单纯减压术与减压融合术比较治疗退行性腰椎疾病的系统评价

Decompression With and Without Fusion in the Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Disease:A Systematic Review

目的系统评价单纯减压术与减压融合术两种手术方式治疗退行性腰椎疾病。方法①计算机检索MEDLINE(from OVID,1966～2006．4)、 EMBASE(1984～2006．4)、CBMdisc(1978-2005．12)、万方数据库 (1981～2006．4)、Cochrane图书馆(2006年第1期)、中文科技期刊数据库 (VIP,1989～2006．4);②手工检索相关杂志。纳入单纯减压和减压融合两种手术方式治疗退行性腰椎疾病且随访大于2年的随机和半随机对照试验,并进行质量评价。采用RevMan4．2．8软件对可以合并分析的指标作Meta分析;对不能合并的指标用描述性方法分析结果。结果有7篇研究符合纳入标准,共412例。Meta分析结果显示:单纯减压和减压融合两种手术方式治疗退行性腰椎疾病在总体疗效[OR 1．83,95％CI (0．92,3．41)]、疼痛减轻程度[术前WMD 0．12,95％CI(-0．44,0．68);术后WMD 0．08,95％CI(-1．08,1．25)]、术后腿痛人数[OR 1．04,95％CI(0．48,2．25)]、术后随访期二次手术人数[OR 0．68,95％CI(0．30,1．56)]和围手术期并发症[OR1．15, 95％CI(0．51,2．60)]等方面,其差异均无统计学意义;但两组在术后腰痛的发生人数上,差异有统计学意义[OR 0．25,95％CI(0．14,0．46)]。有4个研究比较了手术时间、术中失血、术后腰部使用支具固定时间、住院总费用,结果表明, 单纯减压手术组少于减压融合组。有3个研究比较了术前、术后椎体过伸过屈位滑移程度、手术间隙终板成角,术前术后椎间隙高度变化与手术疗效的关系,但不同研究的结果矛盾。结论单纯减压和减压融合两种手术方式治疗退行性腰椎疾病在总体疗效、疼痛减轻程度、术后腿痛人数、术后随访期二次手术人数和围手术期并发症等方面,差异无统计学意义;术后腰痛的发生人数单纯减压组多于减压融合组。但在手术时间、出血量、术后卧床时间、术后腰部使用支具固定时间及住院总费用方面,单纯减压手术组则少于减压融合组。目前尚无足够的证据证明X线表现椎体活动度的指标对预后术后腰痛有指导作用。鉴于本系统评价纳入样本数较小,文献总体质量也不高,因此,上述结论还需更多高质量、大样本的随机对照试验加以验证。

Objictive To evaluate the efficacy of decompression with and without fusion in the treatment of degenerative lumbar disease. Methods We searched the Cochrane Library （Issue 1, 2006）, MEDLINE （1966 to April, 2006）, EMBASE （1984 to April, 2006）, the China Biological Medicine Database （to Dec., 2005）, VIP （1989 to April, 2006） and hand-searched several related journals for randomized controlled trials （RCTs） and quasi-randomized controlled trials （quasi-RCTs） involving the comparison of the outcomes between decompression with and without fusion in the treatment of degenerative lumbar disease. The quality of the included trials was assessed. RevMan 4.2.8 software was used for statistical analysis. ResuIts Seven studies involving 412 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis indicated that no statistically significant differences were observed between the two operative procedures in the cumulative clinical outcome （OR1.83, 95%CI 0.92, 3.41）, incidence of postoperative leg pain （OR 1.04, 95%CI 0.48, 2.25）, incidence of perioperative complications （OR 1.15, 95%CI 0.51, 2.60）, incidence of re-operation （OR 0.68, 95%CI 0.30, 1.56） or pre and postoperative pain scores [Pre-op WMD 0.12, 95%CI （-0.44,0.68）; Post-op WMD 0.08, 95%CI （-1.08,1.25）]. The only statistical significance was observed in the incidence of postoperative back pain （OR 0.25, 95%CI 0.14, 0.46）. Four studies described the length of operation, the intraoperative blood loss, the duration of external fixation postoperative and the total cost in hospital, which revealed that decompression alone was superior to decompression plus fusion. Three studies described the relationships between the clinical outcome and the changes in segmental range of motion/disc height pre- and post-operatively, as well as the flexion-extension radiographs, which revealed that decompression plus fusion was superior to decompression alone. Conclusions There are no significant differences between the two procedures in clinical outcomes, incidences of postoperative leg pain, re-operation and complications. Decompression with fusion leads to fewer patients suffering from postoperative lumbago than that of decompression alone. There is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the radiographs may predict the clinical outcomes.More high quality, large-scale randomized controlled trials are required.