结果来自一项随机对照研究,将全椎间盘置换术和融合与脊柱登记的结果进行比较

Svante Berg MD, PhD , Hans Tropp MD, PhD
{"title":"结果来自一项随机对照研究,将全椎间盘置换术和融合与脊柱登记的结果进行比较","authors":"Svante Berg MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Hans Tropp MD, PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.esas.2010.01.005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Difficulties in performing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate new treatment options are increasing. Higher costs and patient unwillingness are the main obstacles. A spinal surgery register has been in use in Sweden for 11 years. Our aim was to determine whether this register can provide the same information as an RCT and whether register data compare favorably with RCT data, making RCTs unnecessary. If not the case, was patient selection or follow-up frequency the cause of any differences?</p></div><div><h3>Materials and methods</h3><p>We compared baseline data and outcome, retrieved from our register, between 2 surgical groups, total disc replacement (TDR) and fusion at 1 or 2 levels, performed for degenerative disc disease. One hundred fifty-two patients were part of an RCT, whereas four hundred fifty-five patients had been treated according to an active decision. These 2 subgroups were the subjects for comparison.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The 2 subgroups were not similar at baseline. Patients who were fused in the non-RCT subgroup were older, had a higher Oswestry Disability Index, and were more frequently smokers than the other patients. The outcome for the non-RCT group showed larger differences in favor of TDR than the RCT did. The nonresponders in the non-RCT group showed worse life quality and disability at baseline, and patients who answered the 1-year follow-up questionnaire but not the 2-year follow-up questionnaire had an inferior clinical result compared with the other patients at 1 year.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Data from our register showed results similar to the RCT, but a register cannot fully replace an RCT study when evaluating a new treatment option if the RCT has narrower selection than just the diagnosis. In this RCT comparing TDR with posterior fusion, the normal exclusion criteria for TDR were used. These were not registered, so the register could not prevent a possible selection bias, which might also be caused by the nonresponders.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":88695,"journal":{"name":"SAS journal","volume":"4 3","pages":"Pages 68-74"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.esas.2010.01.005","citationCount":"22","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Results from a randomized controlled study between total disc replacement and fusion compared with results from a spine register\",\"authors\":\"Svante Berg MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Hans Tropp MD, PhD\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.esas.2010.01.005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Difficulties in performing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate new treatment options are increasing. Higher costs and patient unwillingness are the main obstacles. A spinal surgery register has been in use in Sweden for 11 years. Our aim was to determine whether this register can provide the same information as an RCT and whether register data compare favorably with RCT data, making RCTs unnecessary. If not the case, was patient selection or follow-up frequency the cause of any differences?</p></div><div><h3>Materials and methods</h3><p>We compared baseline data and outcome, retrieved from our register, between 2 surgical groups, total disc replacement (TDR) and fusion at 1 or 2 levels, performed for degenerative disc disease. One hundred fifty-two patients were part of an RCT, whereas four hundred fifty-five patients had been treated according to an active decision. These 2 subgroups were the subjects for comparison.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The 2 subgroups were not similar at baseline. Patients who were fused in the non-RCT subgroup were older, had a higher Oswestry Disability Index, and were more frequently smokers than the other patients. The outcome for the non-RCT group showed larger differences in favor of TDR than the RCT did. The nonresponders in the non-RCT group showed worse life quality and disability at baseline, and patients who answered the 1-year follow-up questionnaire but not the 2-year follow-up questionnaire had an inferior clinical result compared with the other patients at 1 year.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Data from our register showed results similar to the RCT, but a register cannot fully replace an RCT study when evaluating a new treatment option if the RCT has narrower selection than just the diagnosis. In this RCT comparing TDR with posterior fusion, the normal exclusion criteria for TDR were used. These were not registered, so the register could not prevent a possible selection bias, which might also be caused by the nonresponders.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":88695,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"SAS journal\",\"volume\":\"4 3\",\"pages\":\"Pages 68-74\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2010-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.esas.2010.01.005\",\"citationCount\":\"22\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"SAS journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1935981010000459\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SAS journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1935981010000459","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 22

摘要

进行随机对照试验(rct)来评估新的治疗方案的难度正在增加。高昂的费用和病人的不情愿是主要障碍。脊柱手术登记制度在瑞典已经使用了11年。我们的目的是确定该登记是否可以提供与随机对照试验相同的信息,以及登记数据是否优于随机对照试验数据,从而使随机对照试验变得不必要。如果不是这样,患者选择或随访频率是否导致差异?材料和方法我们比较了从我们的登记资料中检索到的基线数据和结果,在2个手术组中,全椎间盘置换术(TDR)和1节段或2节段融合治疗退行性椎间盘疾病。152名患者是随机对照试验的一部分,而455名患者根据积极的决定进行治疗。这两个亚组是比较的对象。结果两个亚组在基线时不相似。纳入非rct亚组的患者年龄较大,Oswestry残疾指数较高,吸烟的频率高于其他患者。与随机对照试验相比,非随机对照试验组的结果显示更大的差异有利于TDR。非rct组无应答者在基线时的生活质量和残疾程度较差,回答1年随访问卷而不回答2年随访问卷的患者在1年时的临床结果较其他患者差。结论:我们的登记数据显示的结果与RCT相似,但如果RCT的选择范围比诊断范围窄,那么在评估新的治疗方案时,登记不能完全取代RCT研究。在这项比较TDR与后路融合的随机对照试验中,使用了TDR的正常排除标准。这些都没有登记,所以登记不能防止可能的选择偏差,这也可能是由无反应者引起的。
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
Results from a randomized controlled study between total disc replacement and fusion compared with results from a spine register

Background

Difficulties in performing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate new treatment options are increasing. Higher costs and patient unwillingness are the main obstacles. A spinal surgery register has been in use in Sweden for 11 years. Our aim was to determine whether this register can provide the same information as an RCT and whether register data compare favorably with RCT data, making RCTs unnecessary. If not the case, was patient selection or follow-up frequency the cause of any differences?

Materials and methods

We compared baseline data and outcome, retrieved from our register, between 2 surgical groups, total disc replacement (TDR) and fusion at 1 or 2 levels, performed for degenerative disc disease. One hundred fifty-two patients were part of an RCT, whereas four hundred fifty-five patients had been treated according to an active decision. These 2 subgroups were the subjects for comparison.

Results

The 2 subgroups were not similar at baseline. Patients who were fused in the non-RCT subgroup were older, had a higher Oswestry Disability Index, and were more frequently smokers than the other patients. The outcome for the non-RCT group showed larger differences in favor of TDR than the RCT did. The nonresponders in the non-RCT group showed worse life quality and disability at baseline, and patients who answered the 1-year follow-up questionnaire but not the 2-year follow-up questionnaire had an inferior clinical result compared with the other patients at 1 year.

Conclusion

Data from our register showed results similar to the RCT, but a register cannot fully replace an RCT study when evaluating a new treatment option if the RCT has narrower selection than just the diagnosis. In this RCT comparing TDR with posterior fusion, the normal exclusion criteria for TDR were used. These were not registered, so the register could not prevent a possible selection bias, which might also be caused by the nonresponders.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Preclinical and clinical experience with a viscoelastic total disc replacement Kineflex lumbar artificial disc versus Charité lumbar total disc replacement for the treatment of degenerative disc disease: A randomized non-inferiority trial with minimum of 2 years' follow-up Vertebral augmentation treatment of painful osteoporotic compression fractures with the Kiva VCF Treatment System Effects of preoperative education on spinal surgery patients An attempt at clinically defining and assessing minimally invasive surgery compared with traditional “open” spinal surgery
×
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