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
  • [31] Effectiveness of non-surgical treatment combined with supervised exercise for lumbar spinal stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Urata, Ryunosuke
    Igawa, Tatsuya
    Ito, Shomaru
    Suzuki, Akifumi
    JOURNAL OF BACK AND MUSCULOSKELETAL REHABILITATION, 2023, 36 (04) : 799 - 813
  • [32] Evaluation of Effectiveness of Treatment Strategies for Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Clinical Studies
    Ma, Haijun
    Hai, Bao
    Yan, Ming
    Liu, Xiaoguang
    Zhu, Bin
    WORLD NEUROSURGERY, 2021, 152 : 95 - 106
  • [33] Effectiveness of surgery versus conservative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis: A system review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
    Ma, Xin-long
    Zhao, Xing-wen
    Ma, Jian-xiong
    Li, Fei
    Wang, Yin
    Lu, Bin
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2017, 44 : 329 - 338
  • [34] Clinical Evaluation of Surgery for Single-Segment Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis
    Liang, Zeyan
    Xu, Xiongjie
    Chen, Xinyao
    Zhuang, Yuandong
    Wang, Rui
    Chen, Chunmei
    ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY, 2022, 14 (07) : 1281 - 1293
  • [35] Stand-alone interspinous spacers versus decompressive surgery in lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Ren, Siying
    Hu, Yan
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE, 2016, 9 (07): : 13359 - 13371
  • [36] Biportal Endoscopic Spinal Surgery versus Microscopic Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta -Analysis
    Pranata, Raymond
    Lim, Michael Anthonius
    Vania, Rachel
    July, Julius
    WORLD NEUROSURGERY, 2020, 138 : E450 - E458
  • [37] Letter to the Editor Regarding "Biportal Endoscopic Spinal Surgery versus Microscopic Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis"
    Lin, Guang-Xun
    Rui, Gang
    Jhang, Shang-Wun
    Chen, Chien-Min
    WORLD NEUROSURGERY, 2022, 157 : 248 - 248
  • [38] Efficacy and Safety of Lumbar Dynamic Stabilization Device Coflex for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
    Li, Ting
    Yan, Jingxin
    Ren, Qiuyu
    Hu, Jiang
    Wang, Fei
    Liu, Xilin
    WORLD NEUROSURGERY, 2023, 170 : 7 - 20
  • [39] A Letter to the Editor Regarding "Fusion or Not for Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review"
    Farrokhi, Majid Reza
    Gholami, Mehrnaz
    PAIN PHYSICIAN, 2018, 21 (03) : E284 - E287
  • [40] Decompression with fusion versus decompression in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Chen, Bo
    Lv, Yao
    Wang, Zhi-Cui
    Guo, Xiu-Cheng
    Chao, Chu-Zhang
    MEDICINE, 2020, 99 (38) : E21973