Systematic review of microendoscopic discectomy for lumbar disc herniation
Study design Systematic review. Objective To search and analyse randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published since the Cochrane review by Gibson and Waddell (2007) comparing microendoscopic discectomy (MED) with open discectomy (OD) or microdiscectomy (MD) and to assess whether MED improves patient...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | European spine journal 2013-11, Vol.22 (11), p.2458-2465 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 2465 |
---|---|
container_issue | 11 |
container_start_page | 2458 |
container_title | European spine journal |
container_volume | 22 |
creator | Smith, Nick Masters, James Jensen, Cyrus Khan, Almas Sprowson, Andrew |
description | Study design
Systematic review.
Objective
To search and analyse randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published since the Cochrane review by Gibson and Waddell (2007) comparing microendoscopic discectomy (MED) with open discectomy (OD) or microdiscectomy (MD) and to assess whether MED improves patient-reported outcomes.
Summary of background
Discectomy for symptomatic herniated lumbar discs is an effective operative treatment. A number of operative techniques exist including OD, MD, and MED. A 2007 Cochrane review identified OD as an effective treatment for symptom improvement, and found sufficient evidence for MD. However, evidence for MED was lacking.
Methods
A systematic review of Medline and Embase was carried out. Aiming to identify RCTs carried out after 2007, which compared OD with MD and MED which reported the Oswestry disability index (ODI) as an outcome.
Results
Four RCTs were identified. None of the studies found a significant difference in the ODI scores between study groups at any time point. Three studies compared MED to OD and one compared OD, MD, and MED. The largest study reported an increased number of severe complications in the MED group.
Conclusions
There is some evidence to suggest that MED performed by surgeons skilled in the technique in tertiary referral centres is as effective as OD. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00586-013-2848-8 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3886516</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3132151921</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c470t-27088261adacac44048609bf5b4b1ef229b2f3207ddec658e5aedecf1e191b9a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kUtv1TAQhS0EopfCD2CDIrFhE5jxK_YGCVXlpUosgLXlOJM2VRJf7KTo_nscbqkKEitbPt8c-_gw9hzhNQI0bzKAMroGFDU30tTmAduhFLwGK_hDtgMrodYN2hP2JOdrAFQW9GN2wkVjhVJmxz5_PeSFJr8MoUp0M9DPKvbVNIQUae5iDnFflG7IgcISp0PVx1SN69T69Pu0uqI0D2U8zk_Zo96PmZ7drqfs-_vzb2cf64svHz6dvbuog2xgqXkDxnCNvvPBBylBGg227VUrW6Sec9vyXnBouo6CVoaUp7LrkdBia704ZW-Pvvu1nagLNC_Jj26fhsmng4t-cH8r83DlLuONE8ZohboYvLo1SPHHSnlx05ZvHP1Mcc0OpUYhBYoNffkPeh3XNJd4hVLWSgV8o_BIlV_LOVF_9xgEtzXljk250pTbmnKmzLy4n-Ju4k81BeBHIBdpvqR07-r_uv4CnR2gXg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1459945026</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Systematic review of microendoscopic discectomy for lumbar disc herniation</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><source>PubMed Central (PMC)</source><source>EZB Electronic Journals Library</source><creator>Smith, Nick ; Masters, James ; Jensen, Cyrus ; Khan, Almas ; Sprowson, Andrew</creator><creatorcontrib>Smith, Nick ; Masters, James ; Jensen, Cyrus ; Khan, Almas ; Sprowson, Andrew</creatorcontrib><description>Study design
Systematic review.
Objective
To search and analyse randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published since the Cochrane review by Gibson and Waddell (2007) comparing microendoscopic discectomy (MED) with open discectomy (OD) or microdiscectomy (MD) and to assess whether MED improves patient-reported outcomes.
Summary of background
Discectomy for symptomatic herniated lumbar discs is an effective operative treatment. A number of operative techniques exist including OD, MD, and MED. A 2007 Cochrane review identified OD as an effective treatment for symptom improvement, and found sufficient evidence for MD. However, evidence for MED was lacking.
Methods
A systematic review of Medline and Embase was carried out. Aiming to identify RCTs carried out after 2007, which compared OD with MD and MED which reported the Oswestry disability index (ODI) as an outcome.
Results
Four RCTs were identified. None of the studies found a significant difference in the ODI scores between study groups at any time point. Three studies compared MED to OD and one compared OD, MD, and MED. The largest study reported an increased number of severe complications in the MED group.
Conclusions
There is some evidence to suggest that MED performed by surgeons skilled in the technique in tertiary referral centres is as effective as OD.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0940-6719</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1432-0932</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00586-013-2848-8</identifier><identifier>PMID: 23793558</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><subject>Diskectomy - methods ; Endoscopy ; Humans ; Intervertebral Disc Displacement - complications ; Intervertebral Disc Displacement - surgery ; Lumbar Vertebrae - surgery ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Microsurgery ; Neurosurgery ; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic ; Review ; Review Article ; Sciatica - etiology ; Sciatica - surgery ; Surgical Orthopedics ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>European spine journal, 2013-11, Vol.22 (11), p.2458-2465</ispartof><rights>Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c470t-27088261adacac44048609bf5b4b1ef229b2f3207ddec658e5aedecf1e191b9a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c470t-27088261adacac44048609bf5b4b1ef229b2f3207ddec658e5aedecf1e191b9a3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3886516/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3886516/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,881,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294,53766,53768</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23793558$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Smith, Nick</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Masters, James</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jensen, Cyrus</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Khan, Almas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sprowson, Andrew</creatorcontrib><title>Systematic review of microendoscopic discectomy for lumbar disc herniation</title><title>European spine journal</title><addtitle>Eur Spine J</addtitle><addtitle>Eur Spine J</addtitle><description>Study design
Systematic review.
Objective
To search and analyse randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published since the Cochrane review by Gibson and Waddell (2007) comparing microendoscopic discectomy (MED) with open discectomy (OD) or microdiscectomy (MD) and to assess whether MED improves patient-reported outcomes.
Summary of background
Discectomy for symptomatic herniated lumbar discs is an effective operative treatment. A number of operative techniques exist including OD, MD, and MED. A 2007 Cochrane review identified OD as an effective treatment for symptom improvement, and found sufficient evidence for MD. However, evidence for MED was lacking.
Methods
A systematic review of Medline and Embase was carried out. Aiming to identify RCTs carried out after 2007, which compared OD with MD and MED which reported the Oswestry disability index (ODI) as an outcome.
Results
Four RCTs were identified. None of the studies found a significant difference in the ODI scores between study groups at any time point. Three studies compared MED to OD and one compared OD, MD, and MED. The largest study reported an increased number of severe complications in the MED group.
Conclusions
There is some evidence to suggest that MED performed by surgeons skilled in the technique in tertiary referral centres is as effective as OD.</description><subject>Diskectomy - methods</subject><subject>Endoscopy</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Intervertebral Disc Displacement - complications</subject><subject>Intervertebral Disc Displacement - surgery</subject><subject>Lumbar Vertebrae - surgery</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Microsurgery</subject><subject>Neurosurgery</subject><subject>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic</subject><subject>Review</subject><subject>Review Article</subject><subject>Sciatica - etiology</subject><subject>Sciatica - surgery</subject><subject>Surgical Orthopedics</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>0940-6719</issn><issn>1432-0932</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kUtv1TAQhS0EopfCD2CDIrFhE5jxK_YGCVXlpUosgLXlOJM2VRJf7KTo_nscbqkKEitbPt8c-_gw9hzhNQI0bzKAMroGFDU30tTmAduhFLwGK_hDtgMrodYN2hP2JOdrAFQW9GN2wkVjhVJmxz5_PeSFJr8MoUp0M9DPKvbVNIQUae5iDnFflG7IgcISp0PVx1SN69T69Pu0uqI0D2U8zk_Zo96PmZ7drqfs-_vzb2cf64svHz6dvbuog2xgqXkDxnCNvvPBBylBGg227VUrW6Sec9vyXnBouo6CVoaUp7LrkdBia704ZW-Pvvu1nagLNC_Jj26fhsmng4t-cH8r83DlLuONE8ZohboYvLo1SPHHSnlx05ZvHP1Mcc0OpUYhBYoNffkPeh3XNJd4hVLWSgV8o_BIlV_LOVF_9xgEtzXljk250pTbmnKmzLy4n-Ju4k81BeBHIBdpvqR07-r_uv4CnR2gXg</recordid><startdate>20131101</startdate><enddate>20131101</enddate><creator>Smith, Nick</creator><creator>Masters, James</creator><creator>Jensen, Cyrus</creator><creator>Khan, Almas</creator><creator>Sprowson, Andrew</creator><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>PHGZM</scope><scope>PHGZT</scope><scope>PJZUB</scope><scope>PKEHL</scope><scope>PPXIY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20131101</creationdate><title>Systematic review of microendoscopic discectomy for lumbar disc herniation</title><author>Smith, Nick ; Masters, James ; Jensen, Cyrus ; Khan, Almas ; Sprowson, Andrew</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c470t-27088261adacac44048609bf5b4b1ef229b2f3207ddec658e5aedecf1e191b9a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Diskectomy - methods</topic><topic>Endoscopy</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Intervertebral Disc Displacement - complications</topic><topic>Intervertebral Disc Displacement - surgery</topic><topic>Lumbar Vertebrae - surgery</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Microsurgery</topic><topic>Neurosurgery</topic><topic>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic</topic><topic>Review</topic><topic>Review Article</topic><topic>Sciatica - etiology</topic><topic>Sciatica - surgery</topic><topic>Surgical Orthopedics</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Smith, Nick</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Masters, James</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jensen, Cyrus</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Khan, Almas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sprowson, Andrew</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>PML(ProQuest Medical Library)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Research Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Health & Nursing</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>European spine journal</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Smith, Nick</au><au>Masters, James</au><au>Jensen, Cyrus</au><au>Khan, Almas</au><au>Sprowson, Andrew</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Systematic review of microendoscopic discectomy for lumbar disc herniation</atitle><jtitle>European spine journal</jtitle><stitle>Eur Spine J</stitle><addtitle>Eur Spine J</addtitle><date>2013-11-01</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>22</volume><issue>11</issue><spage>2458</spage><epage>2465</epage><pages>2458-2465</pages><issn>0940-6719</issn><eissn>1432-0932</eissn><abstract>Study design
Systematic review.
Objective
To search and analyse randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published since the Cochrane review by Gibson and Waddell (2007) comparing microendoscopic discectomy (MED) with open discectomy (OD) or microdiscectomy (MD) and to assess whether MED improves patient-reported outcomes.
Summary of background
Discectomy for symptomatic herniated lumbar discs is an effective operative treatment. A number of operative techniques exist including OD, MD, and MED. A 2007 Cochrane review identified OD as an effective treatment for symptom improvement, and found sufficient evidence for MD. However, evidence for MED was lacking.
Methods
A systematic review of Medline and Embase was carried out. Aiming to identify RCTs carried out after 2007, which compared OD with MD and MED which reported the Oswestry disability index (ODI) as an outcome.
Results
Four RCTs were identified. None of the studies found a significant difference in the ODI scores between study groups at any time point. Three studies compared MED to OD and one compared OD, MD, and MED. The largest study reported an increased number of severe complications in the MED group.
Conclusions
There is some evidence to suggest that MED performed by surgeons skilled in the technique in tertiary referral centres is as effective as OD.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</pub><pmid>23793558</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00586-013-2848-8</doi><tpages>8</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0940-6719 |
ispartof | European spine journal, 2013-11, Vol.22 (11), p.2458-2465 |
issn | 0940-6719 1432-0932 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3886516 |
source | MEDLINE; Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals; PubMed Central (PMC); EZB Electronic Journals Library |
subjects | Diskectomy - methods Endoscopy Humans Intervertebral Disc Displacement - complications Intervertebral Disc Displacement - surgery Lumbar Vertebrae - surgery Medicine Medicine & Public Health Microsurgery Neurosurgery Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic Review Review Article Sciatica - etiology Sciatica - surgery Surgical Orthopedics Treatment Outcome |
title | Systematic review of microendoscopic discectomy for lumbar disc herniation |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-14T16%3A42%3A34IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Systematic%20review%20of%20microendoscopic%20discectomy%20for%20lumbar%20disc%20herniation&rft.jtitle=European%20spine%20journal&rft.au=Smith,%20Nick&rft.date=2013-11-01&rft.volume=22&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=2458&rft.epage=2465&rft.pages=2458-2465&rft.issn=0940-6719&rft.eissn=1432-0932&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00586-013-2848-8&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E3132151921%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1459945026&rft_id=info:pmid/23793558&rfr_iscdi=true |