Effectiveness of decompression alone versus decompression plus fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- 483 Downloads
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.
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.
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.
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.
KeywordsLumbar spinal stenosis Degenerative spondylolisthesis Decompression Fusion Meta-analysis
- JOA score
Japanese Orthopaedic Association scoring system
Lumbar spinal stenosis
Lumbar degenerative diseases
Oswestry Disability Index scores
The quality-of-life EuroQol-5 Dimensions
Randomized, controlled trial
Visual analogue score
The classic Newcastle–Ottawa Scale
Unilateral laminotomy with bilateral decompression
Low back pain
Degenerative disc disease
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 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 37:576–583Google Scholar
- 2.Wiltse LL, Kirkaldy-Willis W, McIvor G (1976) The treatment of spinal stenosis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 115:83–91Google 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 59:181–188Google 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 63:330–335Google Scholar
- 48.Postacchini F, Cinotti G (1992) Bone regrowth after surgical decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis. J Bone Jt Surg Br 74:862–869Google Scholar