European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society
-
Knowledge on the outcome of C2-fractures is founded on heterogenous samples with cross-sectional outcome assessment focusing on union rates, complications and technical concerns related to surgical treatment. Reproducible clinical and functional outcome assessments are scant. Validated generic and disease specific outcome measures were rarely applied. ⋯ Patients with increased severity of C2-malunion and new onset atlantoaxial arthritis had worse clinical outcomes and significantly reduced rotation C1-2. The current study offers detailed insight into the radiographical, functional and clinical outcome of C2-fractures. It significantly adds to the understanding of C2-fractures.
-
Patient-orientated questionnaires are becoming increasingly popular in the assessment of outcome and are considered to provide a less biased assessment of the surgical result than traditional surgeon-based ratings. The present study sought to quantify the level of agreement between patients' and doctors' global outcome ratings after spine surgery. 1,113 German-speaking patients (59.0 +/- 16.6 years; 643 F, 470 M) who had undergone spine surgery rated the global outcome of the operation 3 months later, using a 5-point scale: operation helped a lot, helped, helped only little, didn't help, made things worse. They also rated pain, function, quality-of-life and disability, using the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI), and their satisfaction with treatment (5-point scale). ⋯ In conclusion, approximately half of the patient's perceptions of outcome after spine surgery were identical to those of the surgeon. Generally, where discrepancies arose, there was a tendency for the surgeon to be slightly more optimistic than the patient, and more so in relation to patients who themselves declared a poor outcome. This highlights the potential bias in outcome studies that rely solely on surgeon ratings of outcome and indicates the importance of collecting data from both the patient and the surgeon, in order to provide a balanced view of the outcome of spine surgery.
-
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. ⋯ 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.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
A prospective randomised study on the long-term effect of lumbar fusion on adjacent disc degeneration.
The existence and importance of an accelerated adjacent segment disc degeneration (ASD) after lumbar fusion have previously not been demonstrated by RCTs. The objectives of this study were, to determine whether lumbar fusion in the long term accelerates degenerative changes in the adjacent disc and whether this affects the outcome, by using a prospective randomised design. A total of 111 patients, aged 18-55, with isthmic spondylolisthesis were randomised to exercise (EX, n = 34) or posterolateral fusion (PLF, n = 77), with (n = 37) or without pedicle screw instrumentation (n = 40). ⋯ In conclusion, the long-term RCT shows that fusion accelerates degenerative changes at the adjacent level compared with natural history. The study suggests that not only fusion, but also laminectomy may be of pathogenetic importance. The clinical importance of ASD seems limited, with only the more severe forms affecting the outcome.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
Perioperative and short-term advantages of mini-open approach for lumbar spinal fusion.
It has been widely reported a vascular and neurologic damage of the lumbar muscles produced in the classic posterior approach for lumbar spinal fusions. The purpose of this study is to demonstrate a better clinical and functional outcome in the postoperative and short term in patients undergoing minimal invasive surgery ("mini-open") for this lumbar spinal arthrodesis. We designed a prospective study with a 30 individuals cohort randomized in two groups, depending on the approach performed to get a instrumented lumbar circumferential arthrodesis: "classic posterior" (CL group) or "mini-open" approach (MO group). ⋯ No significant differences were found between two groups in surgery timing, X-rays exposure or sciatic postoperative pain. This study, inline with previous investigations, reinforces the concept of minimizing the muscular lumbar damage with a mini-open approach for a faster and better recovery of patients' disability in the short term. Further investigations are necessary to confirm these findings in the long term, and to verify the achievement of a stable lumbar spinal fusion.