Gibson J N Alastair, Waddell Gordon
Spinal Unit, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh and the University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007 Jul 15;32(16):1735-47. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3180bc2431.
An updated Cochrane Review.
To assess the effects of surgical interventions for the treatment of lumbar disc prolapse.
Disc prolapse accounts for 5% of low back disorders yet is one of the most common reasons for surgery. There is still little scientific evidence supporting some interventions.
Use of standard Cochrane review methods to analyze all randomized controlled trials published up to January 1, 2007.
Forty randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 2 quasi-RCTs were identified. Many of the early trials were of some form of chemonucleolysis, whereas the majority of the later studies either compared different techniques of discectomy or the use of some form of membrane to reduce epidural scarring. Four trials directly compared discectomy with conservative management, and these give suggestive rather than conclusive results. However, other trials show that discectomy produces better clinical outcomes than chemonucleolysis, and that in turn is better than placebo. Microdiscectomy gives broadly comparable results to standard discectomy. Recent trials of an interposition gel covering the dura (5 trials) and of fat (4 trials) show that they can reduce scar formation, although there is limited evidence about the effect on clinical outcomes. There is insufficient evidence on other percutaneous discectomy techniques to draw firm conclusions. Three small RCTs of laser discectomy do not provide conclusive evidence on its efficacy. There are no published RCTs of coblation therapy or transforaminal endoscopic discectomy.
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 still unclear. The evidence for other minimally invasive techniques remains unclear except for chemonucleolysis using chymopapain, which is no longer widely available.
Cochrane系统评价的更新版。
评估手术干预治疗腰椎间盘突出症的效果。
椎间盘突出症占下背部疾病的5%,却是最常见的手术原因之一。目前仍缺乏支持某些干预措施的科学证据。
采用标准的Cochrane系统评价方法,分析截至2007年1月1日发表的所有随机对照试验。
共纳入40项随机对照试验(RCT)和2项半随机对照试验。许多早期试验采用某种形式的化学髓核溶解术,而后期的大多数研究则比较了不同的椎间盘切除术技术或使用某种形式的膜来减少硬膜外瘢痕形成。4项试验直接比较了椎间盘切除术与保守治疗,结果仅具有提示性而非决定性。然而,其他试验表明,椎间盘切除术比化学髓核溶解术能产生更好的临床效果,而化学髓核溶解术又优于安慰剂。显微椎间盘切除术与标准椎间盘切除术的效果大致相当。近期关于覆盖硬脑膜的植入凝胶(5项试验)和脂肪(4项试验)的试验表明,它们可以减少瘢痕形成,尽管关于其对临床结局影响的证据有限。关于其他经皮椎间盘切除术技术,证据不足,无法得出确切结论。3项关于激光椎间盘切除术的小型RCT未提供其疗效的确切证据。目前尚无关于等离子消融术或经椎间孔内镜下椎间盘切除术的RCT发表。
对于因腰椎间盘突出症导致坐骨神经痛的精心挑选的患者,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正面或负面影响仍不清楚。除了不再广泛使用的木瓜凝乳蛋白酶化学髓核溶解术外,其他微创技术的证据仍不明确。