Porchet F, Bartanusz V, Kleinstueck F S, Lattig F, Jeszenszky D, Grob D, Mannion A F
Department of Neurosurgery, Spine Center, Schulthess Klinik, Lengghalde 2, 8008 Zurich, Switzerland.
Eur Spine J. 2009 Aug;18 Suppl 3(Suppl 3):360-6. doi: 10.1007/s00586-009-0917-9. Epub 2009 Mar 3.
Studies comparing the relative merits of microdiscectomy and standard discectomy report conflicting results, depending on the outcome measure of interest. Most trials are small, and few have employed validated, multidimensional patient-orientated outcome measures, considered essential in outcomes research. In the present study, data were collected prospectively from six surgeons participating in a surgical registry. Inclusion criteria were: lumbar/lumbosacral degenerative disease; discectomy/sequestrectomy without additional fusion/stabilisation; German or English-speaking. Before and 3 and 12 months after surgery, patients completed the Core Outcome Measures Index comprising questions on leg/buttock pain, back pain, back-related function, symptom-specific well-being, general quality-of-life, and social and work disability. At follow-up, they rated overall satisfaction, global outcome, and perceived complications. Compliance with the registry documentation was excellent: 87% for surgeons (surgery forms), 91% for patients (for 12 months follow-up). 261 patients satisfied the inclusion criteria (225 microdiscectomy, 36 standard discectomy). The standard discectomy group had significantly greater blood-loss than the microdiscectomy (P < 0.05). There were no group differences in the proportion of surgical complications or duration of hospital stay (P > 0.05). The groups did not differ in relation to any of the patient-orientated outcomes or individual outcome domains (P > 0.05). Though not equivalent to an RCT, the study included every single eligible patient in our Spine Center and allowed surgeons to use their regular procedure; it hence had extremely high external validity (relevance/generalisability). There was no clinically relevant difference in outcome after lumbar disc excision dependent on the use of the microscope. The decision to use the microscope should rest with the surgeon.
比较显微椎间盘切除术和标准椎间盘切除术相对优点的研究报告了相互矛盾的结果,这取决于所关注的结果指标。大多数试验规模较小,很少有试验采用经过验证的、多维的、以患者为导向的结果指标,而这些指标在结果研究中被认为是必不可少的。在本研究中,前瞻性地收集了参与手术登记的六位外科医生的数据。纳入标准为:腰椎/腰骶部退行性疾病;椎间盘切除术/髓核摘除术,无额外融合/固定术;说德语或英语。在手术前以及手术后3个月和12个月,患者完成核心结果测量指标,该指标包括有关腿部/臀部疼痛、背痛、背部相关功能、症状特异性幸福感、总体生活质量以及社会和工作残疾的问题。在随访时,他们对总体满意度、整体结果和感知到的并发症进行评分。对登记文件的依从性非常好:外科医生为87%(手术表格),患者为91%(12个月随访)。261名患者符合纳入标准(225例行显微椎间盘切除术,36例行标准椎间盘切除术)。标准椎间盘切除术组的失血量明显多于显微椎间盘切除术组(P<0.05)。手术并发症发生率或住院时间在两组之间没有差异(P>0.05)。在任何以患者为导向的结果或个体结果领域方面,两组没有差异(P>0.05)。尽管不等同于随机对照试验,但该研究纳入了我们脊柱中心的每一位符合条件的患者,并允许外科医生使用他们的常规手术方法;因此,它具有极高的外部效度(相关性/可推广性)。腰椎间盘切除术后的结果在临床上没有因使用显微镜而产生相关差异。是否使用显微镜应由外科医生决定。