Dataset Information

Effectiveness of surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The management of spinal stenosis by surgery has increased rapidly in the past two decades, however, there is still controversy regarding the efficacy of surgery for this condition. Our aim was to investigate the efficacy and comparative effectiveness of surgery in the management of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.

Methods

Electronic searches were performed on MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL, Web of Science, LILACS and Cochrane Library from inception to November 2014. Hand searches were conducted on included articles and relevant reviews. We included randomised controlled trials evaluating surgery compared to no treatment, placebo/sham, or to another surgical technique in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Primary outcome measures were pain, disability, recovery and quality of life. The PEDro scale was used for risk of bias assessment. Data were pooled with a random-effects model, and the GRADE approach was used to summarise conclusions.

Results

Nineteen published reports (17 trials) were included. No trials were identified comparing surgery to no treatment or placebo/sham. Pooling revealed that decompression plus fusion is not superior to decompression alone for pain (mean difference -3.7, 95% confidence interval -15.6 to 8.1), disability (mean difference 9.8, 95% confidence interval -9.4 to 28.9), or walking ability (risk ratio 0.9, 95% confidence interval 0.4 to 1.9). Interspinous process spacer devices are slightly more effective than decompression plus fusion for disability (mean difference 5.7, 95% confidence interval 1.3 to 10.0), but they resulted in significantly higher reoperation rates when compared to decompression alone (28% v 7%, P < 0.001). There are no differences in the effectiveness between other surgical techniques for our main outcomes.

Conclusions

The relative efficacy of various surgical options for treatment of spinal stenosis remains uncertain. Decompression plus fusion is not more effective than decompression alone. Interspinous process spacer devices result in higher reoperation rates than bony decompression.

SUBMITTER: Machado GC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4378944 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is caused by neural compression due to narrowing of the lumbar spinal canal or neural foramen. Surgical intervention is a standard treatment for LSS; however, the steep increase in the surgical rate, post-operative complications, and comparatively low long-term satisfaction are considered to be limitations of this surgical approach. Conversely, acupotomy is a minimally invasive technique that combines the effects of conventional acupuncture with micro-incision, which may offer an alternative to surgery for the treatment of LSS. This review was conducted to investigate and critically review the current evidence on the efficacy and safety of acupotomy for LSS.MethodsEleven databases were searched from their respective inception dates to December 28, 2018. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing acupotomy and wait-list, sham treatment, or active controls were included. The quality of the included studies was assessed using risk-of-bias tool.ResultsSeven RCTs were included in this review and meta-analysis. The methodological quality of the included studies was generally poor. The acupotomy treatment group was associated with significantly lower visual analogue scale scores (range 0∼10) (5 RCTs; mean difference [MD] -1.55, 95% confidence interval [CIs] -2.60 to -0.50; I = 94%) and higher Japanese Orthopedic Association Score (3 RCTs; MD 4.70, 95% CI 3.73 to 5.68; I = 0%) compared to the active control group. In subgroup analysis based on the type of active controls, acupotomy retained significant benefits over lumbar traction and acupuncture, as well as over lumbar traction, spinal decompression, and acupuncture. Safety data were reported in only 1 study, and no adverse events occurred in either the acupotomy or the acupuncture control group.ConclusionAccording to current evidence, acupotomy might be beneficial for treating LSS. Acupotomy showed consistent superiority over lumbar traction, but the results were mixed in comparisons with other interventions, such as spinal decompression and acupuncture. However, the findings should be interpreted cautiously, given the poor methodological quality of the included studies, and potential small-study effects. Further larger, high-quality, rigorous RCTs should be conducted on this topic and rigorous reporting of acupotomy procedures and safety data should be encouraged.

Project description:Objective: To systematically evaluate the clinical effectiveness of conservative treatments including pharmacological treatments and nonpharmacological treatments on patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Methods: We searched six electronic databases systematically for randomized clinical trials published between January 2000 and July 2021, including the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WanFang Data, PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane library. The studies focused on the therapeutic effects of pharmacological treatments including calcitonin, antiepileptics, neurotrophic drugs, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, Chinese Traditional Medicine, limaprost, and nonpharmacological treatments like physiotherapy for treating lumbar spinal stenosis were included. The outcome was measured using the visual analog scale, Oswestry Dysfunction Index, Japanese Orthopaedic Association Score, and EuroQol Five Dimensions Questionnaire. The quality of eligible studies was assessed by using the Cochrane recommended bias risk assessment tool. Stata was used to conduct the network meta-analysis. Results: A total of 12 randomized control trials with 1,194 patients were included. The network meta-analysis showed that for the visual analog scale, a better therapeutic effect was noted while using Chinese Traditional Medicine and physiotherapy, followed by analgesics drugs and limaprost. Limaprost and calcitonin were better in decreasing the Oswestry Dysfunction Index. In terms of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Score, the use of traditional Chinese Medicine and limaprost were associated with a better improvement than other treatments. Meanwhile, limaprost combined with analgesics drugs was found to be effective to improve the EuroQol Five Dimensions Questionnaire. Conclusion: Among the commonly used conservative treatments for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis, limaprost may have better efficacy in improving the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Score and decreasing the Oswestry Dysfunction Index, with a beneficial effect on decreasing the visual analog scale and improving the EuroQol Five Dimensions Questionnaire. Systematic Review Registration: website, identifier registration number.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is prevalent in those over the age of 65 years and the leading cause of spinal surgery in this population. Recent systematic reviews have examined the effectiveness of conservative management for LSS, but not relative to surgical interventions. The aim of this review was to systematically examine the effectiveness of land based exercise compared with decompressive surgery in the management of patients with LSS. METHODS: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials and clinical trials was undertaken. The databases MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PEDro and Cochrane Library Register of Controlled Trials were searched from January 2000 to June 2011. Only studies that included subjects with lumbar spinal canal stenosis were considered in this review. Studies also had to use a patient reported functional outcome measure for a land based exercise intervention or lumbar decompressive surgery. RESULTS: Only one study compared the effectiveness of exercise and decompressive surgery for LSS. Surgery demonstrated statistically significant improvements in patient reported functional outcome scores at 6, 12 and 24-months post-intervention (p < 0.01). To facilitate further analysis, the results from 12 exercise and 10 surgical intervention arms were compared using percentage change in patient reported functional outcome measure scores. Exercise interventions showed initial improvements, ranging from 16 to 29% above baseline. All decompressive surgical interventions demonstrated greater and sustained improvements over 2-years (range 38-67% improvement) with moderate to large effect sizes. The most commonly reported complications associated with surgery were dural tears, while details of adverse effects were lacking in exercise interventions. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review of the recent literature demonstrates that decompressive surgery is more effective than land based exercise in the management of LSS. However, given the condition's slowly progressive nature and the potential for known surgical complications, it is recommended that a trial of conservative management with land based exercise be considered prior to consideration of surgical intervention.

Project description:BackgroundThere have been lingering controversies reported decompression and plus fusion. And the relative safety of fusion in addition to standard decompression remains unclear. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of decompression alone or combined with fusion in lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) with degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS).MethodsIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched the databases of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for relevant literature from their inception to 28th December 2021. We identified the eligible studies based on the PICOS principles, populations (LSS with DS), interventions (decompression alone), controls (decompression combined with fusion), outcomes [overall reoperation rate, complications, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), operative time, the amount of blood lost, length of stay (LOS), and visual analog scales (VAS)], study design (cohort studies). Quality assessment for individual study was performed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS).ResultsIn all, 12 articles involving a total of 14,693 patients were finally included in the study, the majority of patients underwent decompression alone (DA group: n=11,598) and the rest underwent decompression associated with fusion (FU group: n=3,095). The quality of most of the included studies was regarded as high quality. The results indicated that the FU group had a higher rate of complication [relative risk (RR): 1.770, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.485 to 2.110], longer operative time [weighted mean difference (WMD): 51.037, 95% CI: 13.743 to 88.330], and increased blood loss (WMD: 258.354, 95% CI: 150.468 to 366.239) than the DA group (all P<0.05), with no significant differences for overall reoperation rate (RR: 0.879, 95% CI: 0.432 to 1.786), ODI (WMD: -2.569, 95% CI: -6.548 to 1.409), LOS (WMD: 3.838, 95% CI: -2.172 to 9.848), and VAS found between the two groups (P>0.05).ConclusionsIn patients with LSS + DS, the effectiveness and safety of decompression alone may be superior to decompression plus fusion in terms of complication rate, operative time, and the amount of bleeding. However, more high-quality literature is needed in the future to confirm the best treatment choice for patients with LSS + DS.

Project description:BackgroundMusculoskeletal multimorbidity is common and coexisting lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) with knee or hip osteoarthritis (OA) has been reported. The aim of this review was to report the prevalence of multimorbid degenerative LSS with knee or hip OA based on clinical and/or imaging case definitions.MethodsLiterature searches were performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and CINAHL up to May 2021. Studies involving adults with cross-sectional data to estimate the prevalence of co-occurring LSS with knee or hip OA were included. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were performed independently by two reviewers. Results were stratified according to index and comorbid condition, and by case definitions (imaging, clinical, and combined).ResultsTen studies from five countries out of 3891 citations met the inclusion criteria. Sample sizes ranged from 44 to 2,857,999 (median 230) and the mean age in the included studies range from 61 to 73 years (median 66 years). All studies were from secondary care or mixed settings. Nine studies used a combined definition of LSS and one used a clinical definition. Imaging, clinical, and combined case definitions of knee and hip OA were used. The prevalence of multimorbid LSS and knee or hip OA ranged from 0 to 54%, depending on the specified index condition and case definitions used. Six studies each provided prevalence data for index LSS and comorbid knee OA (prevalence range: 5 to 41%) and comorbid hip OA (prevalence range: 2 to 35%). Two studies provided prevalence data for index knee OA and comorbid LSS (prevalence range 17 to 54%). No studies reporting prevalence data for index hip OA and comorbid LSS were found. Few studies used comparable case definitions and all but one study were rated as high risk of bias.ConclusionsThere is evidence that multimorbid LSS with knee or hip OA occurs in people (0 to 54%), although results are based on studies with high risk of bias and surgical populations. Variability in LSS and OA case definitions limit the comparability of studies and prevalence estimates should therefore be interpreted with caution.Review registrationPROSPERO ( CRD42020177759 ).

Project description:ObjectiveTo comprehensively compare and assess the effects of different lumbar fusion techniques in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).MethodsPubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched up to December 24, 2022 in this network meta-analysis. Outcomes were pain (pain, low back pain, and leg pain), Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), complications, reoperation, and fusion. Network plots illustrated the direct and indirect comparisons of different fusion techniques for the outcomes. League tables showed the comparisons of any two fusion techniques, based on both direct and indirect evidence. The efficacy of each fusion technique for LSS was ranked by rank probabilities.ResultsTotally 29 studies involving 2,379 patients were eligible. For pain, percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) was most likely to be the best technique, followed by minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF), extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF), and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Percutaneous endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-PLIF) had the greatest likelihood to be the optimal technique for low back pain, followed sequentially by MIS-TLIF, minimally invasive posterior lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-PLIF), XLIF, Endo-TLIF, TLIF, oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF), posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), and posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF). MIS-PLIF was ranked the most effective technique concerning leg pain, followed by Endo-TLIF, MIS-TLIF, TLIF, Endo-PLIF, PLIF, OLIF, PLF, and XLIF. As regards JOA scores, Endo-TLIF had the maximum probability to be the best technique, followed by MIS-TLIF and TLIF. Endo-PLIF had the greatest likelihood to be the optimum technique for complications, followed by TLIF, MIS-TLIF, Endo-TLIF, OLIF, and XLIF.ConclusionMinimally invasive fusion techniques may be effective in the treatment of LSS, compared with traditional techniques. Minimally invasive techniques were likely non-inferior with regards to postoperative complications.