Assessing observational studies of spinal fusion and chemonucleolysis

Spine

Volumn 28, Issue 19, 2003, Pages 2268-2275

  Hartz, Arthur ^a   Benson, Kjell ^a   Glaser, John ^a   Bentler, Suzanne ^a   Bhandari, Mohit ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

^b MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Comparative studies; Confounding factors; Intervertebral disc chemolysis; Observational studies; Orthopedic research; Reproducibility of results

Indexed keywords

CHEMONUCLEOLYSIS; EVALUATION; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK HERNIA; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDLINE; OBSERVATION; ORTHOPEDIC SURGERY; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PATIENT SELECTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REPRODUCIBILITY; REVIEW; SPINE FUSION; VERTEBRAL CANAL STENOSIS;

EVALUATION STUDIES; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HEALTH SURVEYS; HUMANS; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK CHEMOLYSIS; ORTHOPEDICS; PATIENT SELECTION; RISK FACTORS; SPINAL FUSION; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 0141669062     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.BRS.0000085093.68773.EC     Document Type: Review

References (68)

1. Green SB, Byar DP. Using observational data from registries to compare treatments: the fallacy of omnimetrics. Stat Med 1984;3:361-73.
2. Kunz R, Oxman A. The unpredictability paradox: review of empirical comparisons of randomized and non-randomized clinical trials. Br Med J 1998;317:1185-90.
3. MacMahon S, Collins R. Reliable assessment of the effects of treatment on mortality and major morbidity, II: observational studies. Lancet 2001;357:455-62.
4. Pocock S. Randomized trials or observational tribulations? N Engl J Med 2000;342:1907-8.
5. Diehl LF, Perry DJ. A comparison of randomized concurrent control groups with matched historical control groups: are historical controls valid? J Clin Oncol 1986;4:1114-20.
6. Sacks H, Chalmers TC, Smith H Jr. Randomized versus historical controls for clinical trials. Am J Med 1982;72:233-40.
7. Goldbourt U. Evaluating the association between drug use and outcome - should the information from observational studies affect therapeutic use? Cardiology 1997;88(Suppl 3):63-7.
8. Carroll D, Tramer M, McQuay H, et al. Randomization is important in studies with pain outcomes: systematic review of trasncutaneous electrical nerve stimulation in acute postoperative pain. Br J Anaesth 1996;77:798-803.
9. Benson K, Hartz A. Observational studies versus randomized controlled trials. N Engl J Med 2000;342:1878-86.
10. Concato J, Shah N, Horwitz RI. Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. N Engl J Med 2000;342:1887-92.
11. Horwitz RI. Complexity and contradiction in clinical trial research. Am J Med 1987;82:498-510.
12. Niggemeyer O, Strauss JM, Schulitz KP. Comparison of surgical procedures for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a meta-analysis of the literature from 1975 to 1995. Eur Spine J 1997;6:423-9.
13. Nordby EJ, Wright PH. Efficacy of chymopapain in chemonucleolysis: a review. Spine 1994;19:2578-83.
14. Turner JA, Ersek M, Herron L, et al. Patient outcomes after lumbar spinal fusions. JAMA 1992;268:907-11.
15. Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The Consort Statement. JAMA 1996;276:637-9.
16. Moher D, Jadad A, Nichol G, et al. Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists. Control Clin Trials 1995;16:62-73.
17. Downs S, Black N. The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomized and non-randomized studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health 1998;52:377-84.
18. Hartz AJ, Holloway RL. The elements of statistics for clinical readers. Arch Fam Med 1995;4:1006-12.
19. Abramovitz JN, Neff SR. Lumbar disc surgery: results of the prospective lumbar discectomy study of the joint section on disorders of the spine and peripheral nerves of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons and the Congress of Neurological Surgeons. Neurosurgery 1991;29:301-7; discussion 307-8.
20. Taylor VM, Deyo RA, Ciol M, et al. Patient-oriented outcomes from low back surgery-a community-based study. Spine 2000;25:2445-52.
21. Vaughan PA, Malcolm BW, Maistrelli GL. Results of L4-L5 disc excision alone versus disc excision and fusion. Spine 1988;13:690-5.
22. Zheng F, Sandhu HS, Cammisa FP Jr, et al. Predictors of functional outcome in elderly patients undergoing posterior lumbar spine surgery. J Spine Disord 2001;14:518-21.
23. Trief PM, Grant W, Fredrickson B. A prospective study of psychological predictors of lumbar surgery outcome. Spine 2000;25:2616-21.
24. Loupasis GA, Stamos K, Katonis PG, et al. Seven-to-20-year outcome of lumbar discectomy. Spine 1999;24:2313-7.
25. Katz JN, Stucki G, Lipson SJ, et al. Predictors of surgical outcome in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 1999;24:2229-33.
26. Postacchini F. Results of surgery compared with conservative management for lumbar disc herniations. Spine 1996;21:1383-7.
27. Turner JA, Ersek M, Herron L, et al. Surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: attempted meta-analysis of the literature. Spine 1992;17:1-8.
28. Eie N. Comparison of the results in patients operated upon for ruptured lumbar discs with and without spinal fusion. Acta Neurochir 1978;41:107-13.
29. Frymoyer JW, Hanley E, Howe J, et al. Disc excision and spine fusion in the management of lumbar disc disease. A minimum ten-year follow-up. Spine 1978;3:1-6.
30. LaMont RL, Morawa LG, Pederson HE. Comparison of disk excision and combined disk excision and spinal fusion for lumbar disk ruptures. Clin Orthop 1976;121:212-6.
31. Nakano N, Tomita T. Results of Surgical Treatment of low back pain: comparative study of the anterior and posterior approach. Int Orthop 1980;4:101-6.
32. Tria AJ Jr, Williams JM, Harwood D, et al. Laminectomy with and without spinal fusion. Clin Orthop 1987;134-7.
33. White AH, von Rogov P, Zucherman J, et al. Lumbar laminectomy for herniated disc: a prospective controlled comparison with internal fixation fusion. Spine 1987;12:305-7.
34. Grob D, Humke T, Dvorak J. Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Decompression with and without arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1995;77:1036-41.
35. Herkowitz HN, Kurz LT. Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis. A prospective study comparing decompression with decompression and intertransverse process arthrodesis [see comments]. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1991;73:802-8.
36. Katz JN, Lipson SJ, Lew RA, et al. Lumbar laminectomy alone or with instrumented or non-instrumented arthrodesis in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Patient selection, costs, and surgical outcomes. Spine 1997;22:1123-31.
37. Nasca RJ. Rationale for spinal fusion in lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 1989;14:451-4.
38. Postacchini F, Cinotti G. Bone regrowth after surgical decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1992;74:862-9.
39. Rompe JD, Eysel P, Zollner J, et al. Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Long-term results after undercutting decompression compared with decompressive laminectomy alone or with instrumented fusion. Neurosurg Rev 1999;22:102-6.
40. Hanley EN Jr, David SM. Lumbar arthrodesis for the treatment of back pain. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1999;81:716-30.
41. Boccanera L, Pelliccioni S, Laus M. Stenosis of the lumbar vertebral canal (a study of 25 cases operated on). Ital J Orthop Traumatol 1984;10:227-36.
42. Getty CJ. Lumbar spinal stenosis: the clinical spectrum and the results of operation. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1980;62B:481-5.
43. Kawai S, Hattori S, Oda H, et al. Enlargement of the lumbar vertebral canal in lumbar canal stenosis. Spine 1981;6:381-7.
44. Sanderson PL, Wood PL. Surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis in old people [see comments]. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1993;75:393-7.
45. Spanu G, Messina AL, Assietti R, et al. Lumbar canal stenosis: results in 40 patients surgically treated. Acta Neurochir 1988;94:144-9.
46. Weir B, de Leo R. Lumbar stenosis: analysis of factors affecting outcome in 81 surgical cases. Can J Neurol Sci 1981;8:295-8.
47. Alexander AJ, Burkus JK, Mitchell JB, et al. Chymopapain chemonucleolysis versus surgical discectomy in a military population. Clin Orthop 1989;158-65.
48. Brown MD, Tompkins JS. Pain response post-chemonucleolysis or disc excision. Spine 1989;14:321-6.
49. Dabezies EJ, Brunet M. Chemonucleolysis vs laminectomy. Orthopedics 1978;1:26-9.
50. Day AS, Savage DF, Friedman WA, et al. Chemonucleolysis versus open discectomy: the case against chymopapain. Clin Neurosurg 1986;33:385-96.
51. Javid MJ. A 1- to 4-year follow-up review of treatment of sciatica using chemonucleolysis or laminectomy. J Neurosurg 1992;76:184-90.
52. Javid MJ, Chemonucleolysis versus laminectomy: a cohort comparison of effectiveness and charges. Spine 1995;20:2016-22.
53. La Garrigue JL, Lazorthes Y, Verdie JC, et al. Analyse des resultants de la chirurgie et de la nucleolyse a la papaine dans 1 085 cas de hernies discales lombaires. Neurochirurgie 1991;37:96-105.
54. Maroon JC, Abla A. Microdiscectomy versus chemonucleolysis. Neurosurgery 1985;16:644-9.
55. Postacchini F, Lami R, Massobrio M. Chemonucleolysis versus surgery in lumbar disc herniations: correlation of the results to preoperative clinical pattern and size of the herniation. Spine 1987;12:87-96.
56. Tregonning GD, Transfeldt EE, McCulloch JA, et al. Chymopapain versus conventional surgery for lumbar disc herniation: 10 year results of treatment. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1991;73:481-6.
57. Watters WC, Mirkovic S, Boss J. Treatment of the isolated lumbar intervertebral disc herniation: microdiscectomy versus chemonucleolysis. Spine 1988;13:360-2.
58. Zeiger HE Jr. Comparison of chemonucleolysis and microsurgical discectomy for the treatment of herniated lumbar disc. Spine 1987;12:796-9.
59. Crawshaw C, Frazer AM, Merriam WF, et al. A comparison of surgery and chemonucleolysis in the treatment of sciatica: a prospective randomized trial. Spine 1984;9:195-8.
60. Ejeskar A, Nachemsom A, Herberts P, et al. Surgery versus chemonucleolysis for herniated lumbar discs: a prospective study with random assignment. Clin Orthop 1983;236-42.
61. Lavignolle B, Vital JM, Baulny D, et al. Comparative study of surgery and chemonucleolysis in the treatment of sciatica caused by a herniated disk. Acta Orthop Belg 1987;53:244-9.
62. Stula D. Chemonucleolysis with chymopapain in lumbar disk hernia: randomized comparative study with operated patients. Neurochirurgia (Stuttg) 1990;33:169-72.
63. van Alphen HA, Braakman R, Bezemer PD, et al. Chemonucleolysis versus discectomy: a randomized multi-center trial. J Neurosurg 1989;70:869-75.
64. Ramirez LF, Javid MJ. Cost effectiveness of chemonucleolysis versus laminectomy in the treatment of herniated nucleus pulposus. Spine 1985;10:363-7.
65. Weinstein JN, Lehmann TR, Hejna W, et al. Chemonucleolysis versus open discectomy: a ten-year follow-up study. Clin Orthop 1986;50-5.
66. Muralikuttan KP, Hamilton A, Kernohan WG, et al. A prospective randomized trial of chemonucleolysis and conventional disc surgery in single level lumbar disc herniation. Spine 1992;17:381-7.
67. Watts C. Mechanisms of action of chymopapain in ruptured lumbar disc disease. Clin Neurosurg 1982;30:642-53.
68. Gibson JN, Grant IC, Waddell G. The Cochrane review of surgery for lumbar disc prolapse and degenerative lumbar spondylosis. Spine 1999;24:1820-32.