Surgery Versus Conservative Treatment for Symptomatic Lumbar Spinal Stenosis A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

被引:201
|
作者
Kovacs, Francisco M. [1 ,6 ]
Urrutia, Gerard [2 ,3 ,4 ,6 ]
Alarcon, Jose Domingo [5 ,6 ]
机构
[1] Fdn Kovacs, Dept Cientif, Palma De Mallorca 07012, Spain
[2] Iberoamerican Cochrane Center, Serv Epidemiol Clin & Salut Publ, Inst Invest Biomed Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain
[3] CIBER Epidemiol & Salud Publ, Barcelona, Spain
[4] Univ Autonoma Barcelona, Publ Hlth & Res Methodol Programme, E-08193 Barcelona, Spain
[5] Univ Surcolombiana, Iberoamerican Cochrane Network, Neiva, Colombia
[6] Red Espanola Invest Dolencias Espalda, Palma De Mallorca 07012, Spain
关键词
lumbar spinal stenosis; systematic review; randomized controlled trial; surgery; conservative treatment; LOW-BACK-PAIN; CLINICALLY IMPORTANT CHANGE; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; NONSURGICAL MANAGEMENT; NONOPERATIVE TREATMENT; DEGENERATIVE SPONDYLOLISTHESIS; COGNITIVE INTERVENTION; INSTRUMENTED FUSION; EPIDURAL PRESSURE; METHOD GUIDELINES;
D O I
10.1097/BRS.0b013e31820c97b1
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
Study Design. Systematic review. Objective. To compare the effectiveness of surgery versus conservative treatment on pain, disability, and loss of quality of life caused by symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). Summary of Background Data. LSS is the most common reason for spine surgery in persons older than 65 years in the United States. Methods. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any form of conservative and surgical treatment were searched in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and TripDatabase databases until July 2009, with no language restrictions. Additional data were requested from the authors of the original studies. The methodological quality of each study was assessed independently by two reviewers, following the criteria recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group. Only data from randomized cohorts were extracted. Results. A total of 739 citations were reviewed. Eleven publications corresponding to five RCTs were included. All five scored as high quality despite concerns deriving from heterogeneity of treatment, lack of blinding, and potential differences in the size of the placebo effect across groups. They included a total of 918 patients in whom conservative treatments had failed for 3 to 6 months, and included orthosis, rehabilitation, physical therapy, exercise, heat and cold, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, ultrasounds, analgesics, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and epidural steroids. Surgical treatments included the implantation of a specific type of interspinous device and decompressive surgery (with and without fusion, instrumented or not). In all the studies, surgery showed better results for pain, disability, and quality of life, although not for walking ability. Results of surgery were similar among patients with and without spondylolisthesis, and slightly better among those with neurogenic claudication than among those without it. The advantage of surgery was noticeable at 3 to 6 months and remained for up to 2 to 4 years, although at the end of that period differences tended to be smaller. Conclusion. In patients with symptomatic LSS, the implantation of a specific type of device or decompressive surgery, with or without fusion, is more effective than continued conservative treatment when the latter has failed for 3 to 6 months.
引用
收藏
页码:E1335 / E1351
页数:17
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] 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
  • [2] Arguments for the choice of surgical treatments in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis - a systematic appraisal of randomized controlled trials
    Burgstaller, Jakob M.
    Porchet, Francois
    Steurer, Johann
    Wertli, Maria M.
    BMC MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS, 2015, 16
  • [3] Arguments for the choice of surgical treatments in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis – a systematic appraisal of randomized controlled trials
    Jakob M Burgstaller
    François Porchet
    Johann Steurer
    Maria M Wertli
    BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 16
  • [4] Nonoperative Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis With Neurogenic Claudication A Systematic Review
    Ammendolia, Carlo
    Stuber, Kent
    de Bruin, Linda K.
    Furlan, Andrea D.
    Kennedy, Carol A.
    Rampersaud, Yoga Raja
    Steenstra, Ivan A.
    Pennick, Victoria
    SPINE, 2012, 37 (10) : E609 - E616
  • [5] Conservative treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis -: A review
    Theodoridis, T.
    Kraemer, J.
    Kleinert, H.
    ZEITSCHRIFT FUR ORTHOPADIE UND UNFALLCHIRURGIE, 2008, 146 (01): : 75 - 79
  • [6] Surgery versus conservative management of sciatica due to a lumbar herniated disc: a systematic review
    Jacobs, Wilco C. H.
    van Tulder, Maurits
    Arts, Mark
    Rubinstein, Sidney M.
    van Middelkoop, Marienke
    Ostelo, Raymond
    Verhagen, Arianne
    Koes, Bart
    Peul, Wilco C.
    EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL, 2011, 20 (04) : 513 - 522
  • [7] Surgical Versus Nonsurgical Treatment for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis
    Zaina, Fabio
    Tomkins-Lane, Christy
    Carragee, Eugene
    Negrini, Stefano
    SPINE, 2016, 41 (14) : E857 - E868
  • [8] Is minimally invasive surgery superior to open surgery for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis? A systematic review
    Ng, Karen Ka Man
    Cheung, Jason Pui Yin
    JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY, 2017, 25 (02): : 1 - 11
  • [9] Lumbar Fusion Versus Nonoperative Management for Treatment of Discogenic Low Back Pain A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
    Bydon, Mohamad
    De la Garza-Ramos, Rafael
    Macki, Mohamed
    Baker, Abdul
    Gokaslan, Aaron K.
    Bydon, Ali
    JOURNAL OF SPINAL DISORDERS & TECHNIQUES, 2014, 27 (05): : 297 - 304
  • [10] Surgery versus Conservative Antibiotic Treatment in Acute Appendicitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
    Ansaloni, Luca
    Catena, Fausto
    Coccolini, Federico
    Ercolani, Giorgio
    Gazzotti, Filippo
    Pasqualini, Eddi
    Pinna, Antonio Daniele
    DIGESTIVE SURGERY, 2011, 28 (03) : 210 - 221