Department of Orthopaedics, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Shandong University Centre for Orthopaedics, Advanced Medical Research Institute, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong, 250012, People's Republic of China.
Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong, 250012, People's Republic of China.
BMC Med. 2024 Oct 8;22(1):430. doi: 10.1186/s12916-024-03653-z.
Several surgical options for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) are available, but current guidelines do not recommend which one should be prioritized. Although previous network meta-analyses (NMAs) have been performed on this topic, they have major methodological problems and could not provide the convincing evidence and clinical practical information required.
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing at least two surgical interventions were included by searching AMED, CINAHL, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and MEDLINE (inception to August 2023). A frequentist random-effects NMA was performed for physical function and adverse events due to any reason. For physical function, three follow-up time points were included: short-term (< 6 months post-intervention), mid-term (≥ 6 months but < 12 months), and long-term (≥ 12 months). Laminectomy was the reference comparison intervention.
A total of 43 RCTs involving 5017 participants were included in the systematic review and 28 RCTs encompassing 14 types of surgical interventions were included in the NMA. For improving physical function (scale 0-100), endoscopic-assisted laminotomy (mean difference: - 8.61, 95% confidence interval: - 10.52 to - 6.69; moderate-quality evidence), laminectomy combined with Coflex (- 8.41, - 13.21 to - 3.61; moderate quality evidence), and X-stop (- 6.65, - 8.60 to - 4.71; low-quality evidence) had small effects at short-term follow-up; no statistical difference was observed at mid-term follow-up (very low- to low-quality evidence); at long-term follow-up, endoscopic-assisted laminotomy (- 7.02, - 12.95 to - 1.08; very low-quality evidence) and X-stop (- 10.04, - 18.16 to - 1.93; very low-quality evidence) had a small and moderate effect, respectively. Compared with laminectomy, endoscopic-assisted laminotomy was associated with fewer adverse events due to any reason (odds ratio: 0.27, 0.09 to 0.86; low-quality evidence).
For adults with degenerative LSS, endoscopic-assisted laminotomy may be the safest and most effective intervention in improving physical function. However, the available data were insufficient to indicate whether the effect was sustainable after 6 months.
PROSPERO (CRD42018094180).
退行性腰椎管狭窄症(LSS)有多种手术选择,但目前的指南并未推荐应优先选择哪种手术。尽管此前已经进行了关于这个主题的网络荟萃分析(NMAs),但它们存在严重的方法学问题,无法提供所需的有说服力的证据和临床实用信息。
通过检索 AMED、CINAHL、EMBASE、Cochrane 图书馆和 MEDLINE(从建库到 2023 年 8 月),纳入了比较至少两种手术干预措施的随机对照试验(RCTs)。由于任何原因导致的不良事件的短期(干预后<6 个月)、中期(≥6 个月但<12 个月)和长期(≥12 个月)随访时间点,进行了基于贝叶斯框架的随机效应 NMA。参考比较干预为椎板切除术。
系统评价共纳入 43 项 RCTs,涉及 5017 名参与者,荟萃分析纳入了 28 项 RCTs,涉及 14 种手术干预措施。在改善躯体功能(0-100 分量表)方面,内镜辅助椎板切开术(平均差异:-8.61,95%置信区间:-10.52 至-6.69;中等质量证据)、椎板切除术联合 Coflex(-8.41,-13.21 至-6.11;中等质量证据)和 X 型阻挡器(-6.65,-8.60 至-4.71;低质量证据)在短期随访时具有较小的效果;在中期随访时未观察到统计学差异(极低至低质量证据);在长期随访时,内镜辅助椎板切开术(-7.02,-12.95 至-1.08;极低质量证据)和 X 型阻挡器(-10.04,-18.16 至-1.93;极低质量证据)分别具有较小和中等的效果。与椎板切除术相比,内镜辅助椎板切开术与任何原因导致的不良事件发生率较低(比值比:0.27,0.09 至 0.86;低质量证据)。
对于退行性 LSS 的成年人,内镜辅助椎板切开术可能是改善躯体功能最安全和最有效的干预措施。然而,现有数据不足以表明 6 个月后效果是否可持续。
PROSPERO(CRD42018094180)。