BACKGROUND: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a debilitating condition associated with degeneration of the spine with aging.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of different types of surgery compared with different types of non-surgical interventions in adults with symptomatic LSS. Primary outcomes included quality of life, disability, function and pain. Also, to consider complication rates and side effects, and to evaluate short-, intermediate- and long-term outcomes (six months, six months to two years, five years or longer).
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, five other databases and two trials registries up to February 2015. We also screened reference lists and conference proceedings related to treatment of the spine.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing surgical versus non-operative treatments in participants with lumbar spinal stenosis confirmed by clinical and imaging findings.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: For data collection and analysis, we followed methods guidelines of the Cochrane Back and Neck Review Group (Furlan 2009) and those provided in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2011).
MAIN RESULTS: From the 12,966 citations screened, we assessed 26 full-text articles and included five RCTs (643 participants).Low-quality evidence from the meta-analysis performed on two trials using the Oswestry Disability Index (pain-related disability) to compare direct decompression with or without fusion versus multi-modal non-operative care showed no significant differences at six months (mean difference (MD) -3.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) -10.12 to 2.80) and at one year (MD -6.18, 95% CI -15.03 to 2.66). At 24 months, significant differences favoured decompression (MD -4.43, 95% CI -7.91 to -0.96). Low-quality evidence from one small study revealed no difference in pain outcomes between decompression and usual conservative care (bracing and exercise) at three months (risk ratio (RR) 1.38, 95% CI 0.22 to 8.59), four years (RR 7.50, 95% CI 1.00 to 56.48) and 10 years (RR 4.09, 95% CI 0.95 to 17.58).Low-quality evidence from one small study suggested no differences at six weeks in the Oswestry Disability Index for patients treated with minimally invasive mild decompression versus those treated with epidural steroid injections (MD 5.70, 95% CI 0.57 to 10.83; 38 participants). Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ) results were better for epidural injection at six weeks (MD -0.60, 95% CI -0.92 to -0.28), and visual analogue scale (VAS) improvements were better in the mild decompression group (MD 2.40, 95% CI 1.92 to 2.88). At 12 weeks, many cross-overs prevented further analysis.Low-quality evidence from a single study including 191 participants favoured the interspinous spacer versus usual conservative treatment at six weeks, six months and one year for symptom severity and physical function.All remaining studies reported complications associated with surgery and conservative side effects of treatment: Two studies reported no major complications in the surgical group, and the other study reported complications in 10% and 24% of participants, including spinous process fracture, coronary ischaemia, respiratory distress, haematoma, stroke, risk of reoperation and death due to pulmonary oedema.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We have very little confidence to conclude whether surgical treatment or a conservative approach is better for lumbar spinal stenosis, and we can provide no new recommendations to guide clinical practice. However, it should be noted that the rate of side effects ranged from 10% to 24% in surgical cases, and no side effects were reported for any conservative treatment. No clear benefits were observed with surgery versus non-surgical treatment. These findings suggest that clinicians should be very careful in informing patients about possible treatment options, especially given that conservative treatment options have resulted in no reported side effects. High-quality research is needed to compare surgical versus conservative care for individuals with lumbar spinal stenosis.
Background. Physical therapy is commonly prescribed for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS); however, little is known about its effectiveness. Purpose. The purpose of this study was to systematically review randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled trials, and cohort studies evaluating the effectiveness of physical therapy for LSS. Data Sources. Studies were searched on electronic databases to January 2012. Study Selection. Inclusion criteria were: clinical diagnosis of LSS with confirmatory imaging, evaluation of physical therapy treatment, presence of a comparison group, and outcomes of pain, disability, function, or quality of life. Data Extraction. Outcomes were extracted and, when possible, pooled using RevMan 5, a freely available review program from the Cochrane Library. Data Synthesis. Ten studies were included: 5 RCTs, 2 controlled trials, 2 mixed- design studies, and 1 longitudinal cohort study. Pooled effects of 2 studies revealed that the addition of a physical therapy modality to exercise had no statistically significant effect on outcome. Pooled effects results of RCTs evaluating surgery versus physical therapy demonstrated that surgery was better than physical therapy for pain and disability at long term (2 years) only. Other results suggested that exercise is significantly better than no exercise, that cycling and body-weight-supported treadmill walking have similar effects, and that corsets are better than no corsets. Limitations. The limitations of this review include the low quality and small number of studies, as well as the heterogeneity in outcomes and treatments. Conclusions. No conclusions could be drawn from the review regarding which physical therapy treatment is superior for LSS. There was low-quality evidence suggesting that modalities have no additional effect to exercise and that surgery leads to better long-term (2 years) outcomes for pain and disability, but not walking distance, than physical therapy in patients with LSS.
BACKGROUND: Lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication is one of the most commonly diagnosed and treated pathological spinal conditions. It frequently afflicts the elderly population.
OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the evidence for the effectiveness of nonoperative treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication.
SEARCH METHODS: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Index to Chiropractic Literature (ICL) databases were searched up to June 2012.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials published in English, in which at least one arm provided data on nonoperative treatments
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Risk of bias in each study was independently assessed by two review authors using the 12 criteria recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group (Furlan 2009). Dichotomous outcomes were expressed as relative risk, continuous outcomes as mean difference or standardized mean difference; uncertainty was expressed with 95% confidence intervals. If possible a meta-analysis was performed, otherwise results were described qualitatively. GRADE was used to assess the quality of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS: From the 8635 citations screened, 56 full-text articles were assessed and 21 trials (1851 participants) were included. There was very low-quality evidence from six trials that calcitonin is no better than placebo or paracetamol, regardless of mode of administration or outcome assessed. From single small trials, there was low-quality evidence for prostaglandins, and very low-quality evidence for gabapentin or methylcobalamin that they improved walking distance. There was very low-quality evidence from a single trial that epidural steroid injections improved pain, function, and quality of life, up to two weeks, compared with home exercise or inpatient physical therapy. There was low-quality evidence from a single trial that exercise is of short-term benefit for leg pain and function compared with no treatment. There was low and very low-quality evidence from six trials that multimodal nonoperative treatment is less effective than indirect or direct surgical decompression with or without fusion. A meta-analysis of two trials comparing direct decompression with or without fusion to multimodal nonoperative care found no significant difference in function at six months (mean difference (MD) -3.66, 95% CI -10.12 to 2.80) and one year (MD -6.18, 95% CI -15.03 to 2.66), but at 24 months a significant difference was found favouring decompression (MD -4.43, 95% CI -7.91 to -0.96).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate and high-quality evidence for nonoperative treatment is lacking and thus prohibits recommendations for guiding clinical practice. Given the expected exponential rise in the prevalence of lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication, large high-quality trials are urgently needed.
BACKGROUND: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is prevalent in those over the age of 65 years and the leading cause of spinal surgery in this population. Recent systematic reviews have examined the effectiveness of conservative management for LSS, but not relative to surgical interventions. The aim of this review was to systematically examine the effectiveness of land based exercise compared with decompressive surgery in the management of patients with LSS.
METHODS: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials and clinical trials was undertaken. The databases MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PEDro and Cochrane Library Register of Controlled Trials were searched from January 2000 to June 2011. Only studies that included subjects with lumbar spinal canal stenosis were considered in this review. Studies also had to use a patient reported functional outcome measure for a land based exercise intervention or lumbar decompressive surgery.
RESULTS: Only one study compared the effectiveness of exercise and decompressive surgery for LSS. Surgery demonstrated statistically significant improvements in patient reported functional outcome scores at 6, 12 and 24-months post-intervention (p < 0.01). To facilitate further analysis, the results from 12 exercise and 10 surgical intervention arms were compared using percentage change in patient reported functional outcome measure scores. Exercise interventions showed initial improvements, ranging from 16 to 29% above baseline. All decompressive surgical interventions demonstrated greater and sustained improvements over 2-years (range 38-67% improvement) with moderate to large effect sizes. The most commonly reported complications associated with surgery were dural tears, while details of adverse effects were lacking in exercise interventions.
CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review of the recent literature demonstrates that decompressive surgery is more effective than land based exercise in the management of LSS. However, given the condition's slowly progressive nature and the potential for known surgical complications, it is recommended that a trial of conservative management with land based exercise be considered prior to consideration of surgical intervention.
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review using a modified network analysis. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness and morbidity of interspinous-device placement versus surgical decompression for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. SUMMARY: Traditionally, the most effective treatment for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis is through surgical decompression. Recently, interspinous devices have been used in lieu of standard laminectomy. METHODS: A review of the English-language literature was undertaken for articles published between 1970 and March 2010. Electronic databases and reference lists of key articles were searched to identify studies comparing surgical decompression with interspinous-device placement for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. First, studies making the direct comparison (cohort or randomized trials) were searched. Second, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing each treatment to conservative management were searched to allow for an indirect comparison through a modified network analysis approach. Comparison studies involving simultaneous decompression with placement of an interspinous device were not included. Studies that did not have a comparison group were not included since a treatment effect could not be calculated. Two independent reviewers assessed the strength of evidence using the GRADE criteria assessing quality, quantity, and consistency of results. The strengths of evidence for indirect comparisons were downgraded. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. RESULTS: We identified five studies meeting our inclusion criteria. No RCTs or cohort studies were identified that made the direct comparison of interspinous-device placement with surgical decompression. For the indirect comparison, three RCTs compared surgical decompression to conservative management and two RCTs compared interspinous-device placement to conservative management. There was low evidence supporting greater treatment effects for interspinous-device placement compared to decompression for disability and pain outcomes at 12 months. There was low evidence demonstrating little to no difference in treatment effects between the groups for walking distance and complication rates. CONCLUSION: The indirect treatment effect for disability and pain favors the interspinous device compared to decompression. The low evidence suggests that any further research is very likely to have an important impact on the confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. No significant treatment effect differences were observed for postoperative walking distance improvement or complication rates; however, findings should be considered with caution because of indirect comparisons and short follow-up periods.
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of surgery versus conservative treatment on pain, disability, and loss of quality of life caused by symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: LSS is the most common reason for spine surgery in persons older than 65 years in the United States. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any form of conservative and surgical treatment were searched in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and TripDatabase databases until July 2009, with no language restrictions. Additional data were requested from the authors of the original studies. The methodological quality of each study was assessed independently by two reviewers, following the criteria recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group. Only data from randomized cohorts were extracted. RESULTS: A total of 739 citations were reviewed. Eleven publications corresponding to five RCTs were included. All five scored as high quality despite concerns deriving from heterogeneity of treatment, lack of blinding, and potential differences in the size of the placebo effect across groups. They included a total of 918 patients in whom conservative treatments had failed for 3 to 6 months, and included orthosis, rehabilitation, physical therapy, exercise, heat and cold, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, ultrasounds, analgesics, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and epidural steroids. Surgical treatments included the implantation of a specific type of interspinous device and decompressive surgery (with and without fusion, instrumented or not). In all the studies, surgery showed better results for pain, disability, and quality of life, although not for walking ability. Results of surgery were similar among patients with and without spondylolisthesis, and slightly better among those with neurogenic claudication than among those without it. The advantage of surgery was noticeable at 3 to 6 months and remained for up to 2 to 4 years, although at the end of that period differences tended to be smaller. CONCLUSION: In patients with symptomatic LSS, the implantation of a specific type of device or decompressive surgery, with or without fusion, is more effective than continued conservative treatment when the latter has failed for 3 to 6 months.
Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a debilitating condition associated with degeneration of the spine with aging.
OBJECTIVES:
To evaluate the effectiveness of different types of surgery compared with different types of non-surgical interventions in adults with symptomatic LSS. Primary outcomes included quality of life, disability, function and pain. Also, to consider complication rates and side effects, and to evaluate short-, intermediate- and long-term outcomes (six months, six months to two years, five years or longer).
SEARCH METHODS:
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, five other databases and two trials registries up to February 2015. We also screened reference lists and conference proceedings related to treatment of the spine.
SELECTION CRITERIA:
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing surgical versus non-operative treatments in participants with lumbar spinal stenosis confirmed by clinical and imaging findings.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:
For data collection and analysis, we followed methods guidelines of the Cochrane Back and Neck Review Group (Furlan 2009) and those provided in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2011).
MAIN RESULTS:
From the 12,966 citations screened, we assessed 26 full-text articles and included five RCTs (643 participants).Low-quality evidence from the meta-analysis performed on two trials using the Oswestry Disability Index (pain-related disability) to compare direct decompression with or without fusion versus multi-modal non-operative care showed no significant differences at six months (mean difference (MD) -3.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) -10.12 to 2.80) and at one year (MD -6.18, 95% CI -15.03 to 2.66). At 24 months, significant differences favoured decompression (MD -4.43, 95% CI -7.91 to -0.96). Low-quality evidence from one small study revealed no difference in pain outcomes between decompression and usual conservative care (bracing and exercise) at three months (risk ratio (RR) 1.38, 95% CI 0.22 to 8.59), four years (RR 7.50, 95% CI 1.00 to 56.48) and 10 years (RR 4.09, 95% CI 0.95 to 17.58).Low-quality evidence from one small study suggested no differences at six weeks in the Oswestry Disability Index for patients treated with minimally invasive mild decompression versus those treated with epidural steroid injections (MD 5.70, 95% CI 0.57 to 10.83; 38 participants). Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ) results were better for epidural injection at six weeks (MD -0.60, 95% CI -0.92 to -0.28), and visual analogue scale (VAS) improvements were better in the mild decompression group (MD 2.40, 95% CI 1.92 to 2.88). At 12 weeks, many cross-overs prevented further analysis.Low-quality evidence from a single study including 191 participants favoured the interspinous spacer versus usual conservative treatment at six weeks, six months and one year for symptom severity and physical function.All remaining studies reported complications associated with surgery and conservative side effects of treatment: Two studies reported no major complications in the surgical group, and the other study reported complications in 10% and 24% of participants, including spinous process fracture, coronary ischaemia, respiratory distress, haematoma, stroke, risk of reoperation and death due to pulmonary oedema.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
We have very little confidence to conclude whether surgical treatment or a conservative approach is better for lumbar spinal stenosis, and we can provide no new recommendations to guide clinical practice. However, it should be noted that the rate of side effects ranged from 10% to 24% in surgical cases, and no side effects were reported for any conservative treatment. No clear benefits were observed with surgery versus non-surgical treatment. These findings suggest that clinicians should be very careful in informing patients about possible treatment options, especially given that conservative treatment options have resulted in no reported side effects. High-quality research is needed to compare surgical versus conservative care for individuals with lumbar spinal stenosis.
Systematic Review Question»Systematic review of interventions
