Deer Timothy R, Grider Jay S, Pope Jason E, Falowski Steven, Lamer Tim J, Calodney Aaron, Provenzano David A, Sayed Dawood, Lee Eric, Wahezi Sayed E, Kim Chong, Hunter Corey, Gupta Mayank, Benyamin Rasmin, Chopko Bohdan, Demesmin Didier, Diwan Sudhir, Gharibo Christopher, Kapural Leo, Kloth David, Klagges Brian D, Harned Michael, Simopoulos Tom, McJunkin Tory, Carlson Jonathan D, Rosenquist Richard W, Lubenow Timothy R, Mekhail Nagy
Center for Pain Relief, Charleston, West Virginia, U.S.A.
UKHealthCare Pain Services, Department of Anesthesiology, University of Kentucky College of Medicine, Lexington, Kentucky, U.S.A.
Pain Pract. 2019 Mar;19(3):250-274. doi: 10.1111/papr.12744. Epub 2018 Dec 2.
Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) can lead to compression of neural elements and manifest as low back and leg pain. LSS has traditionally been treated with a variety of conservative (pain medications, physical therapy, epidural spinal injections) and invasive (surgical decompression) options. Recently, several minimally invasive procedures have expanded the treatment options.
The Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Consensus Group convened to evaluate the peer-reviewed literature as the basis for making minimally invasive spine treatment (MIST) recommendations. Eleven consensus points were clearly defined with evidence strength, recommendation grade, and consensus level using U.S. Preventive Services Task Force criteria. The Consensus Group also created a treatment algorithm. Literature searches yielded 9 studies (2 randomized controlled trials [RCTs]; 7 observational studies, 4 prospective and 3 retrospective) of minimally invasive spine treatments, and 1 RCT for spacers.
The LSS treatment choice is dependent on the degree of stenosis; spinal or anatomic level; architecture of the stenosis; severity of the symptoms; failed, past, less invasive treatments; previous fusions or other open surgical approaches; and patient comorbidities. There is Level I evidence for percutaneous image-guided lumbar decompression as superior to lumbar epidural steroid injection, and 1 RCT supported spacer use in a noninferiority study comparing 2 spacer products currently available.
MISTs should be used in a judicious and algorithmic fashion to treat LSS, based on the evidence of efficacy and safety in the peer-reviewed literature. The MIST Consensus Group recommend that these procedures be used in a multimodal fashion as part of an evidence-based decision algorithm.
腰椎管狭窄症(LSS)可导致神经组织受压,并表现为腰腿痛。传统上,LSS的治疗方法包括多种保守治疗(止痛药物、物理治疗、硬膜外脊髓注射)和侵入性治疗(手术减压)。最近,几种微创手术扩大了治疗选择。
腰椎管狭窄症共识小组召开会议,评估经同行评审的文献,作为提出微创脊柱治疗(MIST)建议的依据。使用美国预防服务工作组的标准,明确界定了11个共识点,包括证据强度、推荐等级和共识水平。共识小组还创建了一种治疗算法。文献检索产生了9项关于微创脊柱治疗的研究(2项随机对照试验[RCT];7项观察性研究,4项前瞻性研究和3项回顾性研究),以及1项关于椎间融合器的RCT。
LSS的治疗选择取决于狭窄程度、脊柱或解剖水平、狭窄结构、症状严重程度、既往保守治疗失败情况、既往融合手术或其他开放手术方式以及患者的合并症。有I级证据表明经皮影像引导下腰椎减压优于腰椎硬膜外类固醇注射,并且1项RCT在一项比较两种现有椎间融合器产品的非劣效性研究中支持使用椎间融合器。
基于同行评审文献中的疗效和安全性证据,应明智且按算法使用MIST来治疗LSS。MIST共识小组建议,这些手术应作为基于证据的决策算法的一部分,以多模式方式使用。