Dataset Information

Surgery with disc prosthesis versus rehabilitation in patients with low back pain and degenerative disc: two year follow-up of randomised study.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To compare the efficacy of surgery with disc prosthesis versus non-surgical treatment for patients with chronic low back pain.

Design

A prospective randomised multicentre study.

Setting

Five university hospitals in Norway.

Participants

173 patients with a history of low back pain for at least one year, Oswestry disability index of at least 30 points, and degenerative changes in one or two lower lumbar spine levels (86 patients randomised to surgery). Patients were treated from April 2004 to September 2007.

Interventions

Surgery with disc prosthesis or outpatient multidisciplinary rehabilitation for 12-15 days.

Main outcome measures

The primary outcome measure was the score on the Oswestry disability index after two years. Secondary outcome measures were low back pain, satisfaction with life (SF-36 and EuroQol EQ-5D), Hopkins symptom check list (HSCL-25), fear avoidance beliefs (FABQ), self efficacy beliefs for pain, work status, and patients' satisfaction and drug use. A blinded independent observer evaluated scores on the back performance scale and Prolo scale at two year follow-up.

Results

The study was powered to detect a difference of 10 points on the Oswestry disability index between the groups at two years. At two years there was a mean difference of -8.4 points (95% confidence interval -13.2 to -3.6) in favour of surgery. In the analysis of prespecified secondary outcomes, there were significant differences in favour of surgery for low back pain (mean difference -12.2, -21.3 to -3.1), patients' satisfaction (63% (n = 46) v 39% (n = 26)), SF-36 physical component score (mean difference 5.8, 2.5 to 9.1), self efficacy for pain (mean difference 1.0, 0.2 to 1.9), and the Prolo scale (mean difference 0.9, 0.1 to 1.6). There were no significant differences in return to work, SF-36 mental component score, EQ-5D, fear avoidance beliefs, Hopkins symptom check list, drug use, and the back performance scale. One serious complication of leg amputation occurred during surgical revision of a polyethylene dislodgement. The drop-out rate was 20% (34) and the crossover rate was 6% (5).

Conclusions

Surgical intervention with disc prosthesis for chronic low back pain resulted in a significantly greater improvement in the Oswestry score compared with rehabilitation, but this improvement did not clearly exceed the prespecified minimally important clinical difference between groups of 10 points, and the data are consistent with a wide range of differences between the groups, including values well below 10 points. The potential risks of surgery and the substantial amount of improvement experienced by a sizeable proportion of the rehabilitation group also have to be incorporated into overall decision making. Trial registration NCT 00394732.

SUBMITTER: Hellum C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3100911 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe cervical total disc replacement (cTDR) was developed to treat cervical degenerative disc disease while preserving motion.ObjectiveCost-effectiveness of this intervention was established by looking at 2-year follow-up, and this update reevaluates our analysis over 5 years.MethodsData were derived from a randomized trial of 330 patients. Data from the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey were transformed into utilities by using the SF-6D algorithm. Costs were calculated by extracting diagnosis-related group codes and then applying 2014 Medicare reimbursement rates. A Markov model evaluated quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for both treatment groups. Univariate and multivariate sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the stability of the model. The model adopted both societal and health system perspectives and applied a 3% annual discount rate.ResultsThe cTDR costs $1687 more than anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) over 5 years. In contrast, cTDR had $34?377 less productivity loss compared with ACDF. There was a significant difference in the return-to-work rate (81.6% compared with 65.4% for cTDR and ACDF, respectively; P = .029). From a societal perspective, the incremental cost-effective ratio (ICER) for cTDR was -$165?103 per QALY. From a health system perspective, the ICER for cTDR was $8518 per QALY. In the sensitivity analysis, the ICER for cTDR remained below the US willingness-to-pay threshold of $50?000 per QALY in all scenarios (-$225?816 per QALY to $22?071 per QALY).ConclusionThis study is the first to report the comparative cost-effectiveness of cTDR vs ACDF for 2-level degenerative disc disease at 5 years. The authors conclude that, because of the negative ICER, cTDR is the dominant modality.AbbreviationsACDF, anterior cervical discectomy and fusionAWP, average wholesale priceCE, cost-effectivenessCEA, cost-effectiveness analysisCPT, Current Procedural TerminologycTDR, cervical total disc replacementCUA, cost-utility analysisDDD, degenerative disc diseaseDRG, diagnosis-related groupFDA, US Food and Drug AdministrationICER, incremental cost-effectiveness ratioIDE, Investigational Device ExemptionNDI, neck disability indexQALY, quality-adjusted life yearsRCT, randomized controlled trialRTW, return-to-workSF-12, 12-Item Short Form Health SurveyVAS, visual analog scaleWTP, willingness-to-pay.

Project description:PurposesTo evaluate the usefulness of our original five questions in a medical interview for diagnosing discogenic low back pain (LBP), and to establish a support tool for diagnosing discogenic LBP.Materials and methodsThe degenerative disc disease (DDD) group (n = 42) comprised patients diagnosed with discogenic LBP associated with DDD, on the basis of magnetic resonance imaging findings and response to analgesic discography (discoblock). The control group (n = 30) comprised patients with LBP due to a reason other than DDD. We selected patients from those who had been diagnosed with lumbar spinal stenosis and had undergone decompression surgery without fusion. Of them, those whose postoperative LBP was significantly decreased were included in the control group. We asked patients in both groups whether they experienced LBP after sitting too long, while standing after sitting too long, squirming in a chair after sitting too long, while washing one's face, and in the standing position with flexion. We analyzed the usefulness of our five questions for diagnosing discogenic LBP, and performed receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis to develop a diagnostic support tool.ResultsThere were no significant differences in baseline characteristics, except age, between the groups. There were significant differences between the groups for all five questions. In the age-adjusted analyses, the odds ratios of LBP after sitting too long, while standing after sitting too long, squirming in a chair after sitting too long, while washing one's face, and in standing position with flexion were 10.5, 8.5, 4.0, 10.8, and 11.8, respectively. The integer scores were 11, 9, 4, 11, and 12, respectively, and the sum of the points of the five scores ranged from 0 to 47. Results of the ROC analysis were as follows: cut-off value, 31 points; area under the curve, 0.92302; sensitivity, 100%; and specificity, 71.4%.ConclusionsAll five questions were useful for diagnosing discogenic LBP. We established the scoring system as a support tool for diagnosing discogenic LBP.

Project description:BackgroundThe newly designed cervical disc prosthesis, Pretic-I, had been finished its limited clinical use for over 5 years. At a short-term follow-up of 2 years, we obtained satisfactory clinical results. The long-term clinical efficacy and safety of Pretic-I will now be analyzed.MethodsPeri-operative parameters included intra-operative blood loss, operation time, off-bed time. Clinical parameters included visual analogue scale (VAS) for arm and neck, neck disability index (NDI), and Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score. Radiological parameters included C2-7 Cobb angle, Shell angle, and the range of motion (ROM) of C2-7, functional segment unit (FSU), and adjacent FSU. The CDA-related complications included adjacent segment degeneration (ASDeg), adjacent segment disease (ASDis), heterotopic ossification (HO), prosthesis subsidence, prosthesis displacement, and dysphagia.ResultsA total 64 patients from two independent centers received a single-level CDA with Discover (n = 32) and Pretic-I (n = 32), and all of patients finished a 5-year follow-up. There're no significant differences between two groups in peri-operative parameters. The clinical parameters improved greatly in Pretic-I group (p<0.0001), and there's no statistical difference from Discover group. Furthermore, Pretic-I could slightly improve the cervical curvature (15.08 ± 11.75 to 18.00 ± 10.61, p = 0.3079) and perfectly maintain the Shell angle (3.03 ± 3.68 to 2.23 ± 4.10, p = 0.1988), cervical ROM (52.48 ± 14.31 to 53.30 ± 11.71, p = 0.8062) and FSU ROM (12.20 ± 4.52 to 10.73 ± 4.45, p = 0.2002). The incidence of high-grade HO (Grade III-IV) at the final follow-up was significantly lower in Pretic-I group than in Discover group (12.50% vs. 34.38%, p = 0.0389, Statistical Power = 95.36%). The incidences of other CDA-related complications in Pretic-I group were also well-accepted, comparable to the Discover group, without significant differences.ConclusionCDA with Pretic-I demonstrated a well-accepted and sustained clinical outcome, with a significantly lower incidence of high-grade HO. This newly designed prosthesis is expected to become an alternative choice for cervical disc prosthesis in the future.

Project description:Study designProspective cohort study.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to identify treatment response trajectories in patients with low back pain (LBP) during and after multidisciplinary care in a tertiary spine center, and to examine baseline patient characteristics that can distinguish trajectories.Summary of background dataTreatment response is often heterogeneous between patients with LBP. Knowledge on key characteristics that are associated with courses of disability could identify patients at risk for less favorable outcome. This knowledge will help improve shared decision-making.MethodsAdult patients with LBP completed questionnaires on disability (Pain Disability Index) and LBP impact (Impact Stratification of the National Institutes of Health minimal dataset) at baseline, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months' follow-up. Latent class analyses were applied to identify trajectories of disability and LBP impact. Baseline sociodemographic and clinical patient characteristics were compared between trajectory subgroups.ResultsFollow-up was available for 996 patients on disability and 707 patients on LBP impact. Six trajectories were identified for both outcome measures. Three disability trajectories remained stable at distinct levels of severity (68% of patients) and three trajectories showed patterns of recovery (32%). For LBP impact there was one stable trajectory (17%), two slightly improving (59%), two recovering (15%), and one with a pattern of recovery and relapse (15%). Significant differences between trajectories were observed for almost all baseline patient characteristics.ConclusionOn average, patients show moderate improvements in disability and LBP impact 2 years after visiting a multidisciplinary tertiary spine center. However, latent class analyses revealed that most patients belong to subgroups experiencing stable levels of disability and LBP impact. Differences in baseline patient characteristics were mostly associated with baseline levels of functioning, instead of (un)favorable outcome during follow-up.Level of evidence2.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To assess if arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) is superior to placebo surgery in the treatment of patients with degenerative tear of the medial meniscus. METHODS:In this multicentre, randomised, participant-blinded and outcome assessor-blinded, placebo-surgery controlled trial, 146 adults, aged 35-65 years, with knee symptoms consistent with degenerative medial meniscus tear and no knee osteoarthritis were randomised to APM or placebo surgery. The primary outcome was the between-group difference in the change from baseline in the Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool (WOMET) and Lysholm knee scores and knee pain after exercise at 24 months after surgery. Secondary outcomes included the frequency of unblinding of the treatment-group allocation, participants' satisfaction, impression of change, return to normal activities, the incidence of serious adverse events and the presence of meniscal symptoms in clinical examination. Two subgroup analyses, assessing the outcome on those with mechanical symptoms and those with unstable meniscus tears, were also carried out. RESULTS:In the intention-to-treat analysis, there were no significant between-group differences in the mean changes from baseline to 24 months in WOMET score: 27.3 in the APM group as compared with 31.6 in the placebo-surgery group (between-group difference, -4.3; 95% CI, -11.3 to 2.6); Lysholm knee score: 23.1 and 26.3, respectively (-3.2; -8.9 to 2.4) or knee pain after exercise, 3.5 and 3.9, respectively (-0.4; -1.3 to 0.5). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in any of the secondary outcomes or within the analysed subgroups. CONCLUSIONS:In this 2-year follow-up of patients without knee osteoarthritis but with symptoms of a degenerative medial meniscus tear, the outcomes after APM were no better than those after placebo surgery. No evidence could be found to support the prevailing ideas that patients with presence of mechanical symptoms or certain meniscus tear characteristics or those who have failed initial conservative treatment are more likely to benefit from APM.