MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.11.014

Медицинская библиотека · International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2020

Management for lumbar spinal stenosis: A network meta-analysis and systematic review.

Wei Fei-Long, Zhou Cheng-Pei, Liu Rui, Zhu Kai-Long, Du Ming-Rui, Gao Hao-Ran, Wu Sheng-Da, Sun Li-Li, Yan Xiao-Dong, Liu Ya, Qian Ji-Xian

СтатьяСистематический обзорNetwork Meta-AnalysisПеревод в очереди

Аннотация

BACKGROUND

Conventional paired meta-analyses have shown inconsistent results regarding the safety and efficacy of different interventions.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a network meta-analysis (NMA) and systematic review based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacies of different interventions for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and major scientific websites from inception to October 10, 2019, for randomized controlled trials comparing the nine most commonly used interventions for LSS. The main outcomes were disability and pain intensity. The PROSPERO number was CRD42020154247.

RESULTS

First, laminotomy was better in improving patients' short- and long-term dysfunction (probability 49% and 25%, respectively). Second, decompression, decompression plus fusion, endoscopic decompression, interspinous process spacer device implantation, laminectomy, laminotomy and minimally invasive decompression were significantly more efficacious in relieving pain than non-surgical interventions (mean difference in the short-term -21.82, -22.00, -16.68, -17.47, -17.75, -17.61 and -18.86; in the long-term -37.14, -34.04, -34.07, -39.79, -36.14, -32.75 and -39.14, respectively). Third, endoscopic decompression had a lower complication rate (probability 51%). In addition, laminotomy had a lower reoperation rate (probability 45%). Fourth, decompression plus fusion resulted in more blood loss than any other surgical intervention (probability 96%). Finally, endoscopic decompression had the shortest hospitalization time (probability 96%).

CONCLUSIONS

There were no significant differences among the different interventions in improving patient function. Surgical interventions were associated with better pain relief but a higher incidence of complications. Decompression plus fusion is not necessary for patients. In addition, endoscopic decompression as a novel and less invasive surgical approach may be a good choice for LSS patients.

Для цитирования: Wei Fei-Long, Zhou Cheng-Pei, Liu Rui, Zhu Kai-Long, Du Ming-Rui, Gao Hao-Ran, Wu Sheng-Da, Sun Li-Li, Yan Xiao-Dong, Liu Ya, Qian Ji-Xian. Management for lumbar spinal stenosis: A network meta-analysis and systematic review.. International journal of surgery (London, England). 2020. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.11.014.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

История · было → стало

Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.