Cargando…
Clinical Evaluation of Surgery for Single‐Segment Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta‐Analysis
To compare the efficacy and safety of different surgical procedures for patients with single‐segment lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), Bayesian network meta‐analysis (NMA) was conducted in this study. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which reported 2 years' results after surgery were searched fr...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9251271/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35582931 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/os.13269 |
_version_ | 1784739988748894208 |
---|---|
author | Liang, Zeyan Xu, Xiongjie Chen, Xinyao Zhuang, Yuandong Wang, Rui Chen, Chunmei |
author_facet | Liang, Zeyan Xu, Xiongjie Chen, Xinyao Zhuang, Yuandong Wang, Rui Chen, Chunmei |
author_sort | Liang, Zeyan |
collection | PubMed |
description | To compare the efficacy and safety of different surgical procedures for patients with single‐segment lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), Bayesian network meta‐analysis (NMA) was conducted in this study. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which reported 2 years' results after surgery were searched from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials up to February 2021. Eligible RCTs that contained at least two of the following surgical procedures, bilateral decompression via the unilateral approach (BDUL), decompression with conventional laminectomy (CL), decompression with fusion (DF), endoscopic decompression (ED), interspinous process devices only (IPDs), decompression with interlaminar stabilization (DILS), decompression with lumbar spinal process‐splitting laminectomy (LSPSL), and minimally invasive tubular decompression (MTD), would be included after screening based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The primary outcome was Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Twenty eligible RCTs were included, with a total of 2201 patients enrolled. The NMA showed that the following surgical procedures ranked first (surface under the cumulative ranking) when compared with CL and DF: DILS for ODI (SUCRA 87.8%); LSPSL for back pain (95%); and MTD for leg pain (95.6%). MTD ranked among the top three surgical procedures for most outcomes. The quality of the synthesized evidence was low according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria. DILS, LSPSL, MTD, IPDs, and ED are the most effective procedures for patients with single‐segment LSS. Because of combining efficacy and safety, MTD may be the most promising routine surgical option for treating single‐segment LSS. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9251271 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-92512712022-07-05 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 Orthop Surg Review Articles To compare the efficacy and safety of different surgical procedures for patients with single‐segment lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), Bayesian network meta‐analysis (NMA) was conducted in this study. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which reported 2 years' results after surgery were searched from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials up to February 2021. Eligible RCTs that contained at least two of the following surgical procedures, bilateral decompression via the unilateral approach (BDUL), decompression with conventional laminectomy (CL), decompression with fusion (DF), endoscopic decompression (ED), interspinous process devices only (IPDs), decompression with interlaminar stabilization (DILS), decompression with lumbar spinal process‐splitting laminectomy (LSPSL), and minimally invasive tubular decompression (MTD), would be included after screening based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The primary outcome was Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Twenty eligible RCTs were included, with a total of 2201 patients enrolled. The NMA showed that the following surgical procedures ranked first (surface under the cumulative ranking) when compared with CL and DF: DILS for ODI (SUCRA 87.8%); LSPSL for back pain (95%); and MTD for leg pain (95.6%). MTD ranked among the top three surgical procedures for most outcomes. The quality of the synthesized evidence was low according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria. DILS, LSPSL, MTD, IPDs, and ED are the most effective procedures for patients with single‐segment LSS. Because of combining efficacy and safety, MTD may be the most promising routine surgical option for treating single‐segment LSS. John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd 2022-05-18 /pmc/articles/PMC9251271/ /pubmed/35582931 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/os.13269 Text en © 2022 The Authors. Orthopaedic Surgery published by Tianjin Hospital and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. |
spellingShingle | Review Articles Liang, Zeyan Xu, Xiongjie Chen, Xinyao Zhuang, Yuandong Wang, Rui Chen, Chunmei Clinical Evaluation of Surgery for Single‐Segment Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta‐Analysis |
title | Clinical Evaluation of Surgery for Single‐Segment Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta‐Analysis
|
title_full | Clinical Evaluation of Surgery for Single‐Segment Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta‐Analysis
|
title_fullStr | Clinical Evaluation of Surgery for Single‐Segment Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta‐Analysis
|
title_full_unstemmed | Clinical Evaluation of Surgery for Single‐Segment Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta‐Analysis
|
title_short | Clinical Evaluation of Surgery for Single‐Segment Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta‐Analysis
|
title_sort | clinical evaluation of surgery for single‐segment lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and bayesian network meta‐analysis |
topic | Review Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9251271/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35582931 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/os.13269 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT liangzeyan clinicalevaluationofsurgeryforsinglesegmentlumbarspinalstenosisasystematicreviewandbayesiannetworkmetaanalysis AT xuxiongjie clinicalevaluationofsurgeryforsinglesegmentlumbarspinalstenosisasystematicreviewandbayesiannetworkmetaanalysis AT chenxinyao clinicalevaluationofsurgeryforsinglesegmentlumbarspinalstenosisasystematicreviewandbayesiannetworkmetaanalysis AT zhuangyuandong clinicalevaluationofsurgeryforsinglesegmentlumbarspinalstenosisasystematicreviewandbayesiannetworkmetaanalysis AT wangrui clinicalevaluationofsurgeryforsinglesegmentlumbarspinalstenosisasystematicreviewandbayesiannetworkmetaanalysis AT chenchunmei clinicalevaluationofsurgeryforsinglesegmentlumbarspinalstenosisasystematicreviewandbayesiannetworkmetaanalysis |