• 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

不同后路减压技术治疗腰椎管狭窄症的比较效果:系统评价和贝叶斯网状 Meta 分析。

Comparative effects of different posterior decompression techniques for lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.

机构信息

Department of Orthopaedics, The Second Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, Jilin Province, China.

出版信息

J Orthop Surg Res. 2024 Jul 20;19(1):417. doi: 10.1186/s13018-024-04792-y.

DOI:10.1186/s13018-024-04792-y
PMID:39030552
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11264886/
Abstract

STUDY DESIGN

A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA).

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness and safety of different posterior decompression techniques for LSS. Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is one of the most common degenerative spinal diseases that result in claudication, back and leg pain, and disability. Currently, posterior decompression techniques are widely used as an effective treatment for LSS.

METHODS

An electronic literature search was performed using the EMBASE, Web of Science, PubMed, and Cochrane Library databases. Two authors independently performed data extraction and quality assessment. A Bayesian random effects model was constructed to incorporate the estimates of direct and indirect treatment comparisons and rank the interventions in order.

RESULTS

In all, 14 eligible studies comprising 1,260 patients with LSS were included. Five interventions were identified, namely, spinal processes osteotomy (SPO), conventional laminotomy/laminectomy (CL), unilateral laminotomy/laminectomy (UL), bilateral laminotomy/ laminectomy (BL), and spinous process-splitting laminotomy/laminectomy (SPSL). Among these, SPO was the most promising surgical option for decreasing back and leg pain and for lowering the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). SSPL had the shortest operation time, while SPSL was associated with maximum blood loss. SPO and UL were superior to other posterior decompression techniques concerning lesser blood loss and shorter length of hospital stay, respectively. Patients who underwent BL had the lowest postoperative complication rates.

CONCLUSION

Overall, SPO was found to be a good surgical choice for patients with LSS.

摘要

研究设计

系统评价和贝叶斯网状 Meta 分析(NMA)。

目的

比较不同后路减压技术治疗腰椎管狭窄症(LSS)的疗效和安全性。腰椎管狭窄症(LSS)是最常见的退行性脊柱疾病之一,导致间歇性跛行、腰背和下肢疼痛以及残疾。目前,后路减压技术广泛应用于 LSS 的有效治疗。

方法

使用 EMBASE、Web of Science、PubMed 和 Cochrane Library 数据库进行电子文献检索。两位作者独立进行数据提取和质量评估。构建贝叶斯随机效应模型,纳入直接和间接治疗比较的估计值,并对干预措施进行排序。

结果

共纳入 14 项符合条件的研究,包含 1260 例 LSS 患者。确定了 5 种干预措施,即脊柱突截骨术(SPO)、常规椎板切开术/切除术(CL)、单侧椎板切开术/切除术(UL)、双侧椎板切开术/切除术(BL)和棘突劈开椎板切开术/切除术(SPSL)。其中,SPO 是减轻腰背和下肢疼痛、降低 Oswestry 功能障碍指数(ODI)最有前途的手术选择。SPSL 的手术时间最短,而 SPSL 则与最大出血量相关。SPO 和 UL 与其他后路减压技术相比,分别具有出血量少和住院时间短的优势。接受 BL 的患者术后并发症发生率最低。

结论

总体而言,SPO 被认为是 LSS 患者的一种较好的手术选择。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0c5d/11264886/1ff1ff270a91/13018_2024_4792_Fig10_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0c5d/11264886/9afdfe9146a5/13018_2024_4792_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0c5d/11264886/0bd158a4933e/13018_2024_4792_Fig2_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0c5d/11264886/08e92baa38e7/13018_2024_4792_Fig3_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0c5d/11264886/c2c737340a1a/13018_2024_4792_Fig4_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0c5d/11264886/06c1c1251770/13018_2024_4792_Fig5_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0c5d/11264886/565f6035545c/13018_2024_4792_Fig6_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0c5d/11264886/2aa5bd1dcad4/13018_2024_4792_Fig7_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0c5d/11264886/a4477650febe/13018_2024_4792_Fig8_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0c5d/11264886/5806f60404b8/13018_2024_4792_Fig9_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0c5d/11264886/1ff1ff270a91/13018_2024_4792_Fig10_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0c5d/11264886/9afdfe9146a5/13018_2024_4792_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0c5d/11264886/0bd158a4933e/13018_2024_4792_Fig2_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0c5d/11264886/08e92baa38e7/13018_2024_4792_Fig3_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0c5d/11264886/c2c737340a1a/13018_2024_4792_Fig4_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0c5d/11264886/06c1c1251770/13018_2024_4792_Fig5_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0c5d/11264886/565f6035545c/13018_2024_4792_Fig6_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0c5d/11264886/2aa5bd1dcad4/13018_2024_4792_Fig7_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0c5d/11264886/a4477650febe/13018_2024_4792_Fig8_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0c5d/11264886/5806f60404b8/13018_2024_4792_Fig9_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0c5d/11264886/1ff1ff270a91/13018_2024_4792_Fig10_HTML.jpg

相似文献

1
Comparative effects of different posterior decompression techniques for lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.不同后路减压技术治疗腰椎管狭窄症的比较效果:系统评价和贝叶斯网状 Meta 分析。
J Orthop Surg Res. 2024 Jul 20;19(1):417. doi: 10.1186/s13018-024-04792-y.
2
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.
3
Management for lumbar spinal stenosis: A network meta-analysis and systematic review.腰椎管狭窄症的治疗管理:一项网络荟萃分析和系统评价。
Int J Surg. 2021 Jan;85:19-28. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.11.014. Epub 2020 Nov 27.
4
Decompression versus decompression plus fusion for treating degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.减压术与减压联合融合术治疗退变性腰椎管狭窄症:一项系统评价与Meta分析
Pain Pract. 2023 Apr;23(4):390-398. doi: 10.1111/papr.13193. Epub 2022 Dec 25.
5
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.
6
Evaluation of Effectiveness of Treatment Strategies for Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Clinical Studies.评价退行性腰椎管狭窄症治疗策略的有效性:临床研究的系统评价和网络荟萃分析。
World Neurosurg. 2021 Aug;152:95-106. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2021.06.016. Epub 2021 Jun 12.
7
[Early effectiveness of posterior 180-degree decompression via unilateral biportal endoscopy in treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis combined with MSU-1 lumbar disc herniation].[经单侧双通道内镜下后路180°减压治疗腰椎管狭窄症合并MSU-1型腰椎间盘突出症的早期疗效]
Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2025 Jun 15;39(6):735-740. doi: 10.7507/1002-1892.202504083.
8
Decompression and coflex interlaminar stabilisation compared with conventional surgical procedures for lumbar spinal stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.减压联合 coflex 棘突间稳定术与传统手术治疗腰椎管狭窄症的比较:系统评价和荟萃分析。
Int J Surg. 2017 Apr;40:60-67. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.02.056. Epub 2017 Feb 22.
9
Different lumbar fusion techniques for lumbar spinal stenosis: a Bayesian network meta-analysis.不同腰椎融合技术治疗腰椎管狭窄症的比较:贝叶斯网状meta 分析。
BMC Surg. 2023 Nov 15;23(1):345. doi: 10.1186/s12893-023-02242-w.
10
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.

引用本文的文献

1
Comparison of treatment outcomes and analysis of factors interfering with efficacy in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis undergoing unilateral unichannel and bichannel endoscopic ULBD surgery.单侧单通道与双通道内镜下腰椎管减压术治疗腰椎管狭窄症患者的疗效比较及影响疗效因素分析
J Orthop Surg Res. 2025 Apr 9;20(1):357. doi: 10.1186/s13018-025-05771-7.
2
ISSLS Prize in Clinical Science 2025: A randomized trial on three different minimally invasive decompression techniques for lumbar spinal stenosis. Five years follow-up from the NORDSTEN-SST.2025年国际腰椎研究学会临床科学奖:一项关于三种不同微创减压技术治疗腰椎管狭窄症的随机试验。来自NORDSTEN-SST的五年随访
Eur Spine J. 2025 May;34(5):1590-1599. doi: 10.1007/s00586-024-08514-0. Epub 2024 Oct 24.

本文引用的文献

1
Comparison of posterior decompression techniques and conventional laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis.腰椎管狭窄症后路减压技术与传统椎板切除术的比较
Front Surg. 2022 Oct 4;9:997973. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.997973. eCollection 2022.
2
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.
3
Comparison of 3 Different Minimally Invasive Surgical Techniques for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
比较三种不同微创外科技术治疗腰椎管狭窄症的随机临床试验。
JAMA Netw Open. 2022 Mar 1;5(3):e224291. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.4291.
4
Microendoscopic Lumbar Posterior Decompression Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Literature Review.微创腰椎后路减压手术治疗腰椎狭窄症:文献综述。
Medicina (Kaunas). 2022 Mar 4;58(3):384. doi: 10.3390/medicina58030384.
5
Evaluation of Effectiveness of Treatment Strategies for Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Clinical Studies.评价退行性腰椎管狭窄症治疗策略的有效性:临床研究的系统评价和网络荟萃分析。
World Neurosurg. 2021 Aug;152:95-106. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2021.06.016. Epub 2021 Jun 12.
6
Management for lumbar spinal stenosis: A network meta-analysis and systematic review.腰椎管狭窄症的治疗管理:一项网络荟萃分析和系统评价。
Int J Surg. 2021 Jan;85:19-28. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.11.014. Epub 2020 Nov 27.
7
Decompression alone versus fusion and Coflex in the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease: A network meta-analysis.单纯减压与融合术及Coflex治疗腰椎退行性疾病的比较:一项网状Meta分析。
Medicine (Baltimore). 2020 Mar;99(11):e19457. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000019457.
8
Low back pain: critical assessment of various scales.腰痛:各种量表的批判性评估。
Eur Spine J. 2020 Mar;29(3):503-518. doi: 10.1007/s00586-019-06279-5. Epub 2020 Jan 8.
9
Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: a new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.《可信系统评价的更新指南:干预措施系统评价的新版Cochrane手册》
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Oct 3;10(10):ED000142. doi: 10.1002/14651858.ED000142.
10
BUGSnet: an R package to facilitate the conduct and reporting of Bayesian network Meta-analyses.BUGSnet:一个 R 包,用于方便贝叶斯网络荟萃分析的实施和报告。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019 Oct 22;19(1):196. doi: 10.1186/s12874-019-0829-2.