Surgical Interventions for Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: a Systematic Review with Network Meta-analysis

Overview

Journal BMC Med

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialty General Medicine

Date 2024 Oct 8

PMID 39379938

Authors

Lingxiao Chen

Bin Guan

David B Anderson

Paulo H Ferreira

Ralph Stanford

Paula R Beckenkamp

James M Van Gelder

Munkh-Erdene Bayartai

Maja R Radojcic

Jeremy C T Fairbank

Shiqing Feng

Hengxing Zhou

Manuela L Ferreira

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Several surgical options for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) are available, but current guidelines do not recommend which one should be prioritized. Although previous network meta-analyses (NMAs) have been performed on this topic, they have major methodological problems and could not provide the convincing evidence and clinical practical information required.

Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing at least two surgical interventions were included by searching AMED, CINAHL, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and MEDLINE (inception to August 2023). A frequentist random-effects NMA was performed for physical function and adverse events due to any reason. For physical function, three follow-up time points were included: short-term (< 6 months post-intervention), mid-term (≥ 6 months but < 12 months), and long-term (≥ 12 months). Laminectomy was the reference comparison intervention.

Results: A total of 43 RCTs involving 5017 participants were included in the systematic review and 28 RCTs encompassing 14 types of surgical interventions were included in the NMA. For improving physical function (scale 0-100), endoscopic-assisted laminotomy (mean difference: - 8.61, 95% confidence interval: - 10.52 to - 6.69; moderate-quality evidence), laminectomy combined with Coflex (- 8.41, - 13.21 to - 3.61; moderate quality evidence), and X-stop (- 6.65, - 8.60 to - 4.71; low-quality evidence) had small effects at short-term follow-up; no statistical difference was observed at mid-term follow-up (very low- to low-quality evidence); at long-term follow-up, endoscopic-assisted laminotomy (- 7.02, - 12.95 to - 1.08; very low-quality evidence) and X-stop (- 10.04, - 18.16 to - 1.93; very low-quality evidence) had a small and moderate effect, respectively. Compared with laminectomy, endoscopic-assisted laminotomy was associated with fewer adverse events due to any reason (odds ratio: 0.27, 0.09 to 0.86; low-quality evidence).

Conclusions: For adults with degenerative LSS, endoscopic-assisted laminotomy may be the safest and most effective intervention in improving physical function. However, the available data were insufficient to indicate whether the effect was sustainable after 6 months.

Trial Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42018094180).

References

Kang T, Park S, Kang C, Lee S, Park J, Suh S . Is biportal technique/endoscopic spinal surgery satisfactory for lumbar spinal stenosis patients?: A prospective randomized comparative study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019; 98(18):e15451. PMC: 6504265. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000015451. View

Simon R, Dowe C, Grinberg S, Cammisa Jr F, Abjornson C . The 2-Level Experience of Interlaminar Stabilization: 5-Year Follow-Up of a Prospective, Randomized Clinical Experience Compared to Fusion for the Sustainable Management of Spinal Stenosis. Int J Spine Surg. 2018; 12(4):419-427. PMC: 6159699. DOI: 10.14444/5050. View

Rickers K, Pedersen P, Tvedebrink T, Eiskjaer S . Comparison of interventions for lumbar disc herniation: a systematic review with network meta-analysis. Spine J. 2021; 21(10):1750-1762. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2021.02.022. View

Borg A, Hill C, Nurboja B, Critchley G, Choi D . A randomized controlled trial of the X-Stop interspinous distractor device versus laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis with 2-year quality-of-life and cost-effectiveness outcomes. J Neurosurg Spine. 2021; 34(4):544-552. DOI: 10.3171/2020.7.SPINE20880. View

Anderson D, Beard D, Rannou F, Hunter D, Suri P, Chen L . Clinical assessment and management of lumbar spinal stenosis: clinical dilemmas and considerations for surgical referral. Lancet Rheumatol. 2024; 6(10):e727-e732. DOI: 10.1016/S2665-9913(24)00028-6. View

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

Tomkins-Lane C, Melloh M, Lurie J, Smuck M, Battie M, Freeman B . ISSLS Prize Winner: Consensus on the Clinical Diagnosis of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Results of an International Delphi Study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016; 41(15):1239-1246. PMC: 4966995. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001476. View

Ho E, Chen L, Simic M, Ashton-James C, Comachio J, Wang D . Psychological interventions for chronic, non-specific low back pain: systematic review with network meta-analysis. BMJ. 2022; 376:e067718. PMC: 8965745. DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2021-067718. View

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

10.

Patel V, Whang P, Haley T, Bradley W, Nunley P, Davis R . Superion interspinous process spacer for intermittent neurogenic claudication secondary to moderate lumbar spinal stenosis: two-year results from a randomized controlled FDA-IDE pivotal trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014; 40(5):275-82. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000735. View

11.

Bae H, Davis R, Lauryssen C, Leary S, Maislin G, Musacchio Jr M . Three-Year Follow-up of the Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial of Coflex Interlaminar Stabilization vs Instrumented Fusion in Patients With Lumbar Stenosis. Neurosurgery. 2016; 79(2):169-81. DOI: 10.1227/NEU.0000000000001237. View

12.

Skoro I, Stancic M, Kovacevic M, Duric K . Long-Term Results and Efficacy of Laminectomy with Fusion Versus Young Laminoplasty for the Treatment of Degenerative Spinal Stenosis. World Neurosurg. 2016; 89:387-92. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2016.01.078. View

13.

Loguidice V, Bini W, Shabat S, Miller L, Block J . Rationale, design and clinical performance of the Superion® Interspinous Spacer: a minimally invasive implant for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2011; 8(4):419-26. DOI: 10.1586/erd.11.24. View

14.

Liang Z, Xu X, Chen X, Zhuang Y, Wang R, Chen C . Clinical Evaluation of Surgery for Single-Segment Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis. Orthop Surg. 2022; 14(7):1281-1293. PMC: 9251271. DOI: 10.1111/os.13269. View

15.

Ko S, Oh T . Comparison of bilateral decompression via unilateral laminotomy and conventional laminectomy for single-level degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis regarding low back pain, functional outcome, and quality of life - A Randomized Controlled, Prospective.... J Orthop Surg Res. 2019; 14(1):252. PMC: 6686452. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-019-1298-3. View

16.

Hamawandi S, Sulaiman I, Al-Humairi A . Microdecompression versus Open Laminectomy and Posterior Stabilization for Multilevel Lumbar Spine Stenosis: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Pain Res Manag. 2019; 2019:7214129. PMC: 6885236. DOI: 10.1155/2019/7214129. View

17.

Zhang Y, Lu D, Ji W, He F, Chen A, Yang H . Which is the most effective treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis: Decompression, fusion, or interspinous process device? A Bayesian network meta-analysis. J Orthop Translat. 2021; 26:45-53. PMC: 7773978. DOI: 10.1016/j.jot.2020.07.003. View

18.

Komp M, Hahn P, Oezdemir S, Giannakopoulos A, Heikenfeld R, Kasch R . Bilateral spinal decompression of lumbar central stenosis with the full-endoscopic interlaminar versus microsurgical laminotomy technique: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Pain Physician. 2015; 18(1):61-70. View

19.

Fan Y, Zhu L . Decompression alone versus fusion and Coflex in the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease: A network meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2020; 99(11):e19457. PMC: 7220096. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000019457. View

20.

Hermansen E, Austevoll I, Hellum C, Storheim K, Myklebust T, Aaen J . Comparison of 3 Different Minimally Invasive Surgical Techniques for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2022; 5(3):e224291. PMC: 8961320. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.4291. View