodsIn total, 468 cases of lumbar spondylolisthesis treated by decompression and fusion in our hospital from January 2017 to January 2020 were included in this retrospective study. Among them, 238 cases were degenerative spondylolisthesis (group A), and 230 cases were isthmic spondylolisthesis (group B). Sex, age, body mass index, bone mineral density, preoperative visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, postoperative VAS and ODI scores at 1 month and 3 months, and angle of the proximal facet joint at the last follow-up were recorded and compared between the two groups. The degree of pedicle screw invasion of the proximal facet joint was graded and compared by the SEO grading method.ResultsThere were no significant differences in sex, age, body mass index, bone mineral density, preoperative VAS and ODI scores, or proximal facet joint angle between the two groups (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference in VAS and ODI scores between the two groups at 1 month and 3 months after the operation (P > 0.05). The VAS score of group A at the last follow-up was 1 (1,2). The VAS score of group B at the last follow-up was 3 (1,3). The ODI score of group A at the last follow-up was 6(4,26). The ODI score of group B at the last follow-up was 15(8,36). The VAS and ODI scores of the two groups at the last follow-up were significantly different (P < 0.05). According to the SEO grading method, the invasion of the proximal articular process by pedicle screw placement in group A involved 320 cases in grade 0, 128 cases in grade I and 28 cases in grade II. In group B, there were 116 cases in grade 0, 248 cases in grade I and 96 cases in grade II, with a significant difference (P < 0.01).ConclusionIn summary, a certain number of cases involving screws invading the proximal facet joint occurred in the two different types of lumbar spondylolisthesis, but the number in the isthmic spondylolisthesis group was significantly higher than that in the degenerative spondylolisthesis group, which caused more trauma to the proximal facet joint and significantly affected the patient prognosis.

Project description:BackgroundDebate regarding effectiveness of surgical modalities contributes to a lack of consensus of decision making for surgical interventions. Furthermore, data regarding cost effectiveness, surgical operative time, resources, patient hospital stay and recovery is limited, particularly in the medium term for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. The objective was to compare clinical outcomes following different fixation interventions treating degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.MethodsA retrospective cohort study using the British Spine Registry (BSR) of 1,838 patients aged ≥18 years. Five hundred and five patients undergoing posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and 1,333 undergoing transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) with 6 months follow-up, were compared. Demographics, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) [back and leg], quality of life, complications and cost effectiveness were analysed.ResultsNRS (back and leg) demonstrated a statistically significant difference favouring TLIF at 6 months (P=0.04) and (P<0.05) respectively. There was no difference in ODI improvement at 6 months between PLIF and TLIF (P=0.620), but there was a statistically significant difference in ODI scores preoperatively between PLIF and TLIF (P<0.001). EQ-5D-5L-Health VAS (P=0.136) and EQ-5D-5L (P=0.655) did not show a statistically significant difference in improvement between PLIF and TLIF. Dural tear was the most common complication and was higher in the PLIF group (5.7%) but not statistically significant. Estimated blood loss was greater for PLIF (P=0.041). Implant cost (P<0.001) was higher for TLIF whereas theatre time was higher for PLIF (P=0.031).ConclusionsBoth PLIF and TLIF result in clinically significant improvements in ODI, NRS back pain and NRS leg pain, with superiority of TLIF for improvements in back and leg pain. Surgeons appeared to use ODI preoperatively to decide intervention with comparable improvements for both approaches. Average theatre time and blood loss volume was higher for PLIF. Factors like implant costs and costs of consumables were higher for TLIF. Costs merit further evaluation.

Project description:BackgroundClinically, there are substantive practice variations in surgical management of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. We aimed at evaluating whether decompression alone outcomes for patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis are comparable to those of decompression with fusion.MethodsIn this meta-analysis, the Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to February 16th, 2022. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies comparing decompression alone with decompression and fusion for patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis were included in this study. There were no language limitations. Odds ratio (OR), mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to report results in the random-effects model. Main outcomes included Oswestry disability index (ODI), pain, clinical satisfaction, complication and reoperation rates. The study protocol was published in PROSPERO (CRD42022310645).FindingsThirty-three studies (6 RCTs and 27 cohort studies) involving 94 953 participants were included. Differences in post-operative ODI between decompression alone and decompression with fusion were not significant. A small difference for back (MD, 0.13; [95% CI, 0.08 to 0.18]; I 2:0.00%) and leg pain (MD, 0.30; [95% CI, 0.09 to 0.51]; I 2:48.35%) was observed on the 3rd post-operative month. The results did not reveal significant differences in leg pain and back pain between decompression alone and fusion groups on the 6th, 12th, and 24th post-operative months. Difference in clinical satisfaction between decompression alone and decompression with fusion were not significant from RCTs (OR, 0.26; [95% CI, 0.03 to 1.92]; I 2:83.27%). Complications (OR, 1.54; [95% CI, 1.16 to 2.05]; I 2:48.88%), operation time (MD, 83.39; [95% CI, 55.93 to 110.85]; I 2:98.75%), intra-operative blood loss (MD, 264.58; [95% CI, 174.99 to 354.16]; I 2:95.61%) and length of hospital stay (MD, 2.85; [95% CI, 1.60 to 4.10]; I 2:99.49%) were higher with fusion.InterpretationClinical effectiveness of decompression alone was comparable to that of decompression with fusion for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Decompression alone is recommended for patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.FundingThis work was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81871818), Tangdu Hospital Seed Talent Program (Fei-Long Wei), Natural Science Basic Research Plan in Shaanxi Province of China (No.2019JM-265) and Social Talent Fund of Tangdu Hospital (No.2021SHRC034).

Project description:BackgroundInferior clinical outcomes have been reported in patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) accompanied by lumbar degenerative scoliosis, but little attention has been paid to its radiologic assessment or preoperative planning. The aim of this study was to analyze the effect of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion on patients with DLS and lumbar degenerative scoliosis and explore the surgical aspects benefiting the restoration of lumbar degenerative scoliosis.MethodsAll patients with DLS and lumbar degenerative scoliosis undergoing single-level unilateral transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion surgery between July 1, 2015, and April 30, 2021, were screened in this retrospective cohort study. Clinical outcomes including visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), and radiographic parameters of sagittal and coronal alignment, cage spatial locations, and angle of pedicle screw (parallel, cranial, and caudad angle) were assessed. Coronal asymmetry was demonstrated by the intervertebral height difference between the medial and lateral margins of indexed intersegmental space. The correlations between Δintervertebral height difference (postoperative intervertebral height difference-preoperative intervertebral height difference) and radiographic parameters and clinical outcomes were analyzed by univariable, multivariable, mediation, and correlation analyses. Significance was set at a bilateral P<0.05.ResultsA total of 57 included patients were followed up for a minimum of 1 year. Reduction of VAS, ODI, and improvement of radiographic parameters were found after surgery. The cranial angle of the lower pedicle screw positively correlated with Δintervertebral height difference restoration (b=0.54; standard error=0.11; P<0.001).ConclusionsTransforaminal lumbar interbody fusion surgery appears to be an effective approach to improving the radiographic and clinical outcomes of patients with DLS and lumbar degenerative scoliosis. The cranial direction of the lower pedicle screws in single-level unilateral transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion surgery may be associated with a better postoperative restoration of lumbar degenerative scoliosis.

Project description:BackgroundThe management of degenerative spondylolisthesis associated with spinal stenosis remains controversial. Surgery is widely used and has recently been shown to be more effective than nonoperative treatment when the results were followed over two years. Questions remain regarding the long-term effects of surgical treatment compared with those of nonoperative treatment.MethodsSurgical candidates from thirteen centers with symptoms of at least twelve weeks' duration as well as confirmatory imaging showing degenerative spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis were offered enrollment in a randomized cohort or observational cohort. Treatment consisted of standard decompressive laminectomy (with or without fusion) or usual nonoperative care. Primary outcome measures were the Short Form-36 (SF-36) bodily pain and physical function scores and the modified Oswestry Disability Index at six weeks, three months, six months, and yearly up to four years.ResultsIn the randomized cohort (304 patients enrolled), 66% of those randomized to receive surgery received it by four years whereas 54% of those randomized to receive nonoperative care received surgery by four years. In the observational cohort (303 patients enrolled), 97% of those who chose surgery received it whereas 33% of those who chose nonoperative care eventually received surgery. The intent-to-treat analysis of the randomized cohort, which was limited by nonadherence to the assigned treatment, showed no significant differences in treatment outcomes between the operative and nonoperative groups at three or four years. An as-treated analysis combining the randomized and observational cohorts that adjusted for potential confounders demonstrated that the clinically relevant advantages of surgery that had been previously reported through two years were maintained at four years, with treatment effects of 15.3 (95% confidence interval, 11 to 19.7) for bodily pain, 18.9 (95% confidence interval, 14.8 to 23) for physical function, and -14.3 (95% confidence interval, -17.5 to -11.1) for the Oswestry Disability Index. Early advantages (at two years) of surgical treatment in terms of the secondary measures of bothersomeness of back and leg symptoms, overall satisfaction with current symptoms, and self-rated progress were also maintained at four years.ConclusionsCompared with patients who are treated nonoperatively, patients in whom degenerative spondylolisthesis and associated spinal stenosis are treated surgically maintain substantially greater pain relief and improvement in function for four years.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the efficacy of adding instrumented spinal fusion to decompression to treat degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS).DesignSystematic review with meta-analysis.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Scopus, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from inception to May 2022.Eligibility criteria for study selectionRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing decompression with instrumented fusion to decompression alone in patients with DS. Two reviewers independently screened the studies, assessed the risk of bias and extracted data. We provide the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation assessment of the certainty of evidence (COE).ResultsWe identified 4514 records and included four trials with 523 participants. At a 2-year follow-up, adding fusion to decompression likely results in trivial difference in the Oswestry Disability Index (range 0-100, with higher values indicating greater impairment) with mean difference (MD) 0.86 (95% CI -4.53 to 6.26; moderate COE). Similar results were observed for back and leg pain measured on a scale of 0 to 100, with higher values indicating more severe pain. There was a slightly increased improvement in back pain (2-year follow-up) in the group without fusion shown by MD -5·92 points (95% CI -11.00 to -0.84; moderate COE). There was a trivial difference in leg pain between the groups, slightly favouring the one without fusion, with MD -1.25 points (95% CI -6.71 to 4.21; moderate COE). Our findings at 2-year follow-up suggest that omitting fusion may increase the reoperation rate slightly (OR 1.23; 0.70 to 2.17; low COE).ConclusionsEvidence suggests no benefits of adding instrumented fusion to decompression for treating DS. Isolated decompression seems sufficient for most patients. Further RCTs assessing spondylolisthesis stability are needed to determine which patients would benefit from fusion.Prospero registration numberCRD42022308267.

Dataset Information

Surgical versus nonsurgical treatment for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis.

Publications

Surgical versus nonsurgical treatment for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets