Search

Background: The reference surgical procedure for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation is open microdiscectomy. Minimal invasive discectomy with tubular retractors is hypothesised to cause less tissue damage and result in lower blood loss, less postoperative pain and faster recovery. We previously reported our 1 and 2-year results, and found no better outcomes of tubular discectomy compared with open microdiscectomy. Until now, no studies on tubular discectomy have reported results with more than 2 years of follow-up. Studies with long-term follow-up are required to determine if clinical outcomes are sustained and to assess specific long-term outcomes such as reoperation rate and iatrogenic low back pain due to impaired spinal integrity. The aim of this study is to evaluate the 5-year results of tubular discectomy compared with conventional microdiscectomy.Methods: The study was designed as a double-blind randomised controlled trial. 325 patients with a symptomatic lumbar disc herniation were randomly allocated to tubular discectomy (166 patients) or conventional microdiscectomy (159 patients). Repeated standardised follow-up measurements were performed at 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 26, 38, 52, 78, 104, 156, 208 and 260 weeks after randomisation. Main outcomes are the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire for Sciatica (RDQ), Visual Analogue Scale for leg pain and low back pain, self-perceived recovery and reoperation incidence.Results: There was no clinically significant difference between tubular discectomy and conventional microdiscectomy regarding the main clinical outcomes at any time point during the 5 years of follow-up. RDQ scores at 5 years were 4.3 (95% CI 3.3 to 5.2) in the tubular discectomy group and 3.4 (95% CI 2.4 to 4.5) in the conventional microdiscectomy group. The mean difference of 0.9 (95% CI -0.6 to 2.2) was not significant. Mean differences for leg pain and back pain were 0.2 (95% CI -5.5 to 6.0) and 0.4 (95% CI -5.9 to 6.7), respectively. 77% of patients allocated to conventional discectomy reported complete or near-complete recovery of symptoms compared with 74% of patients allocated to tubular discectomy (p=0.79). The reoperation rate was 18% in the tubular discectomy group and 13% in the conventional discectomy group (p=0.29).Conclusions: Long-term functional and clinical outcome did not differ between patients allocated to tubular discectomy and conventional microdiscectomy. Primary and secondary outcome measures did not support the hypothesised advantages of tubular discectomy over conventional microdiscectomy.Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN51857546. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Percutaneous laser disc decompression (PLDD) for patients with lumbar disc herniation is believed to be cheaper than surgery. However, cost-effectiveness has never been studied. Materials and Methods: A cost utility analysis was performed alongside a randomized controlled trial comparing PLDD and conventional surgery. Patients reported their quality of life using the EuroQol five dimensions questionnaire (EQ-5D), 36-item short form health survey (SF-36 and derived SF-6D) and a visual analogue scale (VAS). Using cost diaries patients reported health care use, non-health care use and hours of absenteeism from work. The 1-year societal costs were compared with 1-year quality adjusted life years (QALYs) based on the United States (US) EQ-5D. Sensitivity analyses were carried out on the use of different utility measures (Netherland (NL) EQ-5D, SF-6D, or VAS) and on the perspective (societal or healthcare). Results: On the US EQ-5D, conventional surgery provided a non-significant gain in QALYs of 0.033 (95% confidence interval (CI) €0.026 to 0.093) in the first year. PLDD resulted in significantly lower healthcare costs (difference E1771, 95% CI E303 to E3238) and non-significantly lower societal costs (difference E2379, 95% CI €E2860 to E7618). For low values of the willingness to pay for a QALY, the probability of being cost-effective is in favor of PLDD. For higher values of the willingness to pay, between E30,000 and E70,000, conventional microdiscectomy becomes favorable. Conclusions: From a healthcare perspective PLDD, followed by surgery when needed, results in significantly lower 1-year costs than conventional surgery. From a societal perspective PLDD appears to be an economically neutral innovation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background context Percutaneous laser disc decompression (PLDD) is a minimally invasive treatment for lumbar disc herniation, with Food and Drug Administration approval since 1991. However, no randomized trial comparing PLDD to conventional treatment has been performed. Purpose In this trial, we assessed the effectiveness of a strategy of PLDD as compared with conventional surgery. Study design/Setting This randomized prospective trial with a noninferiority design was carried out in two academic and six teaching hospitals in the Netherlands according to an intent-to-treat protocol with full institutional review board approval. Patient sample One hundred fifteen eligible surgical candidates, with sciatica from a disc herniation smaller than one-third of the spinal canal, were included. Outcome measures The main outcome measures for this trial were the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire for sciatica, visual analog scores for back and leg pain, and the patient's report of perceived recovery. Methods Patients were randomly allocated to PLDD (n=57) or conventional surgery (n=58). Blinding was impossible because of the nature of the interventions. This study was funded by the Healthcare Insurance Board of the Netherlands. Results The primary outcome, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, showed noninferiority of PLDD at 8 (−0.1; [95% confidence interval (CI), −2.3 to 2.1]) and 52 weeks (−1.1; 95% CI, −3.4 to 1.1) compared with conventional surgery. There was, however, a higher speed of recovery in favor of conventional surgery (hazard ratio, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.42–0.97]). The number of reoperations was significantly less in the conventional surgery group (38% vs. 16%). Overall, a strategy of PLDD, with delayed surgery if needed, resulted in noninferior outcomes at 1 year. Conclusions At 1 year, a strategy of PLDD, followed by surgery if needed, resulted in noninferior outcomes compared with surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We consider a re-analysis of the wait-and-see (control) arm of a recent clinical trial on sciatica. While the original randomised trial was designed to evaluate the public policy effect of a conservative wait-and-see approach versus early surgery, we investigate the impact of surgery at the individual patient level in a re-analysis of the wait-and-see group data. Both marginal structural model re-weighted estimates as well as propensity score adjusted analyses are presented. Results indicate that patients with high propensity to receive surgery may have beneficial effects at 2 years from delayed disc surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Cervical radicular syndrome (CRS) due to a herniated disc can be safely treated by surgical decompression of the spinal root. In the vast majority of cases this relieves pain in the arm and restores function. However, conservative treatment also has a high chance on relieving symptoms. The objective of the present study is to evaluate the (cost-) effectiveness of surgery versus prolonged conservative care during one year of follow-up, and to evaluate the timing of surgery. Predisposing factors in favour of one of the two treatments will be evaluated. Methods/design Patients with disabling radicular arm pain, suffering for at least 2 months, and an MRI-proven herniated cervical disc will be randomised to receive either surgery or prolonged conservative care with surgery if needed. The surgical intervention will be an anterior discectomy or a posterior foraminotomy that is carried out according to usual care. Surgery will take place within 2-4 weeks after randomisation. Conservative care starts immediately after randomisation. The primary outcome measure is the VAS for pain or tingling sensations in the arm one year after randomisation. In addition, timing of surgery will be studied by correlating the primary outcome to the duration of symptoms. Secondary outcome measures encompass quality of life, costs and perceived recovery. Predefined prognostic factors will be evaluated. The total follow-up period will cover two years. A sample size of 400 patients is needed. Statistical analysis will be performed using a linear mixed model which will be based on the 'intention to treat' principle. In addition, a new CRS questionnaire for patients will be developed, the Leiden Cervical Radicular Syndrome Functioning (LCRSF) scale. Discussion The outcome will contribute to better decision making for the treatment of cervical radicular syndrome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The concept of minimally invasive lumbar disc surgery comprises reduced muscle injury. The aim of this study was to evaluate creatine phosphokinase (CPK) in serum and the cross-sectional area (CSA) of the multifidus muscle on magnetic resonance imaging as indicators of muscle injury. We present the results of a double-blind randomized trial on patients with lumbar disc herniation, in which tubular discectomy and conventional microdiscectomy were compared. In 216 patients, CPK was measured before surgery and at day 1 after surgery. In 140 patients, the CSA of the multifidus muscle was measured at the affected disc level before surgery and at 1 year after surgery. The ratios (i.e. post surgery/pre surgery) of CPK and CSA were used as outcome measures. The multifidus atrophy was classified into three grades ranging from 0 (normal) to 3 (severe atrophy), and the difference between post and pre surgery was used as an outcome. Patients' low-back pain scores on the visual analogue scale (VAS) were documented before surgery and at various moments during follow-up. Tubular discectomy compared with conventional microdiscectomy resulted in a nonsignificant difference in CPK ratio, although the CSA ratio was significantly lower in tubular discectomy. At 1 year, there was no difference in atrophy grade between both groups nor in the percentage of patients showing an increased atrophy grade (14% tubular vs. 18% conventional). The postoperative low-back pain scores on the VAS improved in both groups, although the 1-year between-group mean difference of improvement was 3.5 mm (95% CI; 1.4-5.7 mm) in favour of conventional microdiscectomy. In conclusion, tubular discectomy compared with conventional microdiscectomy did not result in reduced muscle injury. Postoperative evaluation of CPK and the multifidus muscle showed similar results in both groups, although patients who underwent tubular discectomy reported more low-back pain during the first year after surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Nerve root decompression with instrumented spondylodesis is the most frequently performed surgical procedure in the treatment of patients with symptomatic low-grade spondylolytic spondylolisthesis. Nerve root decompression without instrumented fusion, i.e. Gill's procedure, is an alternative and less invasive approach. A comparative cost-effectiveness study has not been performed yet. We present the design of a randomised controlled trial on cost-effectiveness of decompression according to Gill versus instrumented spondylodesis. Methods/design: All patients (age between 18 and 70 years) with sciatica or neurogenic claudication lasting more than 3 months due to spondylolytic spondylolisthesis grade I or II, are eligible for inclusion. Patients will be randomly allocated to nerve root decompression according to Gill, either unilateral or bilateral, or pedicle screw fixation with interbody fusion. The main primary outcome measure is the functional assessment of the patient measured with the Roland Disability Questionnaire for Sciatica at 12 weeks and 2 years. Other primary outcome measures are perceived recovery and intensity of leg pain and low back pain. The secondary outcome measures include, incidence of re-operations, complications, serum creatine phosphokinase, quality of life, medical consumption, costs, absenteeism, work perception, depression and anxiety, and treatment preference. The study is a randomised prospective multicenter trial in which two surgical techniques are compared in a parallel group design. Patients and research nurse will not be blinded during the follow-up period of 2 years. Discussion: Currently, nerve root decompression with instrumented fusion is the golden standard in the surgical treatment of low-grade spondylolytic spondylolisthesis, although scientific proof justifying instrumented spondylodesis over simple decompression is lacking. This trial is designed to elucidate the controversy in best surgical treatment of symptomatic patients with low-grade spondylolytic spondylolisthesis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The design of a randomized multicenter trial is presented on the effectiveness of a prolonged conservative treatment strategy compared with surgery in patients with persisting intense sciatica (lumbosacral radicular syndrome). Methods/design: Patients presenting themselves to their general practitioner with disabling sciatica lasting less than twelve weeks are referred to the neurology outpatient department of one of the participating hospitals. After confirmation of the diagnosis and surgical indication MRI scanning is performed. If a distinct disc herniation is discerned which in addition covers the clinically expected site the patient is eligible for randomization. Depending on the outcome of the randomization scheme the patient will either be submitted to prolonged conservative care or surgery. Surgery will be carried out according to the guidelines and between six and twelve weeks after onset of complaints. The experimental therapy consists of a prolonged conservative treatment under supervision of the general practitioner, which may be followed by surgical intervention in case of persisting or progressive disability. The main primary outcome measure is the disease specific disability of daily functioning. Other primary outcome measures are perceived recovery and intensity of legpain. Secondary outcome measures encompass severity of complaints, quality of life, medical consumption, absenteeism, costs and preference. The main research question will be answered at 12 months after randomization. The total follow-up period covers two years. Discussion: Evidence is lacking concerning the optimal treatment of lumbar disc induced sciatica. This pragmatic randomized trial, focusses on the 'timing' of intervention, and will contribute to the decision of the general practictioner and neurologist, regarding referral of patients for surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background context In patients with sciatica due to a lumbar disc herniation, it is generally recommended to reserve surgical treatment for those who suffer from intolerable pain or those who demonstrate persistent symptoms after conservative management. Controversy exists about the necessity of early surgical intervention for those patients that have an additional motor deficit. Purpose The aim of this study was to compare the recovery of motor deficit among patients receiving early surgery to those receiving prolonged conservative treatment. Study design Subgroup analysis of a randomized controlled trial. Patient sample This subgroup analysis focuses on 150 (53%) of 283 patients with sciatica due to a lumbar disc herniation and whose symptoms at baseline (before randomization) were accompanied by a motor deficit. Outcome measures Motor deficit was assessed through manual muscle testing and graded according to the Medical Research Council (MRC) scale. Methods In total, 150 patients with 6 to 12 weeks of sciatica due to a lumbar disc herniation and whose symptoms were accompanied by a moderate (MRC Grade 4) or severe (MRC Grade 3) motor deficit were randomly allocated to early surgery or prolonged conservative treatment. Repeated standardized neurologic examinations were performed at baseline and at 8, 26, and 52 weeks after randomization. This study was supported by a grant from the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMW) and the Hoelen Foundation The Hague. Results Sciatica recovered among seven (10%) of the 70 patients assigned to early surgery before surgery could be performed, and of the 80 patients assigned to conservative treatment, 32 patients (40%) were treated surgically because of intolerable pain. Baseline severity of motor deficit was graded moderate in 84% of patients and severe in 16% of patients. Motor deficit recovered significantly faster among patients allocated to early surgery (p=.01), but the difference was no longer significant at 26 (p=.21) or 52 weeks (p=.92). At 1 year, complete recovery of motor deficit was found in 81% of patients allocated to early surgery and in 80% of patients allocated to prolonged conservative treatment. Perceived overall recovery of sciatica was directly related to the presence of an accompanying motor deficit. Severe motor deficit at baseline (odds ratio, 5.4; confidence interval, 1.7-17.4) and a lumbar disc herniation encompassing ≥25% of the cross-sectional area of the spinal canal (odds ratio, 6.4; confidence interval, 1.3-31.8) were the most important risk factors for persistent deficit at 1 year. Conclusions Early surgery resulted in a faster recovery of motor deficit accompanying sciatica compared with prolonged conservative treatment but the difference was no longer significant during the final follow-up examination at 1 year. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: About 10% of cluster headache patients have the chronic form. At least 10% of this chronic group isintractable to or cannot tolerate medical treatment. Open pilot studies suggest that occipital nerve stimulation(ONS) might offer effective prevention in these patients. Controlled neuromodulation studies in treatments inducingparaesthesias have a general problem in blinding.We have introduced a new design in pain neuromodulation by which wethink we can overcome this problem.Methods/design: We propose a prospective, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group international clinical study in medicallyintractable, chronic cluster headache patients of high- versus low-amplitude ONS. Primary outcome measure is themean number of attacks over the last four weeks. After a study period of six months there is an open extension phase ofsix months. Alongside the randomised trial an economic evaluation study is performed.Discussion: The ICON study will show if ONS is an effective preventive therapy for patients suffering medically intractablechronic cluster headache and if there is a difference between high- and low-amplitude stimulation. The innovative designof the study will, for the first time, assess efficacy of ONS in a blinded way. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]