Dataset Information

The influence of comorbidities on the treatment outcome in symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) affects mainly elderly patients. To this day, it is unclear whether comorbidities influence treatment success. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the impact of comorbidities on the treatment effectiveness in symptomatic LSS.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis and reviewed prospective or retrospective studies from Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and CINAHL from inception to May 2020, including adult patients with LSS undergoing surgical or conservative treatment. Main outcomes were satisfaction, functional and symptoms improvement, and adverse events (AE). Proportions of outcomes within two subgroups of a comorbidity were compared with risk ratio (RR) as summary measure. Availability of ≥3 studies for the same subgroup and outcome was required for meta-analysis.

Results

Of 72 publications, 51 studies, mostly assessing surgery, there was no evidence reported that patients with comorbidities were less satisfied compared to patients without comorbidities (RR 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 1.45, I2 94%), but they had an increased risk for AE (RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.01, I2 72%). A limited number of studies found no influence of comorbidities on functional and symptoms improvement. Older age did not affect satisfaction, symptoms and functional improvement, and AE (age >80 years RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.52, I2 60%). Diabetes was associated with more AE (RR 1.72, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.47, I2 58%).

Conclusion

In patients with LSS and comorbidities (in particular diabetes), a higher risk for AE should be considered in the treatment decision. Older age alone was not associated with an increased risk for AE, less functional and symptoms improvement, and less treatment satisfaction.

SUBMITTER: Bays A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8820012 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The influence of comorbidities on the treatment outcome in symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Bays Amandine A Stieger Andrea A Held Ulrike U Hofer Lisa J LJ Rasmussen-Barr Eva E Brunner Florian F Steurer Johann J Wertli Maria M MM

North American Spine Society journal 20210602

<h4>Background</h4>Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) affects mainly elderly patients. To this day, it is unclear whether comorbidities influence treatment success. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the impact of comorbidities on the treatment effectiveness in symptomatic LSS.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis and reviewed prospective or retrospective studies from Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and CINAHL from inception to May 2020, in ...[more]

PMID: 35141637

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:BackgroundThe 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.MethodsElectronic 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.ResultsNineteen 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.ConclusionsThe 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.

Project description:BackgroundSeveral surgical options for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) are available, but current guidelines do not recommend which one should be prioritized. Although previous network meta-analyses (NMAs) have been performed on this topic, they have major methodological problems and could not provide the convincing evidence and clinical practical information required.MethodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing at least two surgical interventions were included by searching AMED, CINAHL, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and MEDLINE (inception to August 2023). A frequentist random-effects NMA was performed for physical function and adverse events due to any reason. For physical function, three follow-up time points were included: short-term (< 6 months post-intervention), mid-term (≥ 6 months but < 12 months), and long-term (≥ 12 months). Laminectomy was the reference comparison intervention.ResultsA total of 43 RCTs involving 5017 participants were included in the systematic review and 28 RCTs encompassing 14 types of surgical interventions were included in the NMA. For improving physical function (scale 0-100), endoscopic-assisted laminotomy (mean difference: - 8.61, 95% confidence interval: - 10.52 to - 6.69; moderate-quality evidence), laminectomy combined with Coflex (- 8.41, - 13.21 to - 3.61; moderate quality evidence), and X-stop (- 6.65, - 8.60 to - 4.71; low-quality evidence) had small effects at short-term follow-up; no statistical difference was observed at mid-term follow-up (very low- to low-quality evidence); at long-term follow-up, endoscopic-assisted laminotomy (- 7.02, - 12.95 to - 1.08; very low-quality evidence) and X-stop (- 10.04, - 18.16 to - 1.93; very low-quality evidence) had a small and moderate effect, respectively. Compared with laminectomy, endoscopic-assisted laminotomy was associated with fewer adverse events due to any reason (odds ratio: 0.27, 0.09 to 0.86; low-quality evidence).ConclusionsFor adults with degenerative LSS, endoscopic-assisted laminotomy may be the safest and most effective intervention in improving physical function. However, the available data were insufficient to indicate whether the effect was sustainable after 6 months.Trial registrationPROSPERO (CRD42018094180).

Project description:ObjectivesNeurogenic claudication due to lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a growing health problem in older adults. We updated our previous Cochrane review (2013) to determine the effectiveness of non-operative treatment of LSS with neurogenic claudication.DesignA systematic review.Data sourcesCENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Index to Chiropractic Literature databases were searched and updated up to 22 July 2020.Eligibility criteriaWe only included randomised controlled trials published in English where at least one arm provided data on non-operative treatment and included participants diagnosed with neurogenic claudication with imaging confirmed LSS.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 1. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation was used for evidence synthesis.ResultsOf 15 200 citations screened, 156 were assessed and 23 new trials were identified. There is moderate-quality evidence from three trials that: Manual therapy and exercise provides superior and clinically important short-term improvement in symptoms and function compared with medical care or community-based group exercise; manual therapy, education and exercise delivered using a cognitive-behavioural approach demonstrates superior and clinically important improvements in walking distance in the immediate to long term compared with self-directed home exercises and glucocorticoid plus lidocaine injection is more effective than lidocaine alone in improving statistical, but not clinically important improvements in pain and function in the short term. The remaining 20 new trials demonstrated low-quality or very low-quality evidence for all comparisons and outcomes, like the findings of our original review.ConclusionsThere is moderate-quality evidence that a multimodal approach which includes manual therapy and exercise, with or without education, is an effective treatment and that epidural steroids are not effective for the management of LSS with neurogenic claudication. All other non-operative interventions provided insufficient quality evidence to make conclusions on their effectiveness.Prospero registration numberCRD42020191860.

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:PurposeTo develop a self-administered diagnostic screening questionnaire for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) consisting of items with high content validity and to investigate the diagnostic value of the questionnaire and the items.Patients and methodsA self-reported diagnostic LSS screening questionnaire was developed based on items from the existing literature describing key symptoms of LSS. The screening questionnaire (index test) was to be tested in a cohort of patients with persistent lumbar and/or leg pain recruited from a Danish publicly funded outpatient secondary care spine clinic with clinicians performing the reference test. However, to avoid unnecessary collection of data if the screening questionnaire proved to be of limited value, a case-control design was incorporated into the cohort design including an interim analysis. Additional cases for the case-control study were recruited at two Danish publicly funded spine surgery departments. Prevalence, sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratio (OR) were calculated for each individual item, and AUC (area under the curve) was calculated to examine the performance of the full questionnaire.ResultsA 13-item Danish questionnaire was developed and tested in 153 cases and 230 controls. The interim analysis was not in favour of continuing the cohort study, and therefore, only results from the case-control study are reported. There was a positive association for all items except the presence of back pain. However, the association was only moderate with ORs up to 3.3. When testing the performance of the whole questionnaire, an AUC of 0.72 was reached with a specificity of 20% for a fixed sensitivity of 95%.ConclusionThe items were associated with LSS and therefore have some potential to identify LSS patients. However, the association was not strong enough to provide sufficient accuracy for a diagnostic tool. Additional dimensions of symptoms of LSS need identification to obtain a reliable questionnaire for screening purposes.

Dataset Information

The influence of comorbidities on the treatment outcome in symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

The influence of comorbidities on the treatment outcome in symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets