Gonzalez Glenn A, Porto Guilherme, Hines Kevin, Franco Daniel, Montenegro Thiago S, Mahtabfar Aria, O'Leary Matthew, Miao Jingya, Thalheimer Sara, Heller Joshua E, Sharan Ashwini, Harrop James
Department of Neurosurgery, Thomas Jefferson University and Jefferson Hospital for Neuroscience, Philadelphia, PA 19107, USA.
Department of Neurosurgery, Spectrum Health/Michigan State University, Grand Rapids, MI 49503, USA.
J Clin Med. 2023 Feb 2;12(3):1200. doi: 10.3390/jcm12031200.
Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DS) patients are treated with instrumented fusion, following EBM guidelines, and typically have excellent clinical outcomes. However, not all lumbar fusion procedures adhere to EBM guidelines, typically due to a lack of prospective data.
This retrospective study compared outcomes of DS lumbar fusion patients treated according to EBM guidelines (EBM concordant) to lumbar fused patients with procedures that did not have clear EBM literature that supported this treatment, the goal being to examine the value of present EBM to guide clinical care.
A total of 125 DS patients were considered EBM concordant, while 21 patients were EBM discordant. Pre- and postsurgical ODI scores were collected. Clinical outcomes were stratified into substantial clinical benefit (SCB ΔODI >10 points), minimal clinical importance benefit (MCID ΔODI ≥ 5 points), no MCID (ΔODI < 5 points), and a group that showed no change or worsening ODI. Fisher's exact and χ2 tests for categorical variables, Student's -test for continuous variables, and descriptive statistics were used. Statistical tests were computed at the 95% level of confidence.
Analysis of 125 degenerative spondylolisthesis patients was performed comparing preoperative and postoperative (6 months) ODI scores. ODI improved by 8 points in the EBM concordant group vs. 2.1 points in the EBM discordant group ( = 0.002). Compliance with EBM guidelines was associated with an odds ratio (OR) of 2.93 for achieving MCID ([CI]: 1.12-7.58, = 0.027).
Patients whose lumbar fusions met EBM criteria had better self-reported outcomes at six months than those who did not meet the requirements. A greater knowledge set is needed to help further support EBM-guided patient care.
退行性腰椎滑脱(DS)患者按照循证医学(EBM)指南接受器械融合治疗,通常临床疗效良好。然而,并非所有腰椎融合手术都遵循EBM指南,这通常是由于缺乏前瞻性数据。
本回顾性研究比较了按照EBM指南治疗的DS腰椎融合患者(EBM相符组)与接受缺乏明确EBM文献支持的手术的腰椎融合患者的结局,目的是检验当前EBM对指导临床治疗的价值。
共有125例DS患者被认为符合EBM标准,而21例患者不符合EBM标准。收集术前和术后的ODI评分。临床结局分为显著临床获益(SCB,ΔODI>10分)、最小临床重要性获益(MCID,ΔODI≥5分)、无MCID(ΔODI<5分)以及ODI无变化或恶化的组。对分类变量采用Fisher精确检验和χ2检验,对连续变量采用Student检验,并进行描述性统计。统计检验在95%置信水平下进行。
对125例退行性腰椎滑脱患者进行分析,比较术前和术后(6个月)的ODI评分。EBM相符组的ODI改善了8分,而EBM不相符组改善了2.1分(P=0.002)。符合EBM指南与实现MCID的比值比(OR)为2.93([CI]:1.12-7.58,P=0.027)。
腰椎融合符合EBM标准的患者在6个月时自我报告的结局比不符合要求的患者更好。需要更多的知识来进一步支持以EBM为指导的患者护理。