...
首页> 外文期刊>European spine journal: official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society >A comparison of outcomes of cervical disc arthroplasty and fusion in everyday clinical practice: surgical and methodological aspects.
【24h】

A comparison of outcomes of cervical disc arthroplasty and fusion in everyday clinical practice: surgical and methodological aspects.

机译:日常临床实践中颈椎间盘置换和融合的效果比较:手术和方法学方面。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of cervical disc arthroplasty vs fusion generally show slightly more favourable results for arthroplasty. However, RCTs in surgery often have limited external validity, since they involve a select group of patients who fit very rigid admission criteria and who are prepared to subject themselves to randomisation. The aim of this study was to examine whether the findings of RCTs are verified by observational data recorded in our Spine Center in association with the Spine Society of Europe Spine Tango surgical registry. Patients undergoing fusion/stabilisation or disc arthroplasty for degenerative cervical spinal disease were selected for inclusion. They completed a questionnaire pre-operatively and at 12 and 24 months follow-up (FU). The questionnaire comprised the multidimensional Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI; 0-10 scale) and, at FU, questions on global outcome and satisfaction with treatment (5-point scales, dichotomised to "good" and "poor"), re-operation and patient-rated complications. The surgeon completed a Spine Tango Surgery form. The outcome data from 266 (208 fusion, 58 arthroplasty) out of 284 eligible patients who had reached 12 months FU, and 169 (139 fusion, 30 arthroplasty) out of 178 who had reached 24 months FU, were included. Patients with cervical disc arthroplasty were younger [46 (SD 8) years vs 56 (SD 11) years for fusion; P < 0.05], had less comorbidity (P < 0.05), more often had only mono-segmental pathology (69% arthroplasty, 47% fusion) and only one type of degenerative pathology (69% arthroplasty, 46% fusion). Surgical complication rates were similar in each group (arthroplasty, 1.5%; fusion, 2.6%). The reduction in the COMI score was significantly greater in the arthroplasty group (at 12 months, 4.8 (SD 3.0) vs 3.7 (SD 2.9) points for fusion, and at 24 months 5.1 (SD 2.8) vs 3.8 (SD 2.9) points; each P < 0.05). In the arthroplasty group, a "good" global outcome was recorded in 90% patients (at 12 months) and 93% (at 24 months); in the fusion group the figures were 80 and 82%, respectively (group differences at each timepoint, P > 0.09). Satisfaction with treatment was similar in both groups (89-93%), at each timepoint. In multiple regression analysis, treatment group was of borderline significance as a unique predictor of the change in COMI at FU (P = 0.059 at 12 months, P = 0.055 at 24 months) in a model in which known confounders (age, comorbidity, number of affected levels) were controlled for. Being in the arthroplasty group was associated with an approximately 1-point greater reduction in the COMI score at FU. The results of this observational study appear to support those of the RCTs and suggest that, in patients with degenerative pathology of the cervical spine, disc arthroplasty is associated with a slightly better outcome than fusion. However, given the small size of the difference, its clinical relevance is questionable, especially in view of the a priori more favourable outcome expected in the arthroplasty group due to the more rigorous selection of patients.
机译:颈椎间盘置换术与融合术的随机对照试验(RCT)通常显示出更好的置换结果。然而,手术中的RCT通常具有有限的外部有效性,因为它们涉及一组符合非常严格的入院标准并准备接受随机分组的患者。这项研究的目的是检查与我们的欧洲脊柱学会脊柱探戈手术注册表相关的在我们脊柱中心记录的观察数据是否验证了RCT的发现。选择接受融合/稳定或椎间盘置换治疗退行性颈椎病的患者。他们在术前以及随访的第12和24个月(FU)完成了一份问卷。问卷包括多维核心成果指标(COMI; 0-10量表),在FU,有关总体结果和治疗满意度的问题(5分制,分为“好”和“差”),再次手术和患者评价的并发症。外科医生完成了脊椎探戈手术表格。包括来自FU达到12个月的284例合格患者中的266例(208融合,58例关节置换)的结果数据,以及FU达到24个月的178例中169例(139融合,30例关节置换)的结果数据。颈椎间盘置换术的患者年龄较小[46(SD 8)岁,而融合术则为56(SD 11)岁。 P <0.05],合并症较少(P <0.05),更常见的只有单节段病变(69%关节置换,47%融合)和仅一种退行性病变(69%关节置换,46%融合)。每组的手术并发症发生率相似(人工成形术为1.5%;融合术为2.6%)。关节成形术组的COMI得分降低幅度更大(在融合时为12个月,分别为4.8(标准差3.0)对3.7(标准差2.9);在24个月时,分别为5.1(标准差2.8)对3.8(标准差2.9);每个P <0.05)。在关节置换术组中,90%(12个月)和93%(24个月)的患者记录为“良好”的总体结果;在融合组中,数字分别为80%和82%(每个时间点的组差异,P> 0.09)。在每个时间点,两组的治疗满意度相似(89-93%)。在多元回归分析中,在已知混杂因素(年龄,合并症,人数)的模型中,治疗组具有重要意义,可作为FU时COMI变化的唯一预测指标(12个月时P = 0.059,24个月时P = 0.055)。受影响的水平)得到控制。在关节置换组中,FU的COMI评分降低约1个百分点。这项观察性研究的结果似乎支持RCT的研究结果,并表明,在颈椎退行性病变的患者中,椎间盘置换术比融合术的结局稍好。然而,鉴于差异很小,其临床相关性值得怀疑,尤其是考虑到由于患者选择更加严格,关节置换组在先验性方面有望获得更好的结果。

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

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