• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

腰椎管狭窄症最有效的治疗方法是什么:减压、融合还是棘突间装置?一项贝叶斯网络荟萃分析。

Which is the most effective treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis: Decompression, fusion, or interspinous process device? A Bayesian network meta-analysis.

作者信息

Zhang Yijian, Lu Dongdong, Ji Wei, He Fan, Chen Angela Carley, Yang Huilin, Zhu Xuesong

机构信息

Department of Orthopedics, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, 215006, China.

Orthopedic Institute, Soochow University, Suzhou, 215006, China.

出版信息

J Orthop Translat. 2020 Sep 26;26:45-53. doi: 10.1016/j.jot.2020.07.003. eCollection 2021 Jan.

DOI:10.1016/j.jot.2020.07.003
PMID:33437622
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7773978/
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical efficacy, complications, and reoperation rates among three major treatments for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS): decompression, fusion, and interspinous process device (IPD), using a Bayesian network meta-analysis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Databases including Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Web of Science were used for the literature search. Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) with three treatment methods were reviewed and included in the study. R software (version 3.6.0), Stata (version 14.0), and Review Manager (version 5.3) were used to perform data analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 10 RCTs involving 1254 patients were enrolled in the present study and each study met an acceptable quality according to our quality assessment described later. In direct comparison, IPD exhibited a higher incidence of reoperation than fusion (OR ​= ​2.93, CI: 1.07-8.02). In indirect comparison, the rank of VAS leg (from best to worst) was as follows: IPD (64%) ​> ​decompression (25%) ​> ​fusion (11%), and the rank of ODI (from best to worst) was: IPD (84%) ​> ​fusion (13%) ​> ​decompression (4%). IPD had the lowest incidence of complications; the rank of complications (from best to worst) was: IPD (60%) ​> ​decompression (27%) ​> ​fusion (14%). However, for the rank of reoperation, fusion showed the best results (from best to worst): fusion (79%) ​> ​decompression (20%) ​> ​IPD (1%). Consistency tests at global and local level showed satisfactory results and heterogeneity tests using loop text indicated a favorable stability.

CONCLUSION

The present study preliminarily indicates that non-fusion methods including decompression and IPD are optimal choices for treating LSS, which achieves favorable clinical outcomes. IPD exhibits a low incidence of complications, but its high rate of reoperation should be treated with caution.

THE TRANSLATIONAL POTENTIAL OF THIS ARTICLE

For the treatment of LSS, several procedures including decompression, fusion, and IPD have been reported. However, each method has its own advantages and disadvantages. To date, the golden standard treatment for LSS is still controversial. In this network meta-analysis, our results demonstrate that both decompression and IPD obtain satisfactory clinical effects for LSS. IPD is accompanied with a low incidence of complications, however, its high rate of reoperation should be acknowledged with discretion.

摘要

目的

采用贝叶斯网络荟萃分析比较腰椎管狭窄症(LSS)三种主要治疗方法——减压、融合和棘突间装置(IPD)——的临床疗效、并发症及再次手术率。

材料与方法

使用包括PubMed、Embase、Cochrane对照试验中央注册库(CENTRAL)和科学网在内的数据库进行文献检索。对采用三种治疗方法的随机对照试验(RCT)进行综述并纳入研究。使用R软件(3.6.0版)、Stata(14.0版)和Review Manager(5.3版)进行数据分析。

结果

本研究共纳入10项涉及1254例患者的RCT,根据我们后续描述的质量评估,每项研究质量均可接受。直接比较中,IPD的再次手术发生率高于融合术(OR = 2.93,CI:1.07 - 8.02)。间接比较中,腿痛视觉模拟评分(VAS)(从最佳到最差)的排序如下:IPD(64%)>减压(25%)>融合(11%),腰椎功能障碍指数(ODI)(从最佳到最差)的排序为:IPD(84%)>融合(13%)>减压(4%)。IPD的并发症发生率最低;并发症(从最佳到最差)的排序为:IPD(60%)>减压(27%)>融合(14%)。然而,就再次手术排序而言,融合术效果最佳(从最佳到最差):融合(79%)>减压(20%)>IPD(1%)。全局和局部水平的一致性检验结果令人满意,使用环文本的异质性检验表明稳定性良好。

结论

本研究初步表明,包括减压和IPD在内的非融合方法是治疗LSS的最佳选择,可取得良好的临床效果。IPD并发症发生率低,但其再次手术率高,应谨慎对待。

本文的转化潜力

对于LSS的治疗,已报道了包括减压、融合和IPD在内的多种手术方法。然而,每种方法都有其优缺点。迄今为止,LSS的金标准治疗方法仍存在争议。在这项网络荟萃分析中,我们的结果表明,减压和IPD对LSS均能获得满意的临床效果。IPD并发症发生率低,然而,其高再次手术率应谨慎看待。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2640/7773978/03524ea25080/figs3.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2640/7773978/955aa832c751/gr1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2640/7773978/616c16f981b0/gr2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2640/7773978/1567c5515a93/gr3.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2640/7773978/99665b96b3df/gr4.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2640/7773978/e53b857c47c5/gr5.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2640/7773978/c8bf32151687/gr6.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2640/7773978/dbfcd65338c9/gr7.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2640/7773978/ce71d7c71758/gr8.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2640/7773978/52c32c5e1a50/figs1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2640/7773978/57cded03dee2/figs2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2640/7773978/03524ea25080/figs3.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2640/7773978/955aa832c751/gr1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2640/7773978/616c16f981b0/gr2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2640/7773978/1567c5515a93/gr3.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2640/7773978/99665b96b3df/gr4.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2640/7773978/e53b857c47c5/gr5.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2640/7773978/c8bf32151687/gr6.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2640/7773978/dbfcd65338c9/gr7.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2640/7773978/ce71d7c71758/gr8.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2640/7773978/52c32c5e1a50/figs1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2640/7773978/57cded03dee2/figs2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2640/7773978/03524ea25080/figs3.jpg

相似文献

1
Which is the most effective treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis: Decompression, fusion, or interspinous process device? A Bayesian network meta-analysis.腰椎管狭窄症最有效的治疗方法是什么:减压、融合还是棘突间装置?一项贝叶斯网络荟萃分析。
J Orthop Translat. 2020 Sep 26;26:45-53. doi: 10.1016/j.jot.2020.07.003. eCollection 2021 Jan.
2
Interspinous process devices(IPD) alone versus decompression surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis(LSS): A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.单纯棘突间装置(IPD)与减压手术治疗腰椎管狭窄症(LSS)的比较:一项随机对照试验的系统评价和荟萃分析。
Int J Surg. 2017 Mar;39:57-64. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.01.074. Epub 2017 Jan 18.
3
Is the interspinous process device safe and effective in elderly patients with lumbar degeneration? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.棘突间装置在老年腰椎退变患者中是否安全有效?一项随机对照试验的系统评价和荟萃分析。
Eur Spine J. 2024 Mar;33(3):881-891. doi: 10.1007/s00586-023-08119-z. Epub 2024 Feb 12.
4
Comparison of the efficacy and safety between interspinous process distraction device and open decompression surgery in treating lumbar spinal stenosis: a meta analysis.棘突间撑开装置与开放减压手术治疗腰椎管狭窄症的疗效及安全性比较:一项Meta分析
J Invest Surg. 2015 Feb;28(1):40-9. doi: 10.3109/08941939.2014.932474. Epub 2014 Jul 15.
5
Efficacy and safety of interspinous process device compared with alone decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.比较棘突间装置与单纯减压治疗腰椎管狭窄症的疗效和安全性:系统评价和荟萃分析。
Medicine (Baltimore). 2024 Jun 7;103(23):e38370. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000038370.
6
Effectiveness of decompression alone versus decompression plus fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.单纯减压与减压加融合治疗腰椎管狭窄症的疗效:一项系统评价和荟萃分析。
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2017 May;137(5):637-650. doi: 10.1007/s00402-017-2685-z. Epub 2017 Mar 30.
7
Clinical Evaluation of Surgery for Single-Segment Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis.单节段腰椎管狭窄症手术的临床评估:系统评价和贝叶斯网状 Meta 分析。
Orthop Surg. 2022 Jul;14(7):1281-1293. doi: 10.1111/os.13269. Epub 2022 May 18.
8
Interspinous process devices for the treatment of neurogenic intermittent claudication: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.用于治疗神经源性间歇性跛行的棘突间装置:随机对照试验的系统评价
Neurosurg Rev. 2017 Oct;40(4):529-536. doi: 10.1007/s10143-016-0722-y. Epub 2016 May 14.
9
Decompression Surgery versus Interspinous Devices for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review of the Literature.减压手术与棘突间装置治疗腰椎管狭窄症:文献系统综述
Asian Spine J. 2020 Aug;14(4):526-542. doi: 10.31616/asj.2019.0105. Epub 2020 Jan 8.
10
Interspinous process spacers versus traditional decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: systematic review and meta-analysis.腰椎管狭窄症的棘突间撑开器与传统减压术:系统评价与荟萃分析
J Spine Surg. 2016 Mar;2(1):31-40. doi: 10.21037/jss.2016.01.07.

引用本文的文献

1
Evaluation of Indirect Decompression Effect After Extreme Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Three-Dimensional Volumetric Measurements-A Retrospective Study.使用三维容积测量法评估极外侧腰椎椎间融合术后的间接减压效果——一项回顾性研究
Orthop Surg. 2025 Sep;17(9):2558-2569. doi: 10.1111/os.70108. Epub 2025 Jul 23.
2
INNOVATIVE FULL-ENDOSCOPIC DECOMPRESSION TECHNIQUE FOR LUMBAR SPINAL STENOSIS: PROMISING EARLY RESULTS FROM VIETNAM.腰椎管狭窄症的创新全内镜减压技术:越南的早期良好结果
Orthop Rev (Pavia). 2025 Jul 18;17:138213. doi: 10.52965/001c.138213. eCollection 2025.
3
Unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion vs. posterior lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of bilateral lumbar spinal stenosis.

本文引用的文献

1
Surgical Management of Degenerative Lumbar Scoliosis Associated With Spinal Stenosis: Does the PI-LL Matter?退变性腰椎侧凸伴椎管狭窄的手术治疗:PI-LL 重要吗?
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2020 Aug 1;45(15):1047-1054. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000003465.
2
Risk factors for 90-day reoperation and readmission after lumbar surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis.腰椎管狭窄症后路手术后 90 天再手术和再入院的风险因素。
J Neurosurg Spine. 2019 Apr 5;31(1):20-26. doi: 10.3171/2019.1.SPINE18878. Print 2019 Jul 1.
3
Supplementing decompression with instrumented fusion for symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis-a critical appraisal of available randomized controlled trials.
单侧双孔通道内镜下腰椎椎间融合术与后路腰椎椎间融合术治疗双侧腰椎管狭窄症的比较
Front Surg. 2025 Jun 30;12:1533458. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2025.1533458. eCollection 2025.
4
A Biomechanical Evaluation of a Novel Interspinous Process Device: In Vitro Flexibility Assessment and Finite Element Analysis.一种新型棘突间装置的生物力学评估:体外灵活性评估与有限元分析
Bioengineering (Basel). 2025 Apr 3;12(4):384. doi: 10.3390/bioengineering12040384.
5
Three-year results of the MOTION randomized controlled trial for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis using the percutaneous ® Procedure.采用经皮®手术治疗腰椎管狭窄症的MOTION随机对照试验的三年结果。
Interv Pain Med. 2025 Mar 12;4(1):100561. doi: 10.1016/j.inpm.2025.100561. eCollection 2025 Mar.
6
Differences in radiographic and clinical outcomes of different oblique lumbar interbody fusions for lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.不同斜外侧腰椎椎间融合术治疗腰椎退行性疾病的影像学和临床结果差异:一项系统评价和贝叶斯网络Meta分析
Neurosurg Rev. 2025 Jan 30;48(1):121. doi: 10.1007/s10143-025-03297-4.
7
Surgical interventions for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review with network meta-analysis.手术干预退行性腰椎椎管狭窄症:系统评价和网络荟萃分析。
BMC Med. 2024 Oct 8;22(1):430. doi: 10.1186/s12916-024-03653-z.
8
A fully automatic MRI-guided decision support system for lumbar disc herniation using machine learning.一种使用机器学习的用于腰椎间盘突出症的全自动磁共振成像(MRI)引导决策支持系统。
JOR Spine. 2024 May 30;7(2):e1342. doi: 10.1002/jsp2.1342. eCollection 2024 Jun.
9
Feasibility, safety, and efficacy of a new percutaneous interspinous device: a retrospective multicenter study.新型经皮棘突间装置的可行性、安全性和有效性:一项回顾性多中心研究。
Neuroradiology. 2024 Jun;66(6):1049-1056. doi: 10.1007/s00234-024-03343-w. Epub 2024 Apr 3.
10
Unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus conventional interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.单侧双通道内镜下经椎间孔腰椎体间融合术与传统椎间融合术治疗退变性腰椎疾病的系统评价和荟萃分析。
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2023 Oct 24;24(1):838. doi: 10.1186/s12891-023-06949-y.
补充减压与仪器化融合治疗症状性腰椎椎管狭窄症——对现有随机对照试验的批判性评价。
Neurosurg Rev. 2021 Apr;44(2):643-648. doi: 10.1007/s10143-020-01270-x. Epub 2020 Mar 2.
4
Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression and Interspinous Process Device for the Management of Symptomatic Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: a Literature Review.微创腰椎减压和棘突间装置治疗症状性腰椎管狭窄症:文献综述。
Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2020 Feb 18;24(4):13. doi: 10.1007/s11916-020-0845-2.
5
Decompression with fusion is not in superiority to decompression alone in lumbar stenosis based on randomized controlled trials: A PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis.基于随机对照试验,减压融合术在腰椎管狭窄症治疗中并不优于单纯减压术:一项遵循PRISMA标准的荟萃分析。
Medicine (Baltimore). 2019 Nov;98(46):e17849. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000017849.
6
Axial loading during MRI reveals insufficient effect of percutaneous interspinous implants (Aperius™ PerCLID™) on spinal canal area.轴向加载磁共振成像显示经皮棘突间植入物(Aperius™ PerCLID™)对椎管面积的效果不足。
Eur Spine J. 2020 Jan;29(1):122-128. doi: 10.1007/s00586-019-06159-y. Epub 2019 Oct 4.
7
Outcomes after decompression surgery without fusion for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis and substantial low back pain.腰椎管狭窄症伴大量下腰痛患者减压手术后的结果。
Eur Spine J. 2020 Jan;29(1):147-152. doi: 10.1007/s00586-019-06130-x. Epub 2019 Aug 31.
8
Decompression alone vs. decompression plus fusion for claudication secondary to lumbar spinal stenosis.单纯减压与减压融合治疗腰椎管狭窄症引起的间歇性跛行。
Spine J. 2019 Oct;19(10):1633-1639. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2019.06.003. Epub 2019 Jun 10.
9
Interspinous process devices for treatment of degenerative lumbar spine stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.棘突间装置治疗退行性腰椎管狭窄症:系统评价和荟萃分析。
PLoS One. 2018 Jul 6;13(7):e0199623. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0199623. eCollection 2018.
10
Percutaneous Interspinous Spacer vs Decompression in Patients with Neurogenic Claudication: An Alternative in Selected Patients?经皮棘突间撑开器与减压术治疗神经性跛行患者:对特定患者的一种替代选择?
Neurosurgery. 2018 May 1;82(5):621-629. doi: 10.1093/neuros/nyx326.