Surgery versus conservative treatment for symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials

Francisco M. Kovacs, Gerard Urrútia, José Domingo Alarcón

    Research output: Contribution to journalReview articleResearchpeer-review

    167 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    STUDY DESIGN.: Systematic review. OBJECTIVE.: To compare the effectiveness of surgery versus conservative treatment on pain, disability, and loss of quality of life caused by symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA.: LSS is the most common reason for spine surgery in persons older than 65 years in the United States. METHODS.: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any form of conservative and surgical treatment were searched in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and TripDatabase databases until July 2009, with no language restrictions. Additional data were requested from the authors of the original studies. The methodological quality of each study was assessed independently by two reviewers, following the criteria recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group. Only data from randomized cohorts were extracted. RESULTS.: A total of 739 citations were reviewed. Eleven publications corresponding to five RCTs were included. All five scored as high quality despite concerns deriving from heterogeneity of treatment, lack of blinding, and potential differences in the size of the placebo effect across groups. They included a total of 918 patients in whom conservative treatments had failed for 3 to 6 months, and included orthosis, rehabilitation, physical therapy, exercise, heat and cold, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, ultrasounds, analgesics, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and epidural steroids. Surgical treatments included the implantation of a specific type of interspinous device and decompressive surgery (with and without fusion, instrumented or not). In all the studies, surgery showed better results for pain, disability, and quality of life, although not for walking ability. Results of surgery were similar among patients with and without spondylolisthesis, and slightly better among those with neurogenic claudication than among those without it. The advantage of surgery was noticeable at 3 to 6 months and remained for up to 2 to 4 years, although at the end of that period differences tended to be smaller. CONCLUSION.: In patients with symptomatic LSS, the implantation of a specific type of device or decompressive surgery, with or without fusion, is more effective than continued conservative treatment when the latter has failed for 3 to 6 months. © 2011, Lippincott Williams &Wilkins.
    Original languageEnglish
    JournalSpine
    Volume36
    Issue number20
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 15 Sep 2011

    Keywords

    • conservative treatment
    • lumbar spinal stenosis
    • randomized controlled trial
    • surgery
    • systematic review

    Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Surgery versus conservative treatment for symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this