» Articles » PMID: 35582931

Clinical Evaluation of Surgery for Single-Segment Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis

Overview
Journal Orthop Surg
Specialty Orthopedics
Date 2022 May 18
PMID 35582931
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

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.

Citing Articles

Influence of decompression by laminotomy and percutaneous tansforaminal endoscopic surgery on postoperative wound healing, pain intensity, and lumbar function in elderly patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.

Zhu H, Liu Y, Wang Y, Xu D, Zhao Z, Wu X Ann Med. 2025; 57(1):2472865.

PMID: 40033779 PMC: 11881652. DOI: 10.1080/07853890.2025.2472865.


Intraoperative Fluoroscopic Verification of Satisfactory Foraminotomy in Posterior Open Decompression Surgery for Lumbar Foraminal Stenosis: A Clinical Image.

Kapetanakis S, Bladowska J, Tsioulas P, Tsolakidis G, Siopis C, Gkantsinikoudis N Clin Case Rep. 2025; 13(2):e70231.

PMID: 39967845 PMC: 11832910. DOI: 10.1002/ccr3.70231.


Surgical interventions for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review with network meta-analysis.

Chen L, Guan B, Anderson D, Ferreira P, Stanford R, Beckenkamp P BMC Med. 2024; 22(1):430.

PMID: 39379938 PMC: 11463109. DOI: 10.1186/s12916-024-03653-z.


Lumbar fusion efficacy with local bone grafting and platelet-rich plasma: a clinical investigation in treating degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis in the elderly.

Wang C, Xu F, Jia L, Liu Y, Zhang S Int Orthop. 2024; 48(11):2963-2970.

PMID: 39287668 DOI: 10.1007/s00264-024-06294-2.


Comparative effects of different posterior decompression techniques for lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.

Wu K, Yun Z, Zhang J, Yu T, Dai A, Sun Y J Orthop Surg Res. 2024; 19(1):417.

PMID: 39030552 PMC: 11264886. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-024-04792-y.


References
1.
Davis R, Errico T, Bae H, Auerbach J . 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.... Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013; 38(18):1529-39. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31829a6d0a. View

2.
Ghogawala Z, Dziura J, Butler W, Dai F, Terrin N, Magge S . Laminectomy plus Fusion versus Laminectomy Alone for Lumbar Spondylolisthesis. N Engl J Med. 2016; 374(15):1424-34. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1508788. View

3.
Mills E, Thorlund K, Ioannidis J . Demystifying trial networks and network meta-analysis. BMJ. 2013; 346:f2914. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.f2914. View

4.
Forsth P, Olafsson G, Carlsson T, Frost A, Borgstrom F, Fritzell P . A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Fusion Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis. N Engl J Med. 2016; 374(15):1413-23. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1513721. View

5.
Moojen W, Arts M, Jacobs W, van Zwet E, Elske van den Akker-van Marle M, Koes B . IPD without bony decompression versus conventional surgical decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: 2-year results of a double-blind randomized controlled trial. Eur Spine J. 2015; 24(10):2295-305. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-014-3748-2. View