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
  • [41] 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
  • [42] Full-endoscopic versus microscopic spinal decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review & meta-analysis
    Chin, Brian Zhaojie
    Yong, Jung Hahn
    Wang, Eugene
    Sim, Seth Ian
    Lin, Shuxun
    Wu, Pang Hung
    Hey, Hwee Weng Dennis
    SPINE JOURNAL, 2024, 24 (06) : 1022 - 1033
  • [43] 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)
  • [44] Contraindications and Complications of Full Endoscopic Lumbar Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review
    Ju, Chang-Il
    Kim, Pius
    Ha, Sang -Woo
    Kim, Seok-Won
    Lee, Seung-Myung
    WORLD NEUROSURGERY, 2022, 168 : 398 - 410
  • [45] Acupuncture for lumbar myofascial pain Protocol for a systematic review of randomized controlled trials
    Chen, Yupei
    Li, Xiaohong
    Xu, Jing
    Chen, Jie
    Huo, Zejun
    Zhang, Li
    MEDICINE, 2019, 98 (26)
  • [46] Effect of active TENS versus de-tuned TENS on walking capacity in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized controlled trial
    Ammendolia, Carlo
    Cote, Pierre
    Rampersaud, Y. Raja
    Southerst, Danielle
    Schneider, Michael
    Ahmed, Aksa
    Bombardier, Claire
    Hawker, Gillian
    Budgell, Brian
    CHIROPRACTIC & MANUAL THERAPIES, 2019, 27 (1)
  • [47] Surgical treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis: a single-blinded randomized controlled trial
    Rodrigues, Luiz Claudio Lacerda
    Natour, Jamil
    ADVANCES IN RHEUMATOLOGY, 2021, 61 (01)
  • [48] Conservative treatment of acute and chronic nonspecific low back pain - A systematic review of randomized controlled trials of the most common interventions
    vanTulder, MW
    Koes, BW
    Bouter, LM
    SPINE, 1997, 22 (18) : 2128 - 2156
  • [49] Non-pharmaceutical Chinese medical therapies for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
    Sun, Ya-nan
    An, Yi
    Zhou, Yan-Ji
    Wang, Xi-You
    Yu, Chang-He
    COMPLEMENTARY THERAPIES IN MEDICINE, 2023, 74
  • [50] Pre-operative prognostic factors for walking capacity after surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review
    McIlroy, Suzanne
    Walsh, Edward
    Sothinathan, Christina
    Stovold, Elizabeth
    Norwitz, Daniel
    Norton, Sam
    Weinman, John
    Bearne, Lindsay
    AGE AND AGEING, 2021, 50 (05) : 1529 - 1545