Yang Li-Hui, Liu Wei, Li Jian, Zhu Wen-Yi, An Li-Kun, Yuan Shuo, Ke Han, Zang Lei
Department of Orthopedics, Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Beijing, China.
Medicine (Baltimore). 2020 Jul 2;99(27):e20323. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000020323.
The goal of this study was to review relevant randomized controlled trials in order to determine the efficacy of decompression and lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis.
Using appropriate keywords, we identified relevant studies in PubMed, the Cochrane library, and Embase. Key pertinent sources in the literature were also reviewed, and all articles published through July 2019 were considered for inclusion. For each study, we assessed odds ratios, mean difference, and 95% confidence interval to assess and synthesize outcomes.
Twenty-one randomized controlled trials were eligible for this meta-analysis with a total of 3636 patients. Compared with decompression, decompression and fusion significantly increased length of hospital stay, operative time and estimated blood loss. Compared with fusion, decompression significantly decreased operative time, estimated blood loss and overall visual analogue scale (VAS) scores. Compared with endoscopic decompression, microscopic decompression significantly increased length of hospital stay, and operative time. Compared with traditional surgery, endoscopic discectomy significantly decreased length of hospital stay, operative time, estimated blood loss, and overall VAS scores and increased Japanese Orthopeadic Association score. Compared with TLIF, MIS-TLIF significantly decreased length of hospital stay, and increased operative time and SF-36 physical component summary score. Compared with multi-level decompression and single level fusion, multi-level decompression and multi-level fusion significantly increased operative time, estimated blood loss and SF-36 mental component summary score and decreased Oswestry disability index score. Compared with decompression, decompression with interlaminar stabilization significantly decreased operative time and the score of Zurich claudication questionnaire symptom severity, and increased VAS score.
Considering the limited number of included studies, we still need larger-sample, high-quality, long-term studies to explore the optimal therapy for lumbar spinal stenosis.
本研究的目的是回顾相关随机对照试验,以确定减压和腰椎椎间融合术治疗腰椎管狭窄症的疗效。
使用适当的关键词,我们在PubMed、Cochrane图书馆和Embase中识别相关研究。还查阅了文献中的关键相关来源,并纳入了截至2019年7月发表的所有文章。对于每项研究,我们评估比值比、平均差和95%置信区间以评估和综合结果。
21项随机对照试验符合本荟萃分析的条件,共有3636例患者。与减压相比,减压融合术显著增加了住院时间、手术时间和估计失血量。与融合术相比,减压术显著缩短了手术时间、估计失血量和总体视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分。与内镜减压相比,显微镜下减压显著增加了住院时间和手术时间。与传统手术相比,内镜下椎间盘切除术显著缩短了住院时间、手术时间、估计失血量和总体VAS评分,并提高了日本骨科协会评分。与经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术(TLIF)相比,微创经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术(MIS-TLIF)显著缩短了住院时间,增加了手术时间和简明健康调查量表(SF-36)身体成分总结评分。与多节段减压和单节段融合相比,多节段减压和多节段融合显著增加了手术时间、估计失血量和SF-36精神成分总结评分,并降低了Oswestry功能障碍指数评分。与减压相比,椎板间稳定减压显著缩短了手术时间和苏黎世跛行问卷症状严重程度评分,并提高了VAS评分。
考虑到纳入研究数量有限,我们仍需要更大样本、高质量、长期的研究来探索腰椎管狭窄症的最佳治疗方法。