Long-term reoperation after decompression with versus without fusion among patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 4.9 1区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Spine Journal Pub Date : 2024-11-29 DOI:10.1016/j.spinee.2024.11.015
Fon-Yih Tsuang, Yu-Lun Hsu, Tzu-Yi Chou, Chung Liang Chai
{"title":"Long-term reoperation after decompression with versus without fusion among patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Fon-Yih Tsuang, Yu-Lun Hsu, Tzu-Yi Chou, Chung Liang Chai","doi":"10.1016/j.spinee.2024.11.015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The debate over adding fusion after decompression in lumbar spinal stenosis patients without spondylolisthesis is due to the \"absence of evidence\" in its benefits, particularly in reoperation. However, this \"absence of evidence\" does not indicate \"evidence of absence.\"</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To investigate the reoperation rates following the addition of fusion after decompression in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis without spondylolisthesis.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Systematic review and meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases on December 12, 2021, with an updated search conducted on April 06, 2023. Inclusion criteria were adult patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Exclusions comprised cases of spondylolisthesis and instabilities. The occurrence of reoperation was summarized using odds ratios (OR), while other outcomes were presented as mean differences. We employed a Cox-based shared-frailty model with random effects for the time-to-event analysis of reoperation. Additionally, we used a 2-stage method to validate our estimates. Heterogeneity variance within the random-effects model was estimated using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 1973 studies were identified and screened, of which 48 met selection criteria, and 17 were included in the meta-analysis. Comparison between fusion and non-fusion groups in patients with lumbar stenosis and neurological claudication revealed no significant difference in reoperation rates (odds ratio: 1.13 [95% CI: 0.88 to 1.46]; 8016 participants; 14 studies; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%). Bayesian analysis indicated an 8.9-fold likelihood of similar reoperation rates. Time-to-reoperation analysis revealed a 16.46 months delay in the fusion group, though not statistically significant (mean difference: 16.46 [95% CI: -3.13-36.04]; 83 participants; 3 studies; I<sup>2</sup> = 46%). Consistently, ODI, back pain, and leg pain VAS showed no significant differences. The certainty of the evidence was low for odds of reoperation and leg pain VAS, and very low for the remaining outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In lumbar spinal stenosis patients without spondylolisthesis, the addition of fusion after decompression showed limited benefits in terms of reoperation rates, ODI, and leg pain.</p>","PeriodicalId":49484,"journal":{"name":"Spine Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2024.11.015","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The debate over adding fusion after decompression in lumbar spinal stenosis patients without spondylolisthesis is due to the "absence of evidence" in its benefits, particularly in reoperation. However, this "absence of evidence" does not indicate "evidence of absence."

Purpose: To investigate the reoperation rates following the addition of fusion after decompression in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis without spondylolisthesis.

Study design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods: We searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases on December 12, 2021, with an updated search conducted on April 06, 2023. Inclusion criteria were adult patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Exclusions comprised cases of spondylolisthesis and instabilities. The occurrence of reoperation was summarized using odds ratios (OR), while other outcomes were presented as mean differences. We employed a Cox-based shared-frailty model with random effects for the time-to-event analysis of reoperation. Additionally, we used a 2-stage method to validate our estimates. Heterogeneity variance within the random-effects model was estimated using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method.

Results: A total of 1973 studies were identified and screened, of which 48 met selection criteria, and 17 were included in the meta-analysis. Comparison between fusion and non-fusion groups in patients with lumbar stenosis and neurological claudication revealed no significant difference in reoperation rates (odds ratio: 1.13 [95% CI: 0.88 to 1.46]; 8016 participants; 14 studies; I2 = 0%). Bayesian analysis indicated an 8.9-fold likelihood of similar reoperation rates. Time-to-reoperation analysis revealed a 16.46 months delay in the fusion group, though not statistically significant (mean difference: 16.46 [95% CI: -3.13-36.04]; 83 participants; 3 studies; I2 = 46%). Consistently, ODI, back pain, and leg pain VAS showed no significant differences. The certainty of the evidence was low for odds of reoperation and leg pain VAS, and very low for the remaining outcomes.

Conclusion: In lumbar spinal stenosis patients without spondylolisthesis, the addition of fusion after decompression showed limited benefits in terms of reoperation rates, ODI, and leg pain.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
退行性腰椎管狭窄患者减压与不融合后长期再手术:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:对于无滑脱的腰椎管狭窄症患者在减压后增加融合的争论是由于其益处“缺乏证据”,特别是在再手术中。然而,这种“证据缺失”并不表示“证据缺失”。目的:探讨无椎体滑脱的腰椎管狭窄症患者减压后加融合术的再手术率。方法:我们于2021年12月12日检索了Medline、Embase、Web of Science和谷歌Scholar数据库,并于2023年4月6日进行了更新检索。纳入标准为成年腰椎管狭窄患者。排除包括脊柱滑脱和不稳定的病例。再手术发生率采用比值比(OR)进行汇总,其他结果以平均差异表示。我们采用基于cox的随机效应共享脆弱性模型进行再手术的时间-事件分析。此外,我们使用了两阶段方法来验证我们的估计。随机效应模型的异质性方差采用hartung - knappp - sidik - jonkman方法估计。结果:共有1973项研究被确定和筛选,其中48项符合选择标准,17项纳入meta分析。腰椎管狭窄合并神经性跛行患者融合组与非融合组比较,再手术率无显著差异(优势比:1.13 [95% CI: 0.88 ~ 1.46];8016名参与者;14个研究;I2 = 0%)。贝叶斯分析显示相似再手术率的可能性为8.9倍。再手术时间分析显示融合组延迟16.46个月,但无统计学意义(平均差异:16.46个月[95% CI: -3.13至36.04];83名参与者;3研究;I2 = 46%)。一致地,ODI,背部疼痛和腿部疼痛VAS显示无显著差异。再次手术和腿部疼痛VAS的证据确定性较低,其余结果的证据确定性非常低。结论:在无滑脱的腰椎管狭窄患者中,减压后增加融合在再手术率、ODI和腿痛方面的益处有限。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Spine Journal
Spine Journal 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
8.20
自引率
6.70%
发文量
680
审稿时长
13.1 weeks
期刊介绍: The Spine Journal, the official journal of the North American Spine Society, is an international and multidisciplinary journal that publishes original, peer-reviewed articles on research and treatment related to the spine and spine care, including basic science and clinical investigations. It is a condition of publication that manuscripts submitted to The Spine Journal have not been published, and will not be simultaneously submitted or published elsewhere. The Spine Journal also publishes major reviews of specific topics by acknowledged authorities, technical notes, teaching editorials, and other special features, Letters to the Editor-in-Chief are encouraged.
期刊最新文献
Clinical Outcomes following Elective Lumbar Spine Surgery in Patients Living with Dementia. Letter to the editor concerning "What are the risk factors for a second osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture?" by Sang Hoon Hwang, et al. (Spine J. 2023; 23(11):1586-1592. Preoperative determinants of postoperative expectation fulfillment following elective lumbar spine surgery: an observational study from the Canadian Spine Outcome Research Network (CSORN). Meetings Calendar Editorial Board
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1