Effectiveness of Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

被引:90
|
作者
Machado, Gustavo C. [1 ]
Ferreira, Paulo H. [2 ]
Harris, Ian A. [3 ]
Pinheiro, Marina B. [2 ]
Koes, Bart W. [4 ]
van Tulder, Maurits [5 ]
Rzewuska, Magdalena [1 ]
Maher, Chris G. [1 ]
Ferreira, Manuela L. [1 ,6 ]
机构
[1] Univ Sydney, Sydney Med Sch, George Inst Global Hlth, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
[2] Univ Sydney, Fac Hlth Sci, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
[3] Univ New S Wales, Ingham Inst Appl Med Res, South Western Sydney Clin Sch, Sydney, NSW, Australia
[4] Erasmus MC, Dept Gen Practice, Rotterdam, Netherlands
[5] Vrije Univ Amsterdam, Dept Hlth Sci, Amsterdam, Netherlands
[6] Univ Sydney, Sydney Med Sch, Inst Bone & Joint Res, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
来源
PLOS ONE | 2015年 / 10卷 / 03期
关键词
COFLEX INTERLAMINAR STABILIZATION; PROCESS-SPLITTING LAMINECTOMY; UNITED-STATES TRENDS; UNILATERAL LAMINOTOMY; CANAL STENOSIS; BILATERAL DECOMPRESSION; DEGENERATIVE SPONDYLOLISTHESIS; SURGICAL DECOMPRESSION; MIDLINE DECOMPRESSION; RATING QUALITY;
D O I
10.1371/journal.pone.0122800
中图分类号
O [数理科学和化学]; P [天文学、地球科学]; Q [生物科学]; N [自然科学总论];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页数:18
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Effectiveness of Physiotherapy Following Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Lau, Sandra
    Peters, Lara
    von Piekartz, Harry
    Ballenberger, Nikolaus
    MSKMUSKULOSKELETTALE PHYSIOTHERAPIE, 2021, 25 (02): : 83 - 90
  • [2] Acupuncture for lumbar spinal stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Kim, Kun Hyung
    Kim, Tae-Hun
    Lee, Byung Ryul
    Kim, Jae Kyu
    Son, Dong Wuk
    Lee, Sang Weon
    Yang, Gi Young
    COMPLEMENTARY THERAPIES IN MEDICINE, 2013, 21 (05) : 535 - 556
  • [3] Exercise therapy versus surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Mo, Zhuomao
    Zhang, Renwen
    Chang, Minmin
    Tang, Shujie
    PAKISTAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, 2018, 34 (04) : 879 - 885
  • [4] Complications of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Spinal Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review
    Chen, Zhaoyuan
    Zhou, Huaqiang
    Wang, Xuhua
    Liu, Zhenxing
    Liu, Wuyang
    Luo, Jiaquan
    WORLD NEUROSURGERY, 2023, 170 : e371 - e379
  • [5] Unilateral biportal endoscopic spine surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Zhuang, H. -X
    Guo, S. -J
    Meng, H.
    Lin, J. -S
    Yang, Y.
    Fei, Q.
    EUROPEAN REVIEW FOR MEDICAL AND PHARMACOLOGICAL SCIENCES, 2023, 27 (11) : 4998 - 5012
  • [6] Management for lumbar spinal stenosis: A network meta-analysis and systematic review
    Wei, Fei-Long
    Zhou, Cheng-Pei
    Liu, Rui
    Zhu, Kai-Long
    Du, Ming-Rui
    Gao, Hao-Ran
    Wu, Sheng-Da
    Sun, Li-Li
    Yan, Xiao-Dong
    Liu, Ya
    Qian, Ji-Xian
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2021, 85 : 19 - 28
  • [7] Fusion or Not for Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review
    Shen, Jieliang
    Xu, Shen
    Xu, Shenxi
    Ye, Sen
    Hao, Jie
    PAIN PHYSICIAN, 2018, 21 (01) : 1 - 7
  • [8] Acupotomy for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Kwon, Chan-Young
    Yoon, Sang-hoon
    Lee, Boram
    Leem, Jungtae
    MEDICINE, 2019, 98 (32)
  • [9] Effects of calcitonin on lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Peng, Kun
    Chen, Long
    Peng, Jing
    Xing, Fei
    Xiang, Zhou
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE, 2015, 8 (02): : 2536 - 2544
  • [10] Endoscopic Spinal Surgery (BESS and UESS) Versus Microscopic Surgery in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Kang, Kyu-Bok
    Shin, Young-Soo
    Seo, Eun-Min
    GLOBAL SPINE JOURNAL, 2022, 12 (08) : 1943 - 1955