Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Effectiveness of decompression alone versus decompression plus fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Orthopaedic Surgery
  • Published:
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

The debate on efficacy of fusion added to decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is ongoing. No meta-analysis has compared the effectiveness of decompression versus decompression plus fusion in treating patients with LSS.

Methods

A literature search was performed in the Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, and Springer databases from 1970 to 2016. Relevant references were selected and the included studies were manually reviewed. We included trials evaluating decompression surgery compared to decompression plus fusion surgery in treating patients with LSS. The primary outcomes analyzed were back pain, leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index scores (ODI), the quality-of-life EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), duration of operation, intraoperative blood loss, length of hospital stay, major complications, walking ability, number of reoperation, and finally clinically excellent and good rates. Data analysis was conducted using the Review Manager 5.2 software.

Results

Fifteen studies involving 17,785 patients with LSS were included. The overall effect mean difference (MD) (95% CI) in the differences between pre- and post-operative back pain, leg pain, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, and length of stay were 0.04 (−0.36, 0.44), 0.69 (−0.38, 1.76), −2.04 (−3.12, −0.96), −3.96 (−6.64, −1.27) and −4.21 (−10.03, 1.62) (z = 0.18, 1.26, 3.71, 2.89 and 1.41, respectively; P = 0.86, 0.55, 0.0002, 0.004 and 0.16, respectively) in random effects models. The overall effect MD (95% CI) in ODI, EQ-5D, and walking ability were 0.43 (−1.15, 2.00), 0.01 (−0.01, 0.03) and 0.04 (−0.49, 0.57) (z = 0.52, 1.16 and 0.15, respectively; P = 0.59, 0.24 and 0.88, respectively) in fixed effects models. The overall effect odds ratio (OR) (95% CI) of major complications, number of reoperations, and clinically excellent and good rates between the two groups were 0.70 (0.60, 0.81), 1.04 (0.90, 1.19) and 0.31 (0.06, 1.59) (z = 4.63, 0.53 and 1.40, respectively; P < 0.00001, 0.60 and 0.16, respectively). Our study reveals no difference in the effectiveness between the two surgical techniques.

Conclusions

The additional fusion in the management of LSS yielded no clinical improvements over decompression alone within a 2-year follow-up period. But fusion resulted in a longer duration of operation, more blood loss, and a higher risk of complications. Therefore, the appropriate surgical protocol for LSS should be discussed further.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

JOA score:

Japanese Orthopaedic Association scoring system

LSS:

Lumbar spinal stenosis

DS:

Degenerative spondylolisthesis

MD:

Mean difference

OR:

Odd ratio

LDD:

Lumbar degenerative diseases

ODI:

Oswestry Disability Index scores

EQ-5D:

The quality-of-life EuroQol-5 Dimensions

RCT:

Randomized, controlled trial

VAS:

Visual analogue score

NOS:

The classic Newcastle–Ottawa Scale

ULBD:

Unilateral laminotomy with bilateral decompression

LBP:

Low back pain

DDD:

Degenerative disc disease

References

  1. Verbiest H (1955) Further experiences on the pathological influence of a developmental narrowness of the bony lumbar vertebral canal. J Bone Jt Surg Br 37:576–583

    Google Scholar 

  2. Wiltse LL, Kirkaldy-Willis W, McIvor G (1976) The treatment of spinal stenosis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 115:83–91

    Google Scholar 

  3. Verbiest H (1977) Results of surgical treatment of idiopathic developmental stenosis of the lumbar vertebral canal. A review of twenty-seven years’ experience. J Bone Jt Surg Br 59:181–188

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Grabias S (1980) Current concepts review. The treatment of spinal stenosis. J Bone Jt Surg Am 62:308–313

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Machado GC, Ferreira PH, Harris IA et al (2015) Effectiveness of surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 10:e0122800

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Chang HS, Fujisawa N, Tsuchiya T et al (2014) Degenerative spondylolisthesis does not affect the outcome of unilateral laminotomy with bilateral decompression in patients with lumbar stenosis. Spine 39:400–408

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Mardjetko S, Connolly P, Shott S (1994) Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a meta-analysis of literature 1970–1993. Spine 19:2256–2265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Carreon LY, Puno RM, Dimar JR 2nd et al (2003) Perioperative complications of posterior lumbar decompression and arthrodesis in older adults. J Bone Jt Surg Am 85:2089–2092

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Glassman SD, Carreon LY, Dimar JR et al (2007) Clinical outcomes in older patients after posterolateral lumbar fusion. Spine J 7:547–551

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Cassinelli EH, Eubanks J, Vogt M et al (2007) Risk factors for the development of perioperative complications in elderly patients undergoing lumbar decompression and arthrodesis for spinal stenosis: an analysis of 166 patients. Spine 32:230–235

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Raffo CS, Lauerman WC (2006) Predicting morbidity and mortality of lumbar spine arthrodesis in patients in their ninth decade. Spine 31:99–103

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Nasca RJ (1989) Rationale for spinal fusion in lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 14:451–454

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Johnsson K-E, Redlund-Johnell I, Uden A et al (1989) Preoperative and postoperative instability in lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 14:591–593

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Getty C, Kirwan E, Sullivan M (1981) Partial undercutting facetectomy for bony entrapment of the lumbar nerve root. J Bone Jt Surg Br 63:330–335

    Google Scholar 

  15. Gelalis ID, Arnaoutoglou C, Christoforou G et al (2010) Prospective analysis of surgical outcomes in patients undergoing decompressive laminectomy and posterior instrumentation for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 44:235–240

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Grobler LJ, Robertson PA, Novotny JE et al (1993) Decompression for degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal stenosis at L4–5: the effects on facet joint morphology. Spine 18:1475–1482

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ghogawala Z, Dziura J, Butler WE et al (2016) Laminectomy plus fusion versus laminectomy alone for lumbar spondylolisthesis. N Engl J Med 374:1424–1434

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Forsth P, Olafsson G, Carlsson T et al (2016) A randomized, controlled trial of fusion surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med 374:1413–1423

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hansraj KK, O’Leary PF, Cammisa FP Jr et al (2001) Decompression, fusion, and instrumentation surgery for complex lumbar spinal stenosis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 384:18–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Transfeldt EE, Topp R, Mehbod AA et al (2010) Surgical outcomes of decompression, decompression with limited fusion, and decompression with full curve fusion for degenerative scoliosis with radiculopathy. Spine 35:1872–1875

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Amundsen T, Weber H, Nordal HJ et al (2000) Lumbar spinal stenosis: conservative or surgical management?: a prospective 10-year study. Spine 25:1424–1436

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Burgstaller JM, Porchet F, Steurer J et al (2015) Arguments for the choice of surgical treatments in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis—a systematic appraisal of randomized controlled trials. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 16:1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Yone K, Sakou T, Kawauchi Y et al (1996) Indication of fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis in elderly patients and its significance. Spine 21:242–248

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Herkowitz H, Kurz L (1991) Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis. J Bone Jt Surg 73:802–808

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Harms J, Rolinger H (1981) A one-stager procedure in operative treatment of spondylolistheses: dorsal traction-reposition and anterior fusion. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 120:343–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Suk S-I, Lee C-K, Kim W-J et al (1997) Adding posterior lumbar interbody fusion to pedicle screw fixation and posterolateral fusion after decompression in spondylolytic spondylolisthesis. Spine 22:210–219

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kleinstueck F, Fekete T, Mannion A et al (2012) To fuse or not to fuse in lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis: do baseline symptoms help provide the answer? Eur Spine J 21:268–275

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Martin CR, Gruszczynski AT, Braunsfurth HA et al (2007) The surgical management of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a systematic review. Spine 32:1791–1798

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Lawhorne TW III, Girardi FP, Mina CA et al (2009) Treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis: potential impact of dynamic stabilization based on imaging analysis. Eur Spine J 18:815–822

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Ekman P, Moller H, Shalabi A et al (2009) A prospective randomised study on the long-term effect of lumbar fusion on adjacent disc degeneration. Eur Spine J 18:1175–1186

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Hallett A, Huntley JS, Gibson JN (2007) Foraminal stenosis and single-level degenerative disc disease: a randomized controlled trial comparing decompression with decompression and instrumented fusion. Spine 32:1375–1380

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Dailey A, Harrop JS, France JC (2010) High-energy contact sports and cervical spine neuropraxia injuries: what are the criteria for return to participation? Spine 35:S193–S201

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Brodke DS, Annis P, Lawrence BD et al (2013) Reoperation and revision rates of 3 surgical treatment methods for lumbar stenosis associated with degenerative scoliosis and spondylolisthesis. Spine 38:2287–2294

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. McCullen GM, Bernini PM, Bernstein SH et al (1994) Clinical and roentgenographic results of decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis. J Spinal Disord 7:380–387

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Brown MD, Wehman KF, Heiner AD (2002) The clinical usefulness of intraoperative spinal stiffness measurements. Spine 27:959–961

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Matsudaira K, Yamazaki T, Seichi A et al (2005) Spinal stenosis in grade I degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a comparative study of outcomes following laminoplasty and laminectomy with instrumented spinal fusion. J Orthop Sci 10:270–276

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Radcliff K, Curry P, Hilibrand A et al (2013) Risk for adjacent segment and same segment reoperation after surgery for lumbar stenosis: a subgroup analysis of the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT). Spine 38:531

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Tuli SM, Kapoor V, Jain AK et al (2011) Spinaplasty following lumbar laminectomy for multilevel lumbar spinal stenosis to prevent iatrogenic instability. Indian J Orthop 45:396–403

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Munting E, Roder C, Sobottke R et al (2015) Patient outcomes after laminotomy, hemilaminectomy, laminectomy and laminectomy with instrumented fusion for spinal canal stenosis: a propensity score-based study from the Spine Tango registry. Eur Spine J 24:358–368

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Försth P, Michaëlsson K, Sandén B (2013) Does fusion improve the outcome after decompressive surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis? A two-year follow-up study involving 5390 patients. Bone Jt J 95:960–965

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Kleinstueck FS, Fekete TF, Mannion AF et al (2012) To fuse or not to fuse in lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis: do baseline symptoms help provide the answer? Eur Spine J 21:268–275

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Sigmundsson FG, Jonsson B, Stromqvist B (2015) Outcome of decompression with and without fusion in spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis in relation to preoperative pain pattern: a register study of 1624 patients. Spine J 15:638–646

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Sigmundsson FG, Jonsson B, Stromqvist B (2014) Preoperative pain pattern predicts surgical outcome more than type of surgery in patients with central spinal stenosis without concomitant spondylolisthesis: a register study of 9051 patients. Spine 39:E199–E210

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Aihara T, Toyone T, Aoki Y et al (2012) Surgical management of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a comparative study of outcomes following decompression with fusion and microendoscopic decompression. J Musculoskelet Res 15:1250020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Hu RW, Jaglal S, Axcell T et al (1997) A population-based study of reoperations after back surgery. Spine 22:2265–2270

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Lad SP, Babu R, Ugiliweneza B et al (2014) Surgery for spinal stenosis: long-term reoperation rates, health care cost, and impact of instrumentation. Spine 39(12):978–987

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Grob D, Humke T, Dvorak J (1995) Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Decompression with and without arthrodesis. J Bone Jt Surg Am 77:1036–1041

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Postacchini F, Cinotti G (1992) Bone regrowth after surgical decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis. J Bone Jt Surg Br 74:862–869

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Kim S, Mortaz Hedjri S, Coyte PC et al (2012) Cost-utility of lumbar decompression with or without fusion for patients with symptomatic degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Spine J 12:44–54

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, The Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, NO. 139 Ziqiang Road, Shijiazhuang, 050051, People’s Republic of China

    Wenli Chang, Peizhi Yuwen, Yanbing Zhu, Ning Wei, Chen Feng, Yingze Zhang & Wei Chen

Authors
  1. Wenli Chang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peizhi Yuwen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yanbing Zhu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ning Wei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Chen Feng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Yingze Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Wei Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wei Chen.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

W. Chang and P. Yuwen contributed equally to this work.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chang, W., Yuwen, P., Zhu, Y. et al. Effectiveness of decompression alone versus decompression plus fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 137, 637–650 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-017-2685-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-017-2685-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation