Effectiveness of surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PLoS ONE

Volumn 10, Issue 3, 2015, Pages

  Machado, Gustavo C ^a   Ferreira, Paulo H ^b   Harris, Ian A ^c   Pinheiro, Marina B ^b   Koes, Bart W ^d   Van Tulder, Maurits ^e   Rzewuska, Magdalena ^a   Maher, Chris G ^a   Ferreira, Manuela L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

^d ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^e VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CEREBROVASCULAR ACCIDENT; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; CONVALESCENCE; DISABILITY; ENDOSCOPIC SURGERY; HUMAN; INTERLAMINAL FIXATION DEVICE; INTERSPINOUS IMPLANT; LAMINECTOMY; LAMINOTOMY; LUMBAR SPINAL STENOSIS; META ANALYSIS; MOTOR PERFORMANCE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; QUALITY OF LIFE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REOPERATION; SPINAL CORD DECOMPRESSION; SPINAL PAIN; SPINAL SPACER; SPINE FUSION; SPINE SURGERY; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; URINE RETENTION; LUMBAR VERTEBRA; SPINAL STENOSIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

HUMANS; LUMBAR VERTEBRAE; REOPERATION; SPINAL STENOSIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84926429162     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0122800     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Ishimoto Y, Yoshimura N, Muraki S, Yamada H, Nagata K, Hashizume H, et al. Associations between radiographic lumbar spinal stenosis and clinical symptoms in the general population: the Wakayama Spine Study. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2013; 21: 783-788. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2013.02.656 PMID: 23473979
2. Benoist M. The natural history of lumbar degenerative spinal stenosis. Joint Bone Spine. 2002; 69: 450-457. PMID: 12477228
3. Johnsson KE, Rosen I, Uden A. The natural course of lumbar spinal stenosis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1992: 82-86.
4. You JJ, Bederman SS, Symons S, Bell CM, Yun L, Laupacis A, et al. Patterns of care after magnetic resonance imaging of the spine in primary care. Spine. 2013; 38: 51-59. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182611182 PMID: 22652596
5. Deyo RA, Gray DT, Kreuter W, Mirza S, Martin BI. United States trends in lumbar fusion surgery for degenerative conditions. Spine. 2005; 30: 1441-1445; discussion 1446-1447. PMID: 15959375
6. Deyo RA, Mirza SK, Martin BI, Kreuter W, Goodman DC, Jarvik JG. Trends, major medical complications, and charges associated with surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis in older adults. JAMA. 2010; 303: 1259-1265. doi: 10.1001/jama.2010.338 PMID: 20371784
7. Davis H. Increasing rates of cervical and lumbar spine surgery in the United States, 1979-1990. Spine. 1994; 19: 1117-1123; discussion 1123-1114. PMID: 8059266
8. Ciol MA, Deyo RA, Howell E, Kreif S. An assessment of surgery for spinal stenosis: time trends, geographic variations, complications, and reoperations. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1996; 44: 285-290. PMID: 8600197
9. Grob D, Humke T, Dvorak J. Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Decompression with and without arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1995; 77: 1036-1041. PMID: 7608225
10. Cavusoglu H, Turkmenoglu O, Kaya RA, Tuncer C, Colak I, Sahin Y, et al. Efficacy of unilateral laminectomy for bilateral decompression in lumbar spinal stenosis. Turk Neurosurg. 2007; 17: 100-108. PMID: 17935024
11. Stromqvist BH, Berg S, Gerdhem P, Johnsson R, Moller A, Sahlstrand T, et al. X-stop versus decompressive surgery for lumbar neurogenic intermittent claudication: Randomized controlled trial with 2-year follow-up. Spine. 2013; 38: 1436-1442. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31828ba413 PMID: 23403549
12. Kovacs FM, Urrútia G, Alarcón JD. Surgery versus conservative treatment for symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Spine. 2011; 36: E1335-1351. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31820c97b1 PMID: 21311394
13. May S, Comer C. Is surgery more effective than non-surgical treatment for spinal stenosis, and which non-surgical treatment is more effective? A systematic review. Physiotherapy. 2013; 99: 12-20. doi: 10.1016/j.physio.2011.12.004 PMID: 23219644
14. Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, Tosteson ANA, Blood E, Hanscom B, et al. Surgical versus non-surgical therapy for lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med. 2008; 358: 794-810. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0707136 PMID: 18287602
15. Jansson KA, Blomqvist P, Granath F, Nemeth G. Spinal stenosis surgery in Sweden 1987-1999. Eur Spine J. 2003; 12: 535-541. PMID: 12768381
16. Gibson JN, Waddell G. Surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylosis: updated Cochrane Review. Spine. 2005; 30: 2312-2320. PMID: 16227895
17. Stromqvist F, Jonsson B, Stromqvist B, Swedish Society of Spinal Surgeons. Dural lesions in decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: incidence, risk factors and effect on outcome. Eur Spine J. 2012; 21: 825-828. doi: 10.1007/s00586-011-2101-2 PMID: 22146791
18. Aryanpur J, Ducker T. Multilevel lumbar laminotomies for focal spinal stenosis: case report. Neurosurgery. 1988; 23: 111-115. PMID: 2971890
19. Spetzger U, Bertalanffy H, Reinges MHT, Gilsbach JM. Unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis. Part II: Clinical experiences. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 1997; 139: 397-403. PMID: 9204107
20. Spetzger U, Bertalanffy H, Naujokat C, von Keyserlingk DG, Gilsbach JM. Unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis. Part I: Anatomical and surgical considerations. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 1997; 139: 392-396. PMID: 9204106
21. Watanabe K, Hosoya T, Shiraishi T, Matsumoto M, Chiba K, Toyama Y. Lumbar spinous process-splitting laminectomy for lumbar canal stenosis. Technical note. J Neurosurg Spine. 2005; 3: 405-408. PMID: 16302638
22. Johnsson KE, Redlund-Johnell I, Uden A, Willner S. Preoperative and postoperative instability in lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine. 1989; 14: 591-593. PMID: 2749373
23. Nasca RJ. Rationale for spinal fusion in lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine. 1989; 14: 451-454. PMID: 2718051
24. Taylor VM, Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Kreuter W. Low back pain hospitalization. Recent United States trends and regional variations. Spine. 1994; 19: 1207-1212; discussion 1213. PMID: 8073311
25. Deyo RA, Martin BI, Ching A, Tosteson AN, Jarvik JG, Kreuter W, et al. Interspinous spacers compared with decompression or fusion for lumbar stenosis: complications and repeat operations in the medicare population. Spine. 2013; 38: 865-872. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31828631b8 PMID: 23324936
26. Katz JN, Lipson SJ, Lew RA, Grobler LJ, Weinstein JN, Brick GW, et al. Lumbar laminectomy alone or with instrumented or noninstrumented arthrodesis in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Patient selection, costs, and surgical outcomes. Spine. 1997; 22: 1123-1131. PMID: 9160471
27. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009; 339: b2700. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2700 PMID: 19622552
28. Mirza SK, Deyo RA, Heagerty PJ, Turner JA, Lee LA, Goodkin R. Towards standardized measurement of adverse events in spine surgery: conceptual model and pilot evaluation. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2006; 7: 53. PMID: 16787537
29. Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.: The Cochrane Collaboration.
30. Elkins MR, Moseley AM, Sherrington C, Herbert RD, Maher CG. Growth in the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) and use of the PEDro scale. Br J Sports Med. 2013; 47: 188-189. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2012-091804 PMID: 23134761
31. Maher CG, Sherrington C, Herbert RD, Moseley AM, Elkins M. Reliability of the PEDro scale for rating quality of randomized controlled trials. Phys Ther. 2003; 83: 713-721. PMID: 12882612
32. de Morton NA. The PEDro scale is a valid measure of the methodological quality of clinical trials: a demographic study. Aust J Physiother. 2009; 55: 129-133. PMID: 19463084
33. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002; 21: 1539-1558. PMID: 12111919
34. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008; 336: 924-926. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD PMID: 18436948
35. Postacchini F, Cinotti G, Perugia D, Gumina S. The surgical treatment of central lumbar stenosis. Multiple laminotomy compared with total laminectomy. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1993; 75: 386-392. PMID: 8496205
36. Thome C, Zevgaridis D, Leheta O, Bazner H, Pockler-Schoniger C, Wohrle J, et al. Outcome after less-invasive decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized comparison of unilateral laminotomy, bilateral laminotomy, and laminectomy. J Neurosurg Spine. 2005; 3: 129-141. PMID: 16370302
37. Celik SE, Celik S, Goksu K, Kara A, Ince I. Microdecompressive laminatomy with a 5-year follow-up period for severe lumbar spinal stenosis. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2010; 23: 229-235. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e3181a3d889 PMID: 20526152
38. Gurelik M, Bozkina C, Kars Z, Karadag O, Unal O, Bayrakli F. Unilateral laminotomy for decompression of lumbar stenosis is effective and safe: A prospective randomized comparative study. J Neurol Sci. 2012; 29: 744-753.
39. Liu X, Yuan S, Tian Y. Modified unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: Technical note. Spine. 2013; 38: E732-E737. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31828fc84c PMID: 23466507
40. Watanabe K, Matsumoto M, Ikegami T, Nishiwaki Y, Tsuji T, Ishii K, et al. Reduced postoperative wound pain after lumbar spinous process-splitting laminectomy for lumbar canal stenosis: A randomized controlled study. Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. 2011; 14: 51-58. doi: 10.3171/2010.9.SPINE09933 PMID: 21142464
41. Rajasekaran S, Thomas A, Kanna RM, Shetty AP. Lumbar spinous process splitting decompression provides equivalent outcomes to conventional midline decompression in degenerative lumbar canal stenosis: A prospective, randomised controlled study of 51 patients. Spine. 2013; 38: 1737-1743. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182a056c1 PMID: 23797498
42. Ruetten S, Komp M, Merk H, Godolias G. Surgical treatment for lumbar lateral recess stenosis with the full-endoscopic interlaminar approach versus conventional microsurgical technique: A prospective, randomized, controlled study - Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. 2009; 10: 476-485. doi: 10.3171/2008.7.17634 PMID: 19442011
43. Yagi M, Okada E, Ninomiya K, Kihara M. Postoperative outcome after modified unilateral-approach microendoscopic midline decompression for degenerative spinal stenosis: Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. 2009; 10: 293-299. doi: 10.3171/2009.1.SPINE08288 PMID: 19441985
44. Bridwell KH, Sedgewick TA, O'Brien MF, Lenke LG, Baldus C. The role of fusion and instrumentation in the treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis. J Spinal Disord. 1993; 6: 461-472. PMID: 8130395
45. Hallett A, Huntley JS, Gibson JN. Foraminal stenosis and single-level degenerative disc disease: a randomized controlled trial comparing decompression with decompression and instrumented fusion. Spine. 2007; 32: 1375-1380. PMID: 17545903
46. Moojen WA, Arts MP, Jacobs WC, van Zwet EW, van den Akker-van Marle ME, Koes BW, et al. Interspinous process device versus standard conventional surgical decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: randomized controlled trial. BMJ. 2013; 347: f6415. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f6415 PMID: 24231273
47. Azzazi A, Elhawary Y. Dynamic stabilization using X-stop versus transpedicular screw fixation in the treatment of lumbar canal stenosis: comparative study of the clinical outcome. Neurosurg Q. 2010; 20: 165-169.
48. Davis R, Auerbach JD, Bae H, Errico TJ. Can low-grade spondylolisthesis be effectively treated by either coflex interlaminar stabilization or laminectomy and posterior spinal fusion Two-year clinical and radiographic results from the randomized, prospective, multicenter US investigational device exemption trial: Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. 2013; 19: 174-184. doi: 10.3171/2013.4.SPINE12636 PMID: 23725394
49. Davis RJ, Errico TJ, Bae H, Auerbach JD. Decompression and coflex interlaminar stabilization compared with decompression and instrumented spinal fusion for spinal stenosis and low-grade degenerative spondylolisthesis: Two-year results from the prospective, randomized, multicenter, food and drug administration investigational device exemption trial. Spine. 2013; 38: 1529-1539. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31829a6d0a PMID: 23680830
50. Grob D, Humke T, Dvorak J. Surgical decompression of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with and without fusion. Orthopade. 1993; 22: 243-249. PMID: 8414481
51. Wartolowska K, Judge A, Hopewell S, Collins GS, Dean BJ, Rombach I, et al. Use of placebo controls in the evaluation of surgery: systematic review. BMJ. 2014; 348: g3253. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g3253 PMID: 24850821
52. Rubin DB. Formal modes of statistical inference for causal effects. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference. 1990; 25: 279-292.
53. Moojen WA, Arts MP, Bartels RH, Jacobs WC, Peul WC. Effectiveness of interspinous implant surgery in patients with intermittent neurogenic claudication: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Spine J. 2011; 20: 1596-1606. doi: 10.1007/s00586-011-1873-8 PMID: 21667130
54. Chou D, Lau D, Hermsmeyer J, Norvell D. Efficacy of interspinous device versus surgical decompression in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: a modified network analysis. Evid Based Spine Care J. 2011; 2: 45-56. doi: 10.1055/s-0031-1274756 PMID: 23230405
55. Turner JA, Ersek M, Herron L, Deyo R. Surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. Attempted meta-analysis of the literature. Spine. 1992; 17: 1-8. PMID: 1531550
56. Golder S, Loke YK, Bland M. Meta-analyses of adverse effects data derived from randomised controlled trials as compared to observational studies: methodological overview. PLoS Med. 2011; 8: e1001026. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001026 PMID: 21559325
57. Papanikolaou PN, Christidi GD, Ioannidis JP. Comparison of evidence on harms of medical interventions in randomized and nonrandomized studies. CMAJ. 2006; 174: 635-641. PMID: 16505459
58. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010; 340: c332. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c332 PMID: 20332509
59. Ioannidis JP, Evans SJ, Gotzsche PC, O'Neill RT, Altman DG, Schulz K, et al. Better reporting of harms in randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. Ann Intern Med. 2004; 141: 781-788. PMID: 15545678
60. Horng S, Miller FG. Ethical framework for the use of sham procedures in clinical trials. Crit Care Med. 2003; 31: S126-130. PMID: 12626957
61. Buchbinder R, Osborne RH, Ebeling PR, Wark JD, Mitchell P, Wriedt C, et al. A randomized trial of vertebroplasty for painful osteoporotic vertebral fractures. N Engl J Med. 2009; 361: 557-568. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0900429 PMID: 19657121
62. Flum DR. Interpreting surgical trials with subjective outcomes: avoiding UnSPORTsmanlike conduct. JAMA. 2006; 296: 2483-2485. PMID: 17119146
63. Martin CR, Gruszczynski AT, Braunsfurth HA, Fallatah SM, O'Neil J, Wai EK. The surgical management of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a systematic review. Spine. 2007; 32: 1791-1798. PMID: 17632401
64. Resnick DK, Choudhri TF, Dailey AT, Groff MW, Khoo L, Matz PG, et al. Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 9: fusion in patients with stenosis and spondylolisthesis. Journal of Neurosurgery Spine. 2005; 2: 679-685. PMID: 16028737
65. Wu AM, Zhou Y, Li QL, Wu XL, Jin YL, Luo P, et al. Interspinous spacer versus traditional decompressive surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2014; 9: e97142. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0097142 PMID: 24809680