Suppr超能文献

与单纯减压相比,使用椎板间动态装置减压治疗腰椎管狭窄症和背痛患者的疗效更佳:一项跨注册研究。

Superior outcomes of decompression with an interlaminar dynamic device versus decompression alone in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis and back pain: a cross registry study.

作者信息

Röder C, Baumgärtner B, Berlemann U, Aghayev E

机构信息

Institute for Evaluative Research in Medicine, University of Bern, Stauffacherstrasse 78, 3012, Bern, Switzerland.

Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Luzerner Kantonsspital, Spitalstrasse 16, 6000, Lucerne, Switzerland.

出版信息

Eur Spine J. 2015 Oct;24(10):2228-35. doi: 10.1007/s00586-015-4124-6. Epub 2015 Jul 18.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Surgical decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) has been associated with poorer outcomes in patients with pronounced low back pain (LBP) as compared to patients with predominant leg pain. This cross registry study assessed potential benefits of the interlaminar coflex® device as an add-on to bony decompression alone.

METHODS

Patients with lumbar decompression plus coflex® (SWISSspine registry) were compared with decompressed controls (Spine Tango registry). Inclusion criteria were LSS and a preoperative back pain level of ≥5 points. 1:1 propensity score-based matching was performed. Outcome measures were back and leg pain relief, COMI score improvement, patient satisfaction, complication, and revision rates.

RESULTS

50 matched pairs without residual significant differences but age were created. At the 7-9 months follow-up interval the coflex® group had higher back (p=0.014) and leg pain relief (p<0.001) and COMI score improvement (p=0.029) than the decompression group. Patient satisfaction was 90% in both groups. No revision was documented in the coflex® and one in the decompression group (2.0%).

DISCUSSION

In the short-term, lumbar decompression with coflex® compared with decompression alone in patients with LSS and pronounced LBP at baseline is a safe and effective treatment option that appears beneficial regarding clinical and functional outcomes. However, residual confounding of non-measured covariables may have partially influenced our findings. Also, despite careful inclusion and exclusion of cases the cross registry approach introduces a potential for selection bias that we could not totally control for and that makes additional studies necessary.

摘要

引言

与以腿部疼痛为主的患者相比,腰椎管狭窄症(LSS)患者进行手术减压后,下腰痛(LBP)明显的患者预后较差。这项跨注册研究评估了椎板间coflex®装置作为单纯骨性减压附加物的潜在益处。

方法

将接受腰椎减压加coflex®治疗的患者(瑞士脊柱注册研究)与减压对照组(脊柱探戈注册研究)进行比较。纳入标准为腰椎管狭窄症且术前背痛水平≥5分。进行1:1倾向评分匹配。观察指标包括腰腿痛缓解情况、COMI评分改善情况、患者满意度、并发症及翻修率。

结果

创建了50对匹配对,除年龄外无残留显著差异。在7 - 9个月的随访期内,coflex®组的背痛缓解(p = 0.014)、腿痛缓解(p < 0.001)及COMI评分改善(p = 0.029)均高于减压组。两组患者满意度均为90%。coflex®组无翻修记录,减压组有1例翻修(2.0%)。

讨论

短期内,对于基线时有明显下腰痛的腰椎管狭窄症患者,与单纯减压相比,使用coflex®进行腰椎减压是一种安全有效的治疗选择,在临床和功能结局方面似乎有益。然而,未测量协变量的残留混杂因素可能部分影响了我们的研究结果。此外,尽管仔细纳入和排除病例,但跨注册研究方法仍存在选择偏倚的可能性,我们无法完全控制,这使得有必要进行更多研究。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验