颈椎矫形器不能改善颈椎后路融合术后疼痛:随机对照试验。

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY European Spine Journal Pub Date : 2024-08-21 DOI:10.1007/s00586-024-08456-7
Renan Fernandes, Patrick Thornley, Jennifer Urquhart, Abdulmajeed Alahmari, Nasser Alenezi, Sean Kelly, Parham Rasoulinejad, Supriya Singh, Fawaz Siddiqi, Kevin Gurr, Chris Bailey
{"title":"颈椎矫形器不能改善颈椎后路融合术后疼痛:随机对照试验。","authors":"Renan Fernandes, Patrick Thornley, Jennifer Urquhart, Abdulmajeed Alahmari, Nasser Alenezi, Sean Kelly, Parham Rasoulinejad, Supriya Singh, Fawaz Siddiqi, Kevin Gurr, Chris Bailey","doi":"10.1007/s00586-024-08456-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To determine whether postoperative neck pain in the first 4 weeks following multi-level posterior cervical fusion (PCF) with orthosis is equivalent to multi-level PCF without orthosis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to postoperative orthosis (CO) for 6 weeks or no orthosis (NO). Randomization was stratified by indication (traumatic vs. degenerative), and preoperative opioid use. A model of longitudinal regression for repeated measures was used. The two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to test equivalence. If the CI lay between the pre-determined margin of equivalence (-2.0 to + 2.0 pain score) the two groups were considered equivalent. A multiple imputation procedure was used to replace missing data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-one patients were enrolled in each group. At baseline, the CO group had more neck pain (5.3 vs. 3.2, p = 0.013). The Four week post-operative neck pain intensity score was 4.6 ± 0.3 for the CO group vs. 4.9 ± 0.3 for the NO group. The 95% confidence interval (-1.2 to 0.6) was within the pre-determined equivalence margin. Neck Disability Index, quality-of-life scores, and arm pain were similar. Eleven patients in the CO group and 12 patients in the NO group had an adverse event. The CO group had reduced range of motion at 6 weeks.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Pain scores over the first 4 weeks after surgery were equivalent for patients undergoing multi-level PCF treated with or without a cervical orthosis. Our findings do not support the routine use of a postoperative cervical orthosis for postoperative pain control. Clinical Trials Registration Number NCT04308122, April 22, 2020.</p>","PeriodicalId":12323,"journal":{"name":"European Spine Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cervical orthosis does not improve postoperative pain following posterior cervical fusion: a randomized controlled trial.\",\"authors\":\"Renan Fernandes, Patrick Thornley, Jennifer Urquhart, Abdulmajeed Alahmari, Nasser Alenezi, Sean Kelly, Parham Rasoulinejad, Supriya Singh, Fawaz Siddiqi, Kevin Gurr, Chris Bailey\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00586-024-08456-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To determine whether postoperative neck pain in the first 4 weeks following multi-level posterior cervical fusion (PCF) with orthosis is equivalent to multi-level PCF without orthosis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to postoperative orthosis (CO) for 6 weeks or no orthosis (NO). Randomization was stratified by indication (traumatic vs. degenerative), and preoperative opioid use. A model of longitudinal regression for repeated measures was used. The two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to test equivalence. If the CI lay between the pre-determined margin of equivalence (-2.0 to + 2.0 pain score) the two groups were considered equivalent. A multiple imputation procedure was used to replace missing data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-one patients were enrolled in each group. At baseline, the CO group had more neck pain (5.3 vs. 3.2, p = 0.013). The Four week post-operative neck pain intensity score was 4.6 ± 0.3 for the CO group vs. 4.9 ± 0.3 for the NO group. The 95% confidence interval (-1.2 to 0.6) was within the pre-determined equivalence margin. Neck Disability Index, quality-of-life scores, and arm pain were similar. Eleven patients in the CO group and 12 patients in the NO group had an adverse event. The CO group had reduced range of motion at 6 weeks.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Pain scores over the first 4 weeks after surgery were equivalent for patients undergoing multi-level PCF treated with or without a cervical orthosis. Our findings do not support the routine use of a postoperative cervical orthosis for postoperative pain control. Clinical Trials Registration Number NCT04308122, April 22, 2020.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12323,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Spine Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-21\",\"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/s00586-024-08456-7\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-024-08456-7","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:确定使用矫形器的多层次颈椎后路融合术(PCF)术后头4周的颈部疼痛是否等同于不使用矫形器的多层次颈椎后路融合术:以 1:1 的比例随机分配患者接受为期 6 周的术后矫形(CO)或不接受矫形(NO)。随机分配按适应症(创伤性与退行性)和术前阿片类药物使用情况进行分层。采用了重复测量的纵向回归模型。采用双侧 95% 置信区间 (CI) 检验等效性。如果 CI 在预定的等效范围(-2.0 至 + 2.0 疼痛评分)之间,则认为两组等效。采用多重估算程序替换缺失数据:两组各有 31 名患者。基线时,CO 组的颈部疼痛程度更高(5.3 对 3.2,P = 0.013)。术后四周,CO 组颈部疼痛强度评分为 4.6 ± 0.3,NO 组为 4.9 ± 0.3。95%置信区间(-1.2 至 0.6)在预定的等效范围内。颈部残疾指数、生活质量评分和手臂疼痛情况相似。CO 组和 NO 组分别有 11 名和 12 名患者出现不良事件。CO组在6周时活动范围缩小:结论:使用或不使用颈椎矫形器进行多层次 PCF 治疗的患者在术后前 4 周的疼痛评分相同。我们的研究结果不支持常规使用术后颈椎矫形器来控制术后疼痛。临床试验注册号 NCT04308122,2020 年 4 月 22 日。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Cervical orthosis does not improve postoperative pain following posterior cervical fusion: a randomized controlled trial.

Purpose: To determine whether postoperative neck pain in the first 4 weeks following multi-level posterior cervical fusion (PCF) with orthosis is equivalent to multi-level PCF without orthosis.

Methods: Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to postoperative orthosis (CO) for 6 weeks or no orthosis (NO). Randomization was stratified by indication (traumatic vs. degenerative), and preoperative opioid use. A model of longitudinal regression for repeated measures was used. The two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to test equivalence. If the CI lay between the pre-determined margin of equivalence (-2.0 to + 2.0 pain score) the two groups were considered equivalent. A multiple imputation procedure was used to replace missing data.

Results: Thirty-one patients were enrolled in each group. At baseline, the CO group had more neck pain (5.3 vs. 3.2, p = 0.013). The Four week post-operative neck pain intensity score was 4.6 ± 0.3 for the CO group vs. 4.9 ± 0.3 for the NO group. The 95% confidence interval (-1.2 to 0.6) was within the pre-determined equivalence margin. Neck Disability Index, quality-of-life scores, and arm pain were similar. Eleven patients in the CO group and 12 patients in the NO group had an adverse event. The CO group had reduced range of motion at 6 weeks.

Conclusion: Pain scores over the first 4 weeks after surgery were equivalent for patients undergoing multi-level PCF treated with or without a cervical orthosis. Our findings do not support the routine use of a postoperative cervical orthosis for postoperative pain control. Clinical Trials Registration Number NCT04308122, April 22, 2020.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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
Impact of landmark crater creation on improving accuracy of pedicle screw insertion in robot-assisted scoliosis surgery. MRI-based endplate bone quality score independently predicts cage subsidence after anterior cervical corpectomy fusion. Letter to the editor Regarding 'Causal relationship between basal metabolic rate and intervertebral disc degeneration: a Mendelian randomization study' by Liu Z, et al. (Eur Spine J. 2024 Jun 24. Doi: 10.1007/s00586-024-08367-7). Announcements. Answer to the letter to the editor of Z. Feng, et al. concerning "Unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation with anterior lumbar interbody fusion: a comparison of postoperative outcomes" by Levy HA, et al. (Eur Spine J [2024]: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-024-08412-5).
×
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