Adverse Event Recording and Reporting in Clinical Trials Comparing Lumbar Disk Replacement with Lumbar Fusion: A Systematic Review

Jayme Hiratzka, Farbod Rastegar, Alec G. Contag, Daniel C. Norvell, Paul A. Anderson, Robert Hart

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Study Design Systematic review. Objectives (1) To compare the quality of adverse event (AE) methodology and reporting among randomized trials comparing lumbar fusion with lumbar total disk replacement (TDR) using established AE reporting systems; (2) to compare the AEs and reoperations of lumbar spinal fusion with those from lumbar TDR; (3) to make recommendations on how to report AEs in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) so that surgeons and patients have more-detailed and comprehensive information when making treatment decisions. Methods A systematic search of PubMed, the Cochrane collaboration database, and the National Guideline Clearinghouse through May 2015 was conducted. Randomized controlled trials with at least 2 years of follow-up comparing lumbar artificial disk replacement with lumbar fusion were included. Patients were required to have axial or mechanical low back pain of ≥3 months' duration due to degenerative joint disease defined as degenerative disk disease, facet joint disease, or spondylosis. Outcomes included the quality of AE acquisition methodology and results reporting, and AEs were defined as those secondary to the procedure and reoperations. Individual and pooled relative risks and their 95% confidence intervals comparing lumbar TDR with fusion were calculated. Results RCTs demonstrated a generally poor description of methods for assessing AEs. There was a consistent lack of clear definition or grading for these events. Furthermore, there was a high degree of variation in reporting of surgery-related AEs. Most studies lacked adequate reporting of the timing of AEs, and there were no clear distinctions between acute or chronic AEs. Meta-analysis of the pooled data demonstrated a twofold increased risk of AEs in patients having lumbar fusion compared with patients having lumbar TDR at 2-year follow-up, and this relative risk was maintained at 5 years. Furthermore, the pooled data demonstrated a 1.7 times greater relative risk of reoperation in the fusion group compared with lumbar TDR, although this risk decreased to 1.1 at 5-year follow-up. However, given the lack of quality and consistency in the methods of recording and reporting of AEs, we are unable to make a clear recommendation of one treatment over the other. Conclusions Based on the currently available literature, lumbar TDR appears to be comparable in safety to lumbar fusion. However, due to lack of consistency in reporting of AEs, it is difficult to make conclusions regarding the true safety profile of lumbar TDR. Standardization in AE reporting will significantly improve the reliability of the current literature.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)486-495
Number of pages10
JournalGlobal Spine Journal
Volume5
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2015

Fingerprint

Total Disc Replacement
Clinical Trials
Reoperation
Randomized Controlled Trials
Spondylosis
Zygapophyseal Joint
Safety
Spinal Fusion
Joint Diseases
Low Back Pain
PubMed
Osteoarthritis
Meta-Analysis
Decision Making
Databases
Guidelines
Confidence Intervals

Keywords

  • adverse events
  • disk replacement
  • lumbar fusions
  • spine surgery
  • structured review

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
  • Clinical Neurology

Cite this

Adverse Event Recording and Reporting in Clinical Trials Comparing Lumbar Disk Replacement with Lumbar Fusion : A Systematic Review. / Hiratzka, Jayme; Rastegar, Farbod; Contag, Alec G.; Norvell, Daniel C.; Anderson, Paul A.; Hart, Robert.

In: Global Spine Journal, Vol. 5, No. 6, 01.12.2015, p. 486-495.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Hiratzka, Jayme ; Rastegar, Farbod ; Contag, Alec G. ; Norvell, Daniel C. ; Anderson, Paul A. ; Hart, Robert. / Adverse Event Recording and Reporting in Clinical Trials Comparing Lumbar Disk Replacement with Lumbar Fusion : A Systematic Review. In: Global Spine Journal. 2015 ; Vol. 5, No. 6. pp. 486-495.
@article{f316bc2f36624e10b1f3409e3bc27a19,
title = "Adverse Event Recording and Reporting in Clinical Trials Comparing Lumbar Disk Replacement with Lumbar Fusion: A Systematic Review",
abstract = "Study Design Systematic review. Objectives (1) To compare the quality of adverse event (AE) methodology and reporting among randomized trials comparing lumbar fusion with lumbar total disk replacement (TDR) using established AE reporting systems; (2) to compare the AEs and reoperations of lumbar spinal fusion with those from lumbar TDR; (3) to make recommendations on how to report AEs in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) so that surgeons and patients have more-detailed and comprehensive information when making treatment decisions. Methods A systematic search of PubMed, the Cochrane collaboration database, and the National Guideline Clearinghouse through May 2015 was conducted. Randomized controlled trials with at least 2 years of follow-up comparing lumbar artificial disk replacement with lumbar fusion were included. Patients were required to have axial or mechanical low back pain of ≥3 months' duration due to degenerative joint disease defined as degenerative disk disease, facet joint disease, or spondylosis. Outcomes included the quality of AE acquisition methodology and results reporting, and AEs were defined as those secondary to the procedure and reoperations. Individual and pooled relative risks and their 95{\%} confidence intervals comparing lumbar TDR with fusion were calculated. Results RCTs demonstrated a generally poor description of methods for assessing AEs. There was a consistent lack of clear definition or grading for these events. Furthermore, there was a high degree of variation in reporting of surgery-related AEs. Most studies lacked adequate reporting of the timing of AEs, and there were no clear distinctions between acute or chronic AEs. Meta-analysis of the pooled data demonstrated a twofold increased risk of AEs in patients having lumbar fusion compared with patients having lumbar TDR at 2-year follow-up, and this relative risk was maintained at 5 years. Furthermore, the pooled data demonstrated a 1.7 times greater relative risk of reoperation in the fusion group compared with lumbar TDR, although this risk decreased to 1.1 at 5-year follow-up. However, given the lack of quality and consistency in the methods of recording and reporting of AEs, we are unable to make a clear recommendation of one treatment over the other. Conclusions Based on the currently available literature, lumbar TDR appears to be comparable in safety to lumbar fusion. However, due to lack of consistency in reporting of AEs, it is difficult to make conclusions regarding the true safety profile of lumbar TDR. Standardization in AE reporting will significantly improve the reliability of the current literature.",
keywords = "adverse events, disk replacement, lumbar fusions, spine surgery, structured review",
author = "Jayme Hiratzka and Farbod Rastegar and Contag, {Alec G.} and Norvell, {Daniel C.} and Anderson, {Paul A.} and Robert Hart",
year = "2015",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1055/s-0035-1567835",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "5",
pages = "486--495",
journal = "Global Spine Journal",
issn = "2192-5682",
publisher = "Thieme Medical Publishers",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Adverse Event Recording and Reporting in Clinical Trials Comparing Lumbar Disk Replacement with Lumbar Fusion

T2 - A Systematic Review

AU - Hiratzka, Jayme

AU - Rastegar, Farbod

AU - Contag, Alec G.

AU - Norvell, Daniel C.

AU - Anderson, Paul A.

AU - Hart, Robert

PY - 2015/12/1

Y1 - 2015/12/1

N2 - Study Design Systematic review. Objectives (1) To compare the quality of adverse event (AE) methodology and reporting among randomized trials comparing lumbar fusion with lumbar total disk replacement (TDR) using established AE reporting systems; (2) to compare the AEs and reoperations of lumbar spinal fusion with those from lumbar TDR; (3) to make recommendations on how to report AEs in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) so that surgeons and patients have more-detailed and comprehensive information when making treatment decisions. Methods A systematic search of PubMed, the Cochrane collaboration database, and the National Guideline Clearinghouse through May 2015 was conducted. Randomized controlled trials with at least 2 years of follow-up comparing lumbar artificial disk replacement with lumbar fusion were included. Patients were required to have axial or mechanical low back pain of ≥3 months' duration due to degenerative joint disease defined as degenerative disk disease, facet joint disease, or spondylosis. Outcomes included the quality of AE acquisition methodology and results reporting, and AEs were defined as those secondary to the procedure and reoperations. Individual and pooled relative risks and their 95% confidence intervals comparing lumbar TDR with fusion were calculated. Results RCTs demonstrated a generally poor description of methods for assessing AEs. There was a consistent lack of clear definition or grading for these events. Furthermore, there was a high degree of variation in reporting of surgery-related AEs. Most studies lacked adequate reporting of the timing of AEs, and there were no clear distinctions between acute or chronic AEs. Meta-analysis of the pooled data demonstrated a twofold increased risk of AEs in patients having lumbar fusion compared with patients having lumbar TDR at 2-year follow-up, and this relative risk was maintained at 5 years. Furthermore, the pooled data demonstrated a 1.7 times greater relative risk of reoperation in the fusion group compared with lumbar TDR, although this risk decreased to 1.1 at 5-year follow-up. However, given the lack of quality and consistency in the methods of recording and reporting of AEs, we are unable to make a clear recommendation of one treatment over the other. Conclusions Based on the currently available literature, lumbar TDR appears to be comparable in safety to lumbar fusion. However, due to lack of consistency in reporting of AEs, it is difficult to make conclusions regarding the true safety profile of lumbar TDR. Standardization in AE reporting will significantly improve the reliability of the current literature.

AB - Study Design Systematic review. Objectives (1) To compare the quality of adverse event (AE) methodology and reporting among randomized trials comparing lumbar fusion with lumbar total disk replacement (TDR) using established AE reporting systems; (2) to compare the AEs and reoperations of lumbar spinal fusion with those from lumbar TDR; (3) to make recommendations on how to report AEs in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) so that surgeons and patients have more-detailed and comprehensive information when making treatment decisions. Methods A systematic search of PubMed, the Cochrane collaboration database, and the National Guideline Clearinghouse through May 2015 was conducted. Randomized controlled trials with at least 2 years of follow-up comparing lumbar artificial disk replacement with lumbar fusion were included. Patients were required to have axial or mechanical low back pain of ≥3 months' duration due to degenerative joint disease defined as degenerative disk disease, facet joint disease, or spondylosis. Outcomes included the quality of AE acquisition methodology and results reporting, and AEs were defined as those secondary to the procedure and reoperations. Individual and pooled relative risks and their 95% confidence intervals comparing lumbar TDR with fusion were calculated. Results RCTs demonstrated a generally poor description of methods for assessing AEs. There was a consistent lack of clear definition or grading for these events. Furthermore, there was a high degree of variation in reporting of surgery-related AEs. Most studies lacked adequate reporting of the timing of AEs, and there were no clear distinctions between acute or chronic AEs. Meta-analysis of the pooled data demonstrated a twofold increased risk of AEs in patients having lumbar fusion compared with patients having lumbar TDR at 2-year follow-up, and this relative risk was maintained at 5 years. Furthermore, the pooled data demonstrated a 1.7 times greater relative risk of reoperation in the fusion group compared with lumbar TDR, although this risk decreased to 1.1 at 5-year follow-up. However, given the lack of quality and consistency in the methods of recording and reporting of AEs, we are unable to make a clear recommendation of one treatment over the other. Conclusions Based on the currently available literature, lumbar TDR appears to be comparable in safety to lumbar fusion. However, due to lack of consistency in reporting of AEs, it is difficult to make conclusions regarding the true safety profile of lumbar TDR. Standardization in AE reporting will significantly improve the reliability of the current literature.

KW - adverse events

KW - disk replacement

KW - lumbar fusions

KW - spine surgery

KW - structured review

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85020927404&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85020927404&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1055/s-0035-1567835

DO - 10.1055/s-0035-1567835

M3 - Review article

AN - SCOPUS:85020927404

VL - 5

SP - 486

EP - 495

JO - Global Spine Journal

JF - Global Spine Journal

SN - 2192-5682

IS - 6

ER -