Author:
Wu Kun,Yun Zhihe,Zhang Jun,Yu Tao,Dai Anyuan,Sun Yang,Li Chen,Wang Yanli,Liu Qinyi
Abstract
Abstract
Study design
A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA).
Objective
To compare the effectiveness and safety of different posterior decompression techniques for LSS.
Summary of background data
Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is one of the most common degenerative spinal diseases that result in claudication, back and leg pain, and disability. Currently, posterior decompression techniques are widely used as an effective treatment for LSS.
Methods
An electronic literature search was performed using the EMBASE, Web of Science, PubMed, and Cochrane Library databases. Two authors independently performed data extraction and quality assessment. A Bayesian random effects model was constructed to incorporate the estimates of direct and indirect treatment comparisons and rank the interventions in order.
Results
In all, 14 eligible studies comprising 1,260 patients with LSS were included. Five interventions were identified, namely, spinal processes osteotomy (SPO), conventional laminotomy/laminectomy (CL), unilateral laminotomy/laminectomy (UL), bilateral laminotomy/ laminectomy (BL), and spinous process-splitting laminotomy/laminectomy (SPSL). Among these, SPO was the most promising surgical option for decreasing back and leg pain and for lowering the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). SSPL had the shortest operation time, while SPSL was associated with maximum blood loss. SPO and UL were superior to other posterior decompression techniques concerning lesser blood loss and shorter length of hospital stay, respectively. Patients who underwent BL had the lowest postoperative complication rates.
Conclusion
Overall, SPO was found to be a good surgical choice for patients with LSS.
Funder
Education Department of Jilin Province
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference53 articles.
1. Benoist M. The natural history of lumbar degenerative spinal stenosis. Joint Bone Spine. 2002;69:450–7.
2. Costandi S, Chopko B, Mekhail M, et al. Lumbar spinal stenosis: therapeutic options review. Pain Pract. 2015;15:68–81.
3. Lurie J, Tomkins-Lane C. Management of lumbar spinal stenosis. BMJ (Clinical Research ed). 2016;352: h6234.
4. Watters WC 3rd, Baisden J, Gilbert TJ, et al. Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: an evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine J. 2008;8:305–10.
5. Wu L, Cruz R. Lumbar Spinal Stenosis. StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing Copyright © 2022, StatPearls Publishing LLC., 2022.