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

被引:93
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
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
[21]   Systematic Safety Review and Meta-Analysis of Procedural Experience Using Percutaneous Access to Treat Symptomatic Lumbar Spinal Stenosis [J].
Levy, Robert M. ;
Deer, Timothy R. .
PAIN MEDICINE, 2012, 13 (12) :1554-1561
[22]   Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Discectomy versus Microendoscopic Discectomy for the Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis [J].
Niu, Yufei ;
Shen, Zhen ;
Li, Haoyang .
COMPUTATIONAL AND MATHEMATICAL METHODS IN MEDICINE, 2022, 2022
[23]   The clinical course of pain and disability following surgery for spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies [J].
Fritsch, Carolina G. ;
Ferreira, Manuela L. ;
Maher, Christopher G. ;
Herbert, Robert D. ;
Pinto, Rafael Z. ;
Koes, Bart ;
Ferreira, Paulo H. .
EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL, 2017, 26 (02) :324-335
[24]   Is minimally invasive surgery superior to open surgery for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis? A systematic review [J].
Ng, Karen Ka Man ;
Cheung, Jason Pui Yin .
JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY, 2017, 25 (02) :1-11
[25]   Comparison of Lumbar Spinous Process-Splitting Laminectomy versus Conventional Laminectomy for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis [J].
Chen, Junjie ;
Zhu, Jieyang ;
Jiang, Yi ;
Jiang, Kanling ;
Zhu, Jinyu ;
Lou, Zhenqi .
WORLD NEUROSURGERY, 2025, 197
[26]   Decompression Surgery versus Interspinous Devices for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review of the Literature [J].
Tram, Jennifer ;
Srinivas, Shanmukha ;
Wali, Arvin R. ;
Lewis, Courtney S. ;
Pham, Martin H. .
ASIAN SPINE JOURNAL, 2020, 14 (04) :526-542
[27]   Decompression with fusion in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: a meta-analysis [J].
Xu, Zhengfeng ;
Yang, Yang ;
Zhou, Xiaoxiao ;
Mao, Yuanqing ;
Zhao, Jie .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE, 2018, 11 (10) :10679-+
[28]   Decompression and coflex interlaminar stabilisation compared with conventional surgical procedures for lumbar spinal stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis [J].
Li, Ai-min ;
Li, Xiang ;
Yang, Zhong .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2017, 40 :60-67
[29]   Efficacy and safety of interspinous process device compared with alone decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis [J].
Zhu, Changjiu ;
Xiao, Guiling .
MEDICINE, 2024, 103 (23)
[30]   Minimally Invasive Versus Open Laminectomy for Lumbar Stenosis A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis [J].
Phan, Kevin ;
Mobbs, Ralph J. .
SPINE, 2016, 41 (02) :E91-E100