Staub Lukas P, Ryser Christoph, Röder Christoph, Mannion Anne F, Jarvik Jeffrey G, Aebi Max, Aghayev Emin
Institute for Evaluative Research in Medicine, Stauffacherstrasse 78, 3014 Bern, Switzerland.
Spine Centre Division, Department of Teaching, Research and Development, Schulthess Klinik, Lengghalde 2, CH-8008 Zurich, Switzerland.
Spine J. 2016 Feb;16(2):136-45. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2015.11.056. Epub 2015 Dec 7.
Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have compared patient outcomes of anterior (cervical) interbody fusion (AIF) with those of total disc arthroplasty (TDA). Because RCTs have known limitations with regard to their external validity, the comparative effectiveness of the two therapies in daily practice remains unknown.
This study aimed to compare patient-reported outcomes after TDA versus AIF based on data from an international spine registry.
A retrospective analysis of registry data was carried out.
Inclusion criteria were degenerative disc or disc herniation of the cervical spine treated by single-level TDA or AIF, no previous surgery, and a Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) completed at baseline and at least 3 months' follow-up. Overall, 987 patients were identified.
Neck and arm pain relief and COMI score improvement were the outcome measures.
Three separate analyses were performed to compare TDA and AIF surgical outcomes: (1) mimicking an RCT setting, with admission criteria typical of those in published RCTs, a 1:1 matched analysis was carried out in 739 patients; (2) an analysis was performed on 248 patients outside the classic RCT spectrum, that is, with one or more typical RCT exclusion criteria; (3) a subgroup analysis of all patients with additional follow-up longer than 2 years (n=149).
Matching resulted in 190 pairs with an average follow-up of 17 months that had no residual significant differences for any patient characteristics. Small but statistically significant differences in outcome were observed in favor of TDA, which are potentially clinically relevant. Subgroup analyses of atypical patients and of patients with longer-term follow-up showed no significant differences in outcome between the treatments.
The results of this observational study were in accordance with those of the published RCTs, suggesting substantial pain reduction both after AIF and TDA, with slightly greater benefit after arthroplasty. The analysis of atypical patients suggested that, in patients outside the spectrum of clinical trials, both surgical interventions appeared to work to a similar extent to that shown for the cohort in the matched study. Also, in the longer-term perspective, both therapies resulted in similar benefits to the patients.
多项随机对照试验(RCT)比较了前路(颈椎)椎间融合术(AIF)与全椎间盘置换术(TDA)的患者预后。由于RCT在外部有效性方面存在已知局限性,这两种疗法在日常实践中的相对有效性仍不明确。
本研究旨在根据国际脊柱注册中心的数据,比较TDA与AIF术后患者报告的预后情况。
对注册中心数据进行回顾性分析。
纳入标准为经单节段TDA或AIF治疗的颈椎间盘退变或椎间盘突出症患者,既往无手术史,且在基线及至少3个月随访时完成核心结局指标指数(COMI)评估。共纳入987例患者。
颈部和手臂疼痛缓解情况以及COMI评分改善情况作为结局指标。
进行了三项独立分析以比较TDA和AIF的手术结局:(1)模拟RCT设置,采用已发表RCT中的典型纳入标准,对739例患者进行1:1匹配分析;(2)对248例不符合经典RCT范围的患者进行分析,即具有一项或多项典型RCT排除标准的患者;(3)对所有额外随访时间超过2年的患者(n = 149)进行亚组分析。
匹配后得到190对患者,平均随访17个月,任何患者特征均无残留显著差异。观察到有利于TDA的微小但具有统计学意义的结局差异,这可能具有临床相关性。对非典型患者和长期随访患者的亚组分析显示,两种治疗方法在结局上无显著差异。
本观察性研究结果与已发表的RCT结果一致,表明AIF和TDA术后疼痛均显著减轻,置换术后获益略大。对非典型患者的分析表明,在临床试验范围之外的患者中,两种手术干预的效果似乎与匹配研究中的队列相似。此外,从长期来看,两种疗法对患者的益处相似。