ACE Report Cover
No clinically relevant difference between surgical methods for sciatica and herniated disc
Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report
Idioma
Download Download Download
Descargar
Cite this Report Cite this Report Cite this Report
Citar
Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites
+ Favoritos
Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report
Idioma
Download Download Download
Descargar
Cite this Report Cite this Report Cite this Report
Citar
Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites
+ Favoritos
SPINE
No clinically relevant difference between surgical methods for sciatica and herniated disc .
Verified
This report has been verified by one or more authors of the original publication.

OrthoEvidence Journal (OE Journal) - ACE Report

OE Journal. 2013;1(3):74 Eur Spine J. 2012 Nov;21(11):2232-51. doi: 10.1007/s00586-012-2422-9. Epub 2012 Jul 20
Exclusive Author Interview

Dr. Wilco Jacobs discusses his systematic review assessing surgical techniques for sciatica due to herniated disc.

This systematic review and meta-analysis included 16 studies comparing surgical techniques for patients with sciatica due to disc herniation. Results demonstrated that microscopic discectomy resulted in reduced postoperative leg pain, shorter hospitalization, shorter incision length and longer operation time than conventional discectomy. Mixed results were found from studies comparing tubular discectomy and microscopic discectomy.


Detalles de la financiación de la publicación +
Financiación:
Non-Industry funded
Patrocinador:
Dutch Health Insurance Council
Conflicts:
None disclosed

Riesgo de sesgo

9,5/10

Criterios de información

18/20

Índice de fragilidad

N/A

Were the search methods used to find evidence (original research) on the primary question or questions stated?

Was the search for evidence reasonably comprehensive?

Were the criteria used for deciding which studies to include in the overview reported?

Was the bias in the selection of studies avoided?

Were the criteria used for assessing the validity of the included studies reported?

Was the validity of all of the studies referred to in the text assessed with use of appropriate criteria (either in selecting the studies for inclusion or in analyzing the studies that were cited)?

Were the methods used to combine the findings of the relevant studies (to reach a conclusion) reported?

Were the findings of the relevant studies combined appropriately relative to the primary question that the overview addresses?

Were the conclusions made by the author or authors supported by the data and or analysis reported in the overview?

How would you rate the scientific quality of this evidence?

Sí = 1

Incierto = 0,5

No relevante = 0

No = 0

La evaluación de los criterios de información evalúa la transparencia con la que los autores informan de las características metodológicas y del ensayo dentro de la publicación. La evaluación se divide en cinco categorías que se presentan a continuación.

4/4

Introduction

4/4

Accessing Data

4/4

Analysing Data

3/4

Results

3/4

Discussion

Detsky AS, Naylor CD, O'Rourke K, McGeer AJ, L'Abbé KA. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:255-65

El Índice de Fragilidad es una herramienta que ayuda en la interpretación de hallazgos significativos, proporcionando una medida de fuerza para un resultado. El Índice de Fragilidad representa el número de eventos consecutivos que es necesario añadir a un resultado dicotómico para que el hallazgo deje de ser significativo. Un número pequeño representa un hallazgo más débil y un número grande un hallazgo más fuerte.

¿Por qué se necesitaba ahora este estudio?

Sciatica is usually treated with conservative care; however, surgery is considered when nonsurgical treatment fails to reduce the symptoms after at least 6 weeks. Microscopic discectomy is the most common method of surgical treatment, and it can be done using a microscope or with the use of other magnifying tools. Since the best method of discectomy has not been determined, this review aimed to compare the different techniques with respect to intraoperative and clinical outcomes in patients with sciatica and disc herniation.

¿Cuál era la pregunta principal de la investigación?

Which method of discectomy is most effective with regards to clinical and intra-operative outcomes in patients with sciatica and lumbar disc herniation?

Características del estudio +
Data Source:
A search for published articles from January 2005 to April 2011 was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, PEDRO, and ICL. The Cochrane Back Review Group and other international experts were contacted. The reference lists and citations of the identified articles were then searched for further studies. A search from January 1st, 2007 to April 2011 was also conducted using the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number register, Clinical Trials register, and the USFDA trial register.
Index Terms:
The search strings used are provided in table 1 of the full text article.
Study Selection:
Studies included were randomized controlled trials comparing any types of surgical intervention for patients with sciatica due to disc herniation. Interventions included discectomy, micro-endoscopic discectomy, automated percutaneous discectomy, nucleoplasty and laser discectomy. Patient centered outcomes were of primary interest. Two independent authors reviewed the studies for eligibility. Disagreement was resolved through discussion or by a third reviewer.
Data Extraction:
Data was extracted by one reviewer.
Data Synthesis:
Data was pooled in Review Manager. Analyses were done using random effects estimates. Pooled analyses were not performed for evidence deemed low quality.
¿Cuáles fueron los hallazgos importantes?
  • According to 4 studies, microscopic discectomy resulted in less leg pain than open discectomy (95 % CI 0.57-3.44; p=0.006)
  • 6 studies indicated that microscopic discectomy led to an increase in operation time when compared to open discectomy (pooled result: 12.2 min; 95% CI 2.20-22.3; p = 0.02)
  • According to 2 studies, microscopic discectomy resulted in a shorter incision length than open discectomy
  • Patients from 1 study who received micro-endoscopic discectomy (MED) had a significantly shorter hospital stay (3.6 vs. 5.9 days) and less intra-operative blood loss (88 vs 190 ml) than those who received open discectomy; However, the MED group had a longer operation time than the open discectomy group (109 vs. 72 min)
  • 1 study indicated that tubular discectomy resulted in faster improvement in pain than conventional discectomy, whereas another study demonstrated the opposite at 2 years. Tubular discectomy also resulted in less post-operative analgesic consumption (1 study), shorter incision length (3 studies), shorter length of hospital stay (2 of 4 studies), and shorter operation time (2 of 3 studies) than conventional discectomy.
  • 1 study with high risk of bias indicated that there was no difference between percutaneous endoscopic discectomy and microscopic discectomy in clinical outcomes.
  • According to 1 study, sequestrectomy did not differ from standard microdiscectomy with respect to back and leg pain or in quality of life at 2 years.
¿Qué es lo que más debo recordar?

There were few differences between open discectomy, microscopic discectomy, and tubular discectomy. Some studies reported less leg pain, shorter hospitalization or longer operation time with microdiscectomy compared to open discectomy.

¿Cómo afectará esto al cuidado de mis pacientes?

Conclusions regarding the most effective treatment for sciatica and lumbar disc herniation are still unclear, and further research is needed to establish superiority of one surgical technique. Further research using larger sample sizes is required in order to investigate the effectiveness and costs of the various methods of discectomy.

DESCARGO DE RESPONSABILIDAD

El contenido de esta página tiene únicamente fines informativos y no pretende sustituir el consejo, diagnóstico o tratamiento médico profesional. Si necesita tratamiento médico, busque siempre el consejo de su médico o acuda al servicio de urgencias más cercano. Las opiniones, creencias y puntos de vista expresados por las personas sobre el contenido que se encuentra en esta página no reflejan las opiniones, creencias y puntos de vista de OrthoEvidence.

0 de 4 artículos mensuales GRATIS desbloqueados
Ha alcanzado su límite de vistas de 4 artículos gratuitos este mes

Acceda a OrtoEvidencia por tan sólo 1,99 $ a la semana.

Manténgase conectado con las últimas pruebas. Cancele en cualquier momento.
  • Valoraciones críticas de los últimos ensayos controlados aleatorizados de gran impacto y revisiones sistemáticas en ortopedia
  • Acceso al contenido del podcast OrthoEvidence, que incluye colaboraciones con el Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, entrevistas con cirujanos reconocidos internacionalmente y mesas redondas sobre noticias y temas ortopédicos
  • Suscripción a The Pulse, un boletín quincenal basado en la evidencia y diseñado para ayudarle a tomar mejores decisiones clínicas
Upgrade
Bienvenido
¿Ha olvidado su contraseña?
Comience hoy mismo su prueba GRATUITA

Su cuenta estará afiliada a
e incluye acceso gratuito a OrthoEvidence


O
¿Olvidó su contraseña?

O
Compruebe su correo electrónico

Si existe una cuenta con la dirección de correo electrónico proporcionada, se le enviará un correo electrónico para restablecer la contraseña. Si no ve el correo electrónico, compruebe su carpeta de correo no deseado o spam.

Si necesita más ayuda póngase en contacto con nuestro equipo de asistencia.

Inicie sesión para activar esta función

Para acceder a esta función, debe iniciar sesión en una cuenta activa de OrthoEvidence. Por favor, inicie sesión o cree una cuenta de prueba GRATUITA.

Traducir Informe ACE

OrthoEvidence utiliza un servicio de traducción de terceros para que el contenido sea accesible en varios idiomas. Tenga en cuenta que, aunque se hace todo lo posible para garantizar la exactitud, las traducciones no siempre son perfectas.

Cómo citar esto ACE Report

OrthoEvidence. No clinically relevant difference between surgical methods for sciatica and herniated disc. OE Journal. 2013;1(3):74. Available from: https://myorthoevidence.com/AceReport/Show/

Copiar cita
Inicie sesión para activar esta función

Para acceder a esta función, debe iniciar sesión en una cuenta activa de OrthoEvidence. Por favor, inicie sesión o cree una cuenta de prueba GRATUITA.

Función de miembro Premium

Para acceder a esta función, debe iniciar sesión en una cuenta Premium de OrthoEvidence.

Compartir ACE Report