Intradiscal oxygen-ozone chemonucleolysis versus microdiscectomy for lumbar disc herniation radiculopathy: a non–inferiority randomized control trial
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Low back pain with or without radicular leg pain is an extremely common health condition significantly impacting patient's activities and quality of life. When conservative management fails, epidural injections providing only temporary relief, are frequently utilized. Intradiscal oxygen-ozone may offer an alternative to epidural injections and further reduce the need for microdiscectomy. PURPOSE: To compare the non-inferiority treatment status and clinical outcomes of intradiscal oxygen-ozone with microdiscectomy in patients with refractory radicular leg pain due to single-level contained lumbar disc herniations. STUDY DESIGN / SETTING: Multicenter pilot prospective non-inferiority blocked randomized control trial conducted in three European hospital spine centers. PATIENT SAMPLE: Forty-nine patients (mean 40 years of age, 17 females/32 males) with a single-level contained lumbar disc herniation, radicular leg pain for more than six weeks, and resistant to medical management were randomized, 25 to intradiscal oxygen-ozone and 24 to microdiscectomy. 88% (43 of 49) received their assigned treatment and constituted the AS-Treated (AT) population. OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was overall 6-month improvement over baseline in leg pain. Other validated clinical outcomes, including back numerical rating pain scores (NRS), Roland Morris Disability Index (RMDI) and EQ-5D, were collected at baseline, 1 week, 1-, 3-, and 6-months. Procedural technical outcomes were recorded and adverse events were evaluated at all follow-up intervals. METHODS: Oxygen-ozone treatment performed as outpatient day surgeries, included a one-time intradiscal injection delivered at a concentration of 35±3 μg/cc of oxygen-ozone by a calibrated delivery system. Discectomies performed as open microdiscectomy inpatient surgeries, were without spinal instrumentation, and not as subtotal microdiscectomies. Primary analyses with a non-inferiority margin of -1.94-point difference in 6-month cumulative weighted mean leg pain NRS scores were conducted using As-Treated (AT) and Intent-to-Treat (ITT) populations. In post hoc analyses, differences between treatment groups in improvement over baseline were compared at each follow-up visit, using baseline leg pain as a covariate. RESULTS: In the primary analysis, the overall 6-month difference between treatment groups in leg pain improvement using the AT population was -0.31 (SE, 0.84) points in favor of microdiscectomy and using the ITT population, the difference was 0.32 (SE, 0.88) points in favor of oxygen-ozone. The difference between oxygen-ozone and microdiscectomy did not exceed the non-inferiority 95% confidence lower limit of treatment difference in either the AT (95% lower limit, -1.72) or ITT (95% lower limit, -1.13) populations. Both treatments resulted in rapid and statistically significant improvements over baseline in leg pain, back pain, RMDI, and EQ-5D that persisted in follow-up. Between group differences were not significant for any outcomes. During 6-month follow-up, 71% (17 of 24) of patients receiving oxygen-ozone, avoided microdiscectomy. The mean procedure time for oxygen-ozone was significantly faster than microdiscectomy by 58 minutes (p<.0010) and the mean discharge time from procedure was significantly shorter for the oxygen-ozone procedure (4.3±2.9 hours vs. 44.2±29.9 hours, p<.001). No major adverse events occurred in either treatment group. CONCLUSIONS: Intradiscal oxygen-ozone chemonucleolysis for single-level lumbar disc herniations unresponsive to medical management, met the non-inferiority criteria to microdiscectomy on 6-month mean leg pain improvement. Both treatment groups achieved similar rapid significant clinical improvements that persisted and overall, 71% undergoing intradiscal oxygen-ozone were able to avoid surgery.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».