Fusion versus decompression alone for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal stenosis: a target trial emulation with index trial benchmarking.

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY European Spine Journal Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-09-21 DOI:10.1007/s00586-024-08495-0
Ines Unterfrauner, Javier Muñoz Laguna, Miquel Serra-Burriel, Jakob M Burgstaller, Ilker Uçkay, Mazda Farshad, Cesar A Hincapié
{"title":"Fusion versus decompression alone for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal stenosis: a target trial emulation with index trial benchmarking.","authors":"Ines Unterfrauner, Javier Muñoz Laguna, Miquel Serra-Burriel, Jakob M Burgstaller, Ilker Uçkay, Mazda Farshad, Cesar A Hincapié","doi":"10.1007/s00586-024-08495-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The value of adding fusion to decompression surgery for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal canal stenosis remains debated. Therefore, the comparative effectiveness and selected healthcare resource utilization of patients undergoing decompression with or without fusion surgery at 3 years follow-up was assessed.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using observational data from the Lumbar Stenosis Outcome Study and a target trial emulation with index trial benchmarking approach, our study assessed the comparative effectiveness of the two main surgical interventions for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis-fusion and decompression alone in patients with lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal canal stenosis. The primary outcome-measure was change in health-related quality of life (EuroQol Health Related Quality of Life 5-Dimension 3-Level questionnaire [EQ-5D-3L]); secondary outcome measures were change in back/leg pain intensity (Numeric Rating Scale), change in satisfaction (Spinal Stenosis Measure satisfaction subscale), physical therapy and oral analgesic use (healthcare utilization).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>153 patients underwent decompression alone and 62 had decompression plus fusion. After inverse probability weighting, 137 patients were included in the decompression alone group (mean age, 73.9 [7.5] years; 77 female [56%]) and 36 in the decompression plus fusion group (mean age, 70.1 [6.7] years; 18 female [50%]). Our findings were compatible with no standardized mean differences in EQ-5D-3L summary index change score at 3 years (EQ-5D-3L German: 0.07 [95% confidence interval (CI), - 0.25 to 0.39]; EQ-5D-3L French: 0.18 [95% CI, - 0.14 to 0.50]). No between-group differences in change in back/leg pain intensity or satisfaction were found. Decompression plus fusion was associated with greater physical therapy utilization at 3 years follow-up.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Decompression alone should be considered the primary option for patients with lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal stenosis.</p>","PeriodicalId":12323,"journal":{"name":"European Spine Journal","volume":" ","pages":"4281-4291"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-024-08495-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: The value of adding fusion to decompression surgery for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal canal stenosis remains debated. Therefore, the comparative effectiveness and selected healthcare resource utilization of patients undergoing decompression with or without fusion surgery at 3 years follow-up was assessed.

Methods: Using observational data from the Lumbar Stenosis Outcome Study and a target trial emulation with index trial benchmarking approach, our study assessed the comparative effectiveness of the two main surgical interventions for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis-fusion and decompression alone in patients with lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal canal stenosis. The primary outcome-measure was change in health-related quality of life (EuroQol Health Related Quality of Life 5-Dimension 3-Level questionnaire [EQ-5D-3L]); secondary outcome measures were change in back/leg pain intensity (Numeric Rating Scale), change in satisfaction (Spinal Stenosis Measure satisfaction subscale), physical therapy and oral analgesic use (healthcare utilization).

Results: 153 patients underwent decompression alone and 62 had decompression plus fusion. After inverse probability weighting, 137 patients were included in the decompression alone group (mean age, 73.9 [7.5] years; 77 female [56%]) and 36 in the decompression plus fusion group (mean age, 70.1 [6.7] years; 18 female [50%]). Our findings were compatible with no standardized mean differences in EQ-5D-3L summary index change score at 3 years (EQ-5D-3L German: 0.07 [95% confidence interval (CI), - 0.25 to 0.39]; EQ-5D-3L French: 0.18 [95% CI, - 0.14 to 0.50]). No between-group differences in change in back/leg pain intensity or satisfaction were found. Decompression plus fusion was associated with greater physical therapy utilization at 3 years follow-up.

Conclusion: Decompression alone should be considered the primary option for patients with lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal stenosis.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
腰椎退行性滑脱症和椎管狭窄症的融合术与单纯减压术:以指数试验为基准的目标试验模拟。
目的:对于腰椎退行性滑脱症和椎管狭窄症患者在减压手术的基础上加用融合术的价值仍存在争议。因此,我们评估了接受减压手术和融合手术或未接受融合手术的患者在 3 年随访期间的疗效比较和部分医疗资源利用情况:我们的研究使用了腰椎管狭窄症结果研究的观察数据和目标试验仿真与指数试验基准方法,评估了腰椎退行性变和椎管狭窄症患者两种主要腰椎退行性变手术干预措施--融合术和单纯减压术的比较效果。主要结果测量指标是健康相关生活质量的变化(EuroQol健康相关生活质量5维3级问卷[EQ-5D-3L]);次要结果测量指标是腰/腿部疼痛强度的变化(数字评分量表)、满意度的变化(椎管狭窄测量满意度分量表)、物理治疗和口服镇痛药的使用情况(医疗保健利用率):153名患者接受了单纯减压术,62名患者接受了减压加融合术。经过反概率加权,137 名患者被纳入单纯减压组(平均年龄 73.9 [7.5] 岁;77 名女性 [56%]),36 名患者被纳入减压加融合组(平均年龄 70.1 [6.7] 岁;18 名女性 [50%])。我们的研究结果与 3 年后 EQ-5D-3L 总指数变化得分无标准化平均差异(EQ-5D-3L 德文:0.07 [95% 置信区间 (CI),- 0.25 至 0.39];EQ-5D-3L 法文:0.18 [95% CI,- 0.14 至 0.50])相符。在背部/腿部疼痛强度或满意度的变化方面没有发现组间差异。在3年的随访中,减压加融合术与更多的物理治疗使用相关:结论:腰椎退行性变和椎管狭窄患者应将单纯减压作为主要选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
European Spine Journal
European Spine Journal 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
10.70%
发文量
373
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: "European Spine Journal" is a publication founded in response to the increasing trend toward specialization in spinal surgery and spinal pathology in general. The Journal is devoted to all spine related disciplines, including functional and surgical anatomy of the spine, biomechanics and pathophysiology, diagnostic procedures, and neurology, surgery and outcomes. The aim of "European Spine Journal" is to support the further development of highly innovative spine treatments including but not restricted to surgery and to provide an integrated and balanced view of diagnostic, research and treatment procedures as well as outcomes that will enhance effective collaboration among specialists worldwide. The “European Spine Journal” also participates in education by means of videos, interactive meetings and the endorsement of educative efforts. Official publication of EUROSPINE, The Spine Society of Europe
期刊最新文献
Longitudinal impact of leisure-time physical activity on pain intensity and daily activity limitation in people with low back pain. Findings from the PAMPA cohort. Epidemiology of pediatric spinal trauma with neurological deficits in Catalonia: a 36-year experience. Morphological features of lower lumbar degenerative kyphosis. MRI study on the influence of lumbosacral vertebral body and disc factors on lumbar lordosis in children. Presence of compensatory curve predicts postoperative curve progression in congenital scoliosis after thoracolumbar hemivertebra resection and short fusion.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1