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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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.
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