Dataset Information

Clinical Evaluation of Surgery for Single-Segment Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT: To compare the efficacy and safety of different surgical procedures for patients with single-segment lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted in this study. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which reported 2 years' results after surgery were searched from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials up to February 2021. Eligible RCTs that contained at least two of the following surgical procedures, bilateral decompression via the unilateral approach (BDUL), decompression with conventional laminectomy (CL), decompression with fusion (DF), endoscopic decompression (ED), interspinous process devices only (IPDs), decompression with interlaminar stabilization (DILS), decompression with lumbar spinal process-splitting laminectomy (LSPSL), and minimally invasive tubular decompression (MTD), would be included after screening based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The primary outcome was Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Twenty eligible RCTs were included, with a total of 2201 patients enrolled. The NMA showed that the following surgical procedures ranked first (surface under the cumulative ranking) when compared with CL and DF: DILS for ODI (SUCRA 87.8%); LSPSL for back pain (95%); and MTD for leg pain (95.6%). MTD ranked among the top three surgical procedures for most outcomes. The quality of the synthesized evidence was low according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria. DILS, LSPSL, MTD, IPDs, and ED are the most effective procedures for patients with single-segment LSS. Because of combining efficacy and safety, MTD may be the most promising routine surgical option for treating single-segment LSS.

SUBMITTER: Liang Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9251271 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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: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: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.

Dataset Information

Clinical Evaluation of Surgery for Single-Segment Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets