Carragee Eugene J, Hurwitz Eric L, Cheng Ivan, Carroll Linda J, Nordin Margareta, Guzman Jaime, Peloso Paul, Holm Lena W, Côté Pierre, Hogg-Johnson Sheilah, van der Velde Gabrielle, Cassidy J David, Haldeman Scott
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2009 Feb;32(2 Suppl):S176-93. doi: 10.1016/j.jmpt.2008.11.018.
Best evidence synthesis.
To identify, critically appraise, and synthesize literature from 1980 through 2006 on surgical interventions for neck pain alone or with radicular pain in the absence of serious pathologic disease.
There have been no comprehensive systematic literature or evidence-based reviews published on this topic.
We systematically searched Medline for literature published from 1980 to 2006 on percutaneous and open surgical interventions for neck pain. Publications on the topic were also solicited from experts in the field. Consensus decisions were made about the scientific merit of each article; those judged to have adequate internal validity were included in our Best Evidence Synthesis.
Of the 31,878 articles screened, 1203 studies were relevant to the Neck Pain Task Force mandate and of these, 31 regarding treatment by surgery or injections were accepted as scientifically admissible. Radiofrequency neurotomy, cervical facet injections, cervical fusion and cervical arthroplasty for neck pain without radiculopathy are not supported by current evidence. We found there is support for short-term symptomatic improvement of radicular symptoms with epidural corticosteroids. It is not clear from the evidence that long-term outcomes are improved with the surgical treatment of cervical radiculopathy compared to nonoperative measures. However, relatively rapid and substantial symptomatic relief after surgical treatment seems to be reliably achieved. It is not evident that one open surgical technique is clearly superior to others for radiculopathy. Cervical foramenal or epidural injections are associated with relatively frequent minor adverse events (5%-20%); however, serious adverse events are very uncommon (<1%). After open surgical procedures on the cervical spine, potentially serious acute complications are seen in approximately 4% of patients.
Surgical treatment and limited injection procedures for cervical radicular symptoms may be reasonably considered in patients with severe impairments. Percutaneous and open surgical treatment for neck pain alone, without radicular symptoms or clear serious pathology, seems to lack scientific support.
最佳证据综合分析。
识别、严格评估并综合1980年至2006年间关于单纯颈部疼痛或伴有神经根性疼痛且无严重病理疾病的手术干预的文献。
尚未发表关于该主题的全面系统文献或基于证据的综述。
我们系统检索了Medline数据库,以查找1980年至2006年间关于颈部疼痛的经皮和开放性手术干预的文献。还向该领域的专家征集了关于该主题的出版物。就每篇文章的科学价值达成了共识决定;那些被判定具有足够内部效度的文章被纳入我们的最佳证据综合分析。
在筛选的31878篇文章中,1203项研究与颈部疼痛特别工作组的任务相关,其中31项关于手术或注射治疗的研究被认为在科学上是可接受的。目前的证据不支持对无神经根病的颈部疼痛进行射频神经切断术、颈椎小关节注射、颈椎融合术和颈椎关节成形术。我们发现硬膜外皮质类固醇对神经根症状的短期症状改善有支持作用。证据并不明确表明与非手术措施相比,手术治疗颈椎神经根病能改善长期预后。然而,手术治疗后似乎能可靠地实现相对快速且显著的症状缓解。对于神经根病,一种开放性手术技术并不明显优于其他技术。颈椎椎间孔或硬膜外注射与相对频繁的轻微不良事件(5%-20%)相关;然而,严重不良事件非常罕见(<1%)。颈椎开放性手术后,约4%的患者会出现潜在的严重急性并发症。
对于严重功能障碍的患者,可以合理考虑手术治疗和有限的注射程序来治疗颈椎神经根症状。对于单纯颈部疼痛、无神经根症状或明确严重病理的经皮和开放性手术治疗,似乎缺乏科学支持。