Cost-effectiveness of decompression according to Gill versus instrumented spondylodesis in the treatment of sciatica due to low grade spondylolytic spondylolisthesis: A prospective randomised controlled trial [NTR1300]

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>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 in...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Brand Ronald, Verstegen Marco JT, Arts Mark P, Koes Bart W, Akker M Elske, Peul Wilco C
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2008-09-01
Series:BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
Online Access:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2474/9/128
id doaj-d0692f06437c4ad9bf24a0e3d9c3a3e5
record_format Article
spelling doaj-d0692f06437c4ad9bf24a0e3d9c3a3e52020-11-24T21:47:18ZengBMCBMC Musculoskeletal Disorders1471-24742008-09-019112810.1186/1471-2474-9-128Cost-effectiveness of decompression according to Gill versus instrumented spondylodesis in the treatment of sciatica due to low grade spondylolytic spondylolisthesis: A prospective randomised controlled trial [NTR1300]Brand RonaldVerstegen Marco JTArts Mark PKoes Bart WAkker M ElskePeul Wilco C<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>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.</p> <p>Methods/design</p> <p>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.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>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.</p> http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2474/9/128
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Brand Ronald
Verstegen Marco JT
Arts Mark P
Koes Bart W
Akker M Elske
Peul Wilco C
spellingShingle Brand Ronald
Verstegen Marco JT
Arts Mark P
Koes Bart W
Akker M Elske
Peul Wilco C
Cost-effectiveness of decompression according to Gill versus instrumented spondylodesis in the treatment of sciatica due to low grade spondylolytic spondylolisthesis: A prospective randomised controlled trial [NTR1300]
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
author_facet Brand Ronald
Verstegen Marco JT
Arts Mark P
Koes Bart W
Akker M Elske
Peul Wilco C
author_sort Brand Ronald
title Cost-effectiveness of decompression according to Gill versus instrumented spondylodesis in the treatment of sciatica due to low grade spondylolytic spondylolisthesis: A prospective randomised controlled trial [NTR1300]
title_short Cost-effectiveness of decompression according to Gill versus instrumented spondylodesis in the treatment of sciatica due to low grade spondylolytic spondylolisthesis: A prospective randomised controlled trial [NTR1300]
title_full Cost-effectiveness of decompression according to Gill versus instrumented spondylodesis in the treatment of sciatica due to low grade spondylolytic spondylolisthesis: A prospective randomised controlled trial [NTR1300]
title_fullStr Cost-effectiveness of decompression according to Gill versus instrumented spondylodesis in the treatment of sciatica due to low grade spondylolytic spondylolisthesis: A prospective randomised controlled trial [NTR1300]
title_full_unstemmed Cost-effectiveness of decompression according to Gill versus instrumented spondylodesis in the treatment of sciatica due to low grade spondylolytic spondylolisthesis: A prospective randomised controlled trial [NTR1300]
title_sort cost-effectiveness of decompression according to gill versus instrumented spondylodesis in the treatment of sciatica due to low grade spondylolytic spondylolisthesis: a prospective randomised controlled trial [ntr1300]
publisher BMC
series BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
issn 1471-2474
publishDate 2008-09-01
description <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>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.</p> <p>Methods/design</p> <p>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.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>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.</p>
url http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2474/9/128
work_keys_str_mv AT brandronald costeffectivenessofdecompressionaccordingtogillversusinstrumentedspondylodesisinthetreatmentofsciaticaduetolowgradespondylolyticspondylolisthesisaprospectiverandomisedcontrolledtrialntr1300
AT verstegenmarcojt costeffectivenessofdecompressionaccordingtogillversusinstrumentedspondylodesisinthetreatmentofsciaticaduetolowgradespondylolyticspondylolisthesisaprospectiverandomisedcontrolledtrialntr1300
AT artsmarkp costeffectivenessofdecompressionaccordingtogillversusinstrumentedspondylodesisinthetreatmentofsciaticaduetolowgradespondylolyticspondylolisthesisaprospectiverandomisedcontrolledtrialntr1300
AT koesbartw costeffectivenessofdecompressionaccordingtogillversusinstrumentedspondylodesisinthetreatmentofsciaticaduetolowgradespondylolyticspondylolisthesisaprospectiverandomisedcontrolledtrialntr1300
AT akkermelske costeffectivenessofdecompressionaccordingtogillversusinstrumentedspondylodesisinthetreatmentofsciaticaduetolowgradespondylolyticspondylolisthesisaprospectiverandomisedcontrolledtrialntr1300
AT peulwilcoc costeffectivenessofdecompressionaccordingtogillversusinstrumentedspondylodesisinthetreatmentofsciaticaduetolowgradespondylolyticspondylolisthesisaprospectiverandomisedcontrolledtrialntr1300
_version_ 1725897939106136064