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.
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 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.
Systematic Review Question»Systematic review of interventions
