Decompression Surgery versus Interspinous Devices for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review of the Literature.
Decompression surgery
Interspinous device
Interspinous device surgery
Lumbar spinal stenosis
Journal
Asian spine journal
ISSN: 1976-1902
Titre abrégé: Asian Spine J
Pays: Korea (South)
ID NLM: 101314177
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2020
Aug 2020
Historique:
received:
06
04
2019
accepted:
20
06
2019
pubmed:
8
1
2020
medline:
8
1
2020
entrez:
8
1
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
In this retrospective review study, the authors systematically reviewed the literature to elucidate the efficacy and complications associated with decompression and interspinous devices (ISDs) used in surgeries for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). LSS is a debilitating condition that affects the lumbar spinal cord and spinal nerve roots. However, a comprehensive report on the relative efficacy and complication rate of ISDs as they compare to traditional decompression procedures is currently lacking. The PubMed database was queried to identify clinical studies that exclusively investigated decompression, those that exclusively investigated ISDs, and those that compared decompression with ISDs. Only prospective cohort studies, case series, and randomized controlled trials that evaluated outcomes using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index, or Japanese Orthopedic Association scores were included. A random-effects model was established to assess the difference between preoperative and the 1-2-year postoperative VAS scores between ISD surgery and lumbar decompression. This study included 40 papers that matched our criteria. Twenty-five decompression-exclusive clinical trials with 3,386 patients and a mean age of 68.7 years (range, 31-88 years) reported a 2.2% incidence rate of dural tears and a 2.6% incidence rate of postoperative infections. Eight ISD-exclusive clinical trials with 1,496 patients and a mean age of 65.1 (range, 19-89 years) reported a 5.3% incidence rate of postoperative leg pain and a 3.7% incidence rate of spinous process fractures. Seven studies that compared ISDs and decompression in 624 patients found a reoperation rate of 8.3% in ISD patients vs. 3.9% in decompression patients; they also reported dural tears in 0.32% of ISD patients vs. 5.2% in decompression patients. A meta-analysis of the randomized controlled trials found that the differences in preoperative and postoperative VAS scores between the two groups were not significant. Both decompression and ISD interventions are unique surgical interventions with different therapeutic efficacies and complications. The collected studies do not consistently demonstrate superiority of either procedure over the other but understanding the differences between the two techniques can help tailor treatment regimens for patients with LSS.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31906617
pii: asj.2019.0105
doi: 10.31616/asj.2019.0105
pmc: PMC7435320
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
526-542Références
Pain Physician. 2015 Jan-Feb;18(1):61-70
pubmed: 25675060
Eur Spine J. 2015 Oct;24(10):2295-305
pubmed: 25586759
J Neurosurg Spine. 2010 Nov;13(5):568-75
pubmed: 21039145
J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2015 Nov;26(11):1687-93.e1-2
pubmed: 26119203
J Spinal Disord Tech. 2011 Jul;24(5):281-7
pubmed: 20975592
Ann Intern Med. 1985 Aug;103(2):271-5
pubmed: 3160275
BMJ. 2013 Nov 14;347:f6415
pubmed: 24231273
J Neurosurg Spine. 2014 Aug;21(2):179-86
pubmed: 24878273
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999 Jan 1;24(1):62-6
pubmed: 9921593
J Orthop Sci. 2017 May;22(3):377-383
pubmed: 28161236
Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech. 2016;83(4):263-268
pubmed: 28026727
Pain Physician. 2016 Feb;19(2):25-38
pubmed: 26815247
Eur Spine J. 2009 May;18(5):672-8
pubmed: 19238459
World Neurosurg. 2017 Aug;104:279-283
pubmed: 28479526
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015 Mar 1;40(5):275-82
pubmed: 25494323
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014 Jul 05;15:221
pubmed: 24996648
BMJ. 2015 Apr 01;350:h1603
pubmed: 25833966
J Neurosurg Spine. 2005 Aug;3(2):129-41
pubmed: 16370302
Clin J Pain. 2012 Jul;28(6):534-8
pubmed: 22673487
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015 Jan 15;40(2):77-85
pubmed: 25575084
J Orthop Surg Res. 2012 Oct 29;7:35
pubmed: 23107358
Spine J. 2012 Aug;12(8):646-51
pubmed: 22926408
Pain Physician. 2012 Nov-Dec;15(6):451-60
pubmed: 23159960
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013 Aug 1;38(17):1436-42
pubmed: 23403549
N Engl J Med. 2008 Feb 21;358(8):794-810
pubmed: 18287602
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013 Sep 15;38(20):1737-43
pubmed: 23797498
Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2014 Sep;124:166-74
pubmed: 25064150
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006 Feb;443:198-207
pubmed: 16462443
Turk Neurosurg. 2007 Apr;17(2):100-8
pubmed: 17935024
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011 Sep 15;36(20):E1302-5
pubmed: 21358476
Ann Intern Med. 2015 Sep 1;163(5):397-8
pubmed: 26322703
World Neurosurg. 2016 Nov;95:556-564.e3
pubmed: 27514696
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007 May 20;32(12):1345-8
pubmed: 17515824
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000 Jun 15;25(12):1533-7
pubmed: 10851102
J Neurosurg Spine. 2007 Mar;6(3):229-39
pubmed: 17355022
Neurosurg Rev. 2012 Oct;35(4):477-84; discussion 484
pubmed: 22549123
BMC Surg. 2010 Nov 22;10:34
pubmed: 21092227
Pain Physician. 2010 Jul-Aug;13(4):369-78
pubmed: 20648206
Eur Spine J. 2014 Oct;23(10):2156-60
pubmed: 25073942
Eur Spine J. 2012 Dec;21(12):2565-72
pubmed: 22565799
JAMA. 2010 Apr 7;303(13):1259-65
pubmed: 20371784
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013 May 20;38(12):E732-7
pubmed: 23466507
Semin Neurol. 2002 Jun;22(2):157-66
pubmed: 12524561
Eur Spine J. 2008 Aug;17(8):1049-56
pubmed: 18584219
Bone Joint J. 2018 Apr 1;100-B(4):499-506
pubmed: 29629597
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008 Mar 1;33(5):514-8
pubmed: 18317196
Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:839325
pubmed: 25114923
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007 Jan 1;32(1):1-8
pubmed: 17202885
Pain Physician. 2016 May;19(4):229-42
pubmed: 27228511
J Neurosurg Spine. 2005 May;2(5):624-33
pubmed: 15945442