Gibson J N, Grant I C, Waddell G
Clinical Research Unit, Princess Margaret Rose, Orthopaedic Hospital, Edinburgh EH10 7ED, UK.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000(2):CD001350. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001350.
The primary rationale for surgery for disc prolapse is to relieve nerve root irritation or compression due to herniated disc material. Claims of the merits of alternative surgical procedures are made without clear evidence about clinical outcomes. The objective of this review was to assess the effects of surgical interventions for the treatment of lumbar disc prolapse.
We searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Medline, Embase, Biosis, Dissertation Abstracts, Index to UK Thesis, and reference lists of the retrieved articles up to March 1997 and we corresponded with experts.
Randomised and quasi-randomised trials of the surgical management of lumbar disc prolapse.
Two reviewers assessed trial quality and extracted data from published papers. Additional information was sought from the authors if necessary.
Twenty-seven trials were found. There were methodological weaknesses in many of the trials. Sixteen of the 27 trials were of some form of chemonucleolysis. Ten trials compared different surgical techniques, although only one of these compared surgical discectomy with conservative management. Surgical discectomy produced better clinical outcomes than chemonucleolysis with chymopapain, and chemonucleolysis produced better clinical outcomes than placebo. Three trials showed no difference in clinical outcomes between microdiscectomy and standard discectomy. Three trials failed to show a significant reduction in scar formation or improved clinical outcomes by inserting an inter-position membra ne to cover the spinal dura after discectomy. Three trials of percutaneous discectomy provided moderate evidence that it produces poorer clinical outcomes than standard discectomy or chymopapain. We found no published randomised trials of laser discectomy.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Chemonucleolysis is more effective than placebo and it is less invasive but less effective than surgical disectomy. Surgical discectomy for carefully selected patients with sciatica due to lumbar disc prolapse provides faster relief from the acute attack than conservative management, although any positive or negative effects on the lifetime natural history of the underlying disc disease are unclear.
椎间盘突出症手术的主要理论依据是缓解因椎间盘物质突出导致的神经根刺激或压迫。关于替代手术方法优点的说法缺乏临床结局的明确证据。本综述的目的是评估手术干预治疗腰椎间盘突出症的效果。
我们检索了Cochrane对照试验注册库、医学文献数据库、Embase、生物学文摘数据库、论文摘要数据库、英国论文索引以及截至1997年3月检索到的文章的参考文献列表,并与专家进行了通信联系。
腰椎间盘突出症手术治疗的随机和半随机试验。
两名评价者评估试验质量并从已发表的论文中提取数据。如有必要,会向作者寻求更多信息。
共找到27项试验。许多试验存在方法学上的缺陷。27项试验中有16项是某种形式的化学髓核溶解术。10项试验比较了不同的手术技术,尽管其中只有1项将手术椎间盘切除术与保守治疗进行了比较。手术椎间盘切除术比木瓜凝乳蛋白酶化学髓核溶解术产生更好的临床结局,化学髓核溶解术比安慰剂产生更好的临床结局。3项试验表明,显微椎间盘切除术和标准椎间盘切除术在临床结局上没有差异。3项试验未能显示在椎间盘切除术后插入中间膜覆盖硬脊膜能显著减少瘢痕形成或改善临床结局。3项经皮椎间盘切除术试验提供了适度的证据,表明其临床结局比标准椎间盘切除术或木瓜凝乳蛋白酶差。我们未找到已发表的激光椎间盘切除术随机试验。
化学髓核溶解术比安慰剂更有效,侵入性更小,但比手术椎间盘切除术效果更差。对于因腰椎间盘突出症导致坐骨神经痛且经过精心挑选的患者,手术椎间盘切除术比保守治疗能更快缓解急性发作,尽管对潜在椎间盘疾病的终生自然病程的任何积极或消极影响尚不清楚。