Dataset Information

Efficacy of interspinous device versus surgical decompression in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: a modified network analysis.

ABSTRACT: STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review using a modified network analysis. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness and morbidity of interspinous-device placement versus surgical decompression for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. SUMMARY: Traditionally, the most effective treatment for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis is through surgical decompression. Recently, interspinous devices have been used in lieu of standard laminectomy. METHODS: A review of the English-language literature was undertaken for articles published between 1970 and March 2010. Electronic databases and reference lists of key articles were searched to identify studies comparing surgical decompression with interspinous-device placement for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. First, studies making the direct comparison (cohort or randomized trials) were searched. Second, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing each treatment to conservative management were searched to allow for an indirect comparison through a modified network analysis approach. Comparison studies involving simultaneous decompression with placement of an interspinous device were not included. Studies that did not have a comparison group were not included since a treatment effect could not be calculated. Two independent reviewers assessed the strength of evidence using the GRADE criteria assessing quality, quantity, and consistency of results. The strengths of evidence for indirect comparisons were downgraded. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. RESULTS: We identified five studies meeting our inclusion criteria. No RCTs or cohort studies were identified that made the direct comparison of interspinous-device placement with surgical decompression. For the indirect comparison, three RCTs compared surgical decompression to conservative management and two RCTs compared interspinous-device placement to conservative management. There was low evidence supporting greater treatment effects for interspinous-device placement compared to decompression for disability and pain outcomes at 12 months. There was low evidence demonstrating little to no difference in treatment effects between the groups for walking distance and complication rates. CONCLUSION: The indirect treatment effect for disability and pain favors the interspinous device compared to decompression. The low evidence suggests that any further research is very likely to have an important impact on the confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. No significant treatment effect differences were observed for postoperative walking distance improvement or complication rates; however, findings should be considered with caution because of indirect comparisons and short follow-up periods.

SUBMITTER: Chou D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3427972 | biostudies-other | 2011 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:One advantage of an endoscopic approach to treating lumbar spinal stenosis is preservation of spine stability and the adjacent anatomy, and there is a decrease in adjacent segment disc degeneration. The purpose of this study was to discuss the clinical efficacy of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic decompression for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). METHODS:This is a retrospective study. From September 2012 to June 2017, 45 patients who were diagnosed with LSS underwent the treatment of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic decompression (PTED) and were followed up at 1 week, 3 months and 1 year postoperatively. Low back pain and leg pain were measured by Visual Analogue Scale scoring methods (VAS-back and VAS-leg), while functional outcomes were assessed by using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). All patients had one-level lumbar spinal stenosis. RESULTS:The most common type of stenosis was lateral recess stenosis (n?=?22; 48.9%), followed by central stenosis (n?=?13; 28.9%) and foraminal stenosis (n?=?10: 22.2%). Regarding comparisons of VAS-back, VAS-leg, and ODI scores before and after operation, VAS and ODI scores significantly improved. The average leg VAS score improved from 7.01?±?0.84 to 2.28?±?1.43 (P?<?0.001). The average ODI improved from 46.18?±?10.11 to 14.40?±?9.59 (P?<?0.001). We also examined changes in ODI and VAS scores from baseline according to types of spinal stenosis, stenosis grade, spinal instability, and revision surgery in the same segment. The improvement percentage of leg VAS score was significantly less in patients with severe stenosis at both 3 months and 1 year postoperatively. The improvement percentages of ODI and leg VAS scores were significantly less in patients who had spinal instability and patients who had undergone revision surgery. CONCLUSION:The PTED approach seems to give good results for the treatment of LSS. However, this approach may be less effective for LSS patients who have lumbar instability or require revision surgery in the same segment.

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.

Dataset Information

Efficacy of interspinous device versus surgical decompression in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: a modified network analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets