Cargando…
Effectiveness of Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
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 pati...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4378944/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25822730 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0122800 |
_version_ | 1782364113765138432 |
---|---|
author | Machado, Gustavo C. Ferreira, Paulo H. Harris, Ian A. Pinheiro, Marina B. Koes, Bart W. van Tulder, Maurits Rzewuska, Magdalena Maher, Chris G. Ferreira, Manuela L. |
author_facet | Machado, Gustavo C. Ferreira, Paulo H. Harris, Ian A. Pinheiro, Marina B. Koes, Bart W. van Tulder, Maurits Rzewuska, Magdalena Maher, Chris G. Ferreira, Manuela L. |
author_sort | Machado, Gustavo C. |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4378944 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-43789442015-04-09 Effectiveness of Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Machado, Gustavo C. Ferreira, Paulo H. Harris, Ian A. Pinheiro, Marina B. Koes, Bart W. van Tulder, Maurits Rzewuska, Magdalena Maher, Chris G. Ferreira, Manuela L. PLoS One Research Article 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. Public Library of Science 2015-03-30 /pmc/articles/PMC4378944/ /pubmed/25822730 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0122800 Text en © 2015 Machado et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Machado, Gustavo C. Ferreira, Paulo H. Harris, Ian A. Pinheiro, Marina B. Koes, Bart W. van Tulder, Maurits Rzewuska, Magdalena Maher, Chris G. Ferreira, Manuela L. Effectiveness of Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
title | Effectiveness of Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
title_full | Effectiveness of Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
title_fullStr | Effectiveness of Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Effectiveness of Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
title_short | Effectiveness of Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
title_sort | effectiveness of surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4378944/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25822730 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0122800 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT machadogustavoc effectivenessofsurgeryforlumbarspinalstenosisasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT ferreirapauloh effectivenessofsurgeryforlumbarspinalstenosisasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT harrisiana effectivenessofsurgeryforlumbarspinalstenosisasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT pinheiromarinab effectivenessofsurgeryforlumbarspinalstenosisasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT koesbartw effectivenessofsurgeryforlumbarspinalstenosisasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT vantuldermaurits effectivenessofsurgeryforlumbarspinalstenosisasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT rzewuskamagdalena effectivenessofsurgeryforlumbarspinalstenosisasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT maherchrisg effectivenessofsurgeryforlumbarspinalstenosisasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT ferreiramanuelal effectivenessofsurgeryforlumbarspinalstenosisasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis |