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: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: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.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) and knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA) are prevalent conditions in the aging population and published literature suggests they share many symptoms and often are present at the same time in patients. However, no prevalence estimates of multimorbid LSS and knee and/or hip OA are currently available. The primary objective of this systematic review is therefore to estimate the prevalence of multimorbid LSS with knee and/or hip OA using radiological, clinical, and combined case definitions. METHODS:This systematic review protocol has been designed according to the guidelines from the Cochrane Collaboration and is reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols. A comprehensive search will be performed in the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and CINAHL. Forward citation tracking will be performed in Web of Science. No restriction for publication date and language will be applied in the literature search, but only articles in English will be included. The search strategy will include the following domains: LSS, knee OA, and hip OA. Retrieved citations will be screened by two authors independently. Disagreements will be discussed until consensus, and a third reviewer will be consulted if consensus cannot be reached. Data extraction and assessment of risk of bias assessment will be done by two authors independently, using a standardized data extraction form and a modified risk of bias tool for prevalence studies. Meta-analysis estimating prevalence with 95% CI will be performed using a random effects model. Meta-regression analyses will be performed to investigate the impact of the following covariates: LSS clinical presentations, sample population, healthcare setting, risk of bias, and other patient characteristics on prevalence estimates for multimorbid LSS and knee and/or hip OA. DISCUSSION:The results of this review will provide the first estimates of the prevalence of multimorbid LSS and hip and knee OA based on various case definitions. The impact of covariates such as LSS clinical presentations, sample population, healthcare setting, risk of bias, and patient characteristics on prevalence estimates will also be presented. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO, awaiting registration.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a common degenerative spine disease associated with a strong impairment in various quality of life areas, particularly the ability to perform work-related activity. Depression is a condition frequently associated. There is no comprehensive review on quality of life and objective functional impairment in LSS. This paper presents the protocol of the first systematic review and meta-analysis summarising evidence about quality of life and functional impairment in patients with LSS compared with healthy controls. Comorbid depressive disorders, age, gender, LSS duration, disability, pain severity and study methodological quality will be investigated as moderators. METHODS:The protocol is reported according to PRISMA-P guidelines. Studies will be included if they were conducted on patients aged 18 years old or older with primary LSS and if they reported data on differences in the levels of quality of life or objective functional impairment between patients with LSS and healthy controls. Independent reviewers will search published/unpublished studies through electronic databases and additional sources, will extract the data and assess the methodological quality. Random-effects meta-analysis will be carried out by calculating effect sizes as Cohen's d indices. Heterogeneity will be examined by the I 2 and the Q statistics. Moderators will be investigated through meta-regression. CONCLUSIONS:A summary of the evidence on quality of life and functional impairment in LSS may suggest clinical and occupational health medicine strategies aimed to timely detect and prevent these outcomes. Higher percentages of patients with LSS with depression may be expected to be related to poorer quality of life. Depressive comorbidity might impact negatively on quality of life because it is associated with dysfunctional coping, disability and psychophysiological symptoms. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The current review does not require ethics approval. The results will be disseminated through publications in peer-reviewed journals. REVIEW REGISTRATION:CRD42019132209.