首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>European Spine Journal >Microdiscectomy compared with standard discectomy: an old problem revisited with new outcome measures within the framework of a spine surgical registry
【2h】

Microdiscectomy compared with standard discectomy: an old problem revisited with new outcome measures within the framework of a spine surgical registry

机译:与标准椎间盘切除术相比显微椎间盘切除术:在脊柱外科手术登记范围内通过新的预后措施重新审视了旧问题

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Studies comparing the relative merits of microdiscectomy and standard discectomy report conflicting results, depending on the outcome measure of interest. Most trials are small, and few have employed validated, multidimensional patient-orientated outcome measures, considered essential in outcomes research. In the present study, data were collected prospectively from six surgeons participating in a surgical registry. Inclusion criteria were: lumbar/lumbosacral degenerative disease; discectomy/sequestrectomy without additional fusion/stabilisation; German or English-speaking. Before and 3 and 12 months after surgery, patients completed the Core Outcome Measures Index comprising questions on leg/buttock pain, back pain, back-related function, symptom-specific well-being, general quality-of-life, and social and work disability. At follow-up, they rated overall satisfaction, global outcome, and perceived complications. Compliance with the registry documentation was excellent: 87% for surgeons (surgery forms), 91% for patients (for 12 months follow-up). 261 patients satisfied the inclusion criteria (225 microdiscectomy, 36 standard discectomy). The standard discectomy group had significantly greater blood-loss than the microdiscectomy (P < 0.05). There were no group differences in the proportion of surgical complications or duration of hospital stay (P > 0.05). The groups did not differ in relation to any of the patient-orientated outcomes or individual outcome domains (P > 0.05). Though not equivalent to an RCT, the study included every single eligible patient in our Spine Center and allowed surgeons to use their regular procedure; it hence had extremely high external validity (relevance/generalisability). There was no clinically relevant difference in outcome after lumbar disc excision dependent on the use of the microscope. The decision to use the microscope should rest with the surgeon.
机译:比较微椎间盘切除术和标准椎间盘切除术相对优点的研究报告了相互矛盾的结果,这取决于所关注的结果指标。大多数试验规模较小,很少采用经过验证的,以患者为导向的多维结果指标,这些指标在结果研究中至关重要。在本研究中,前瞻性地从参加手术登记的六名外科医生那里收集了数据。纳入标准为:腰/腰s部退行性疾病;椎间盘切除术/脊椎切除术,无额外融合/稳定作用;德语或英语。术前,术后3个月和12个月,患者完成了核心结局指标索引,包括以下方面的问题:腿部/臀部疼痛,背痛,背部相关功能,症状特异性的健康状况,总体生活质量以及社交和工作失能。在随访中,他们对总体满意度,总体结果和感觉到的并发症进行了评分。与注册表文件的合规性非常好:外科医生(手术形式)为87%,患者为91%(随访12个月)。 261例患者符合纳入标准(225例微椎间盘切除术,36例标准椎间盘切除术)。标准椎间盘切除术组的出血量明显高于微盘切除术(P <0.05)。手术并发症的比例或住院时间无组间差异(P> 0.05)。各组在以患者为导向的结局或个别结局方面均无差异(P> 0.05)。尽管不等同于RCT,但该研究纳入了我们脊柱中心的每位合格患者,并允许外科医生使用常规程序。因此,它具有极高的外部效度(相关性/通用性)。腰椎间盘切除术后的结局无临床相关差异,这取决于使用显微镜。使用显微镜的决定应由外科医生决定。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号