Full-endoscopic (bi-portal or uni-portal) versus microscopic lumbar decompression laminectomy in patients with spinal stenosis: systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Chronic neck pain is reportedly considered the fourth leading cause of disability. Cervical interlaminar epidural injections are among the commonly administered nonsurgical interventions for managing chronic neck pain, secondary to disc herniation and radiculitis, spinal stenosis, or chronic neck pain of discogenic origin. Objectives: To systematically review the differences in the effectiveness of cervical epidural injections with local anesthetics with or without steroids for the management of chronic neck pain. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: A comprehensive search of the literature of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared epidural injections with local anesthetic with or without steroids was performed, including a search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases for all years up to May 2019. Meta-analysis was done for pain relief based on the Numeric Rating Scale, functional status based on the Neck Disability Index, and opioid intake dosage. Results: Four studies met the inclusion criteria. A total of 370 patients were divided into 2 groups: the experimental group received cervical epidural injection with steroid and local anesthetic, and the control group received injection with local anesthetic only. Regrading pain relief, no significant difference was observed between both groups (weighted mean difference [WMD], –0.006; 95% confidence interval (CI), –0.275 to 0.263; P = 0.963; I2 = 0.0% at 12 months). There was also no significant difference in the improvement of the functional status (WMD, 0.159; 95% CI, –1.231 to 1.549; P = 0.823; I2 = 9.8% at 12 months). Similarly, there was no significant difference in opioid dosage (WMD, –0.093; 95% CI, –5.952 to 5.766; P = 0.975; I2 = 0.0% at 12 months). Limitations: Only a few studies on this premise were found in the literature. There was also a lack of heterogeneity of the included RCT studies. Conclusions: The addition of steroids to anesthetic injectates was not associated with better pain and functional score outcomes compared with anesthetic injectate alone in patients with chronic neck pain. Key words: Chronic neck pain, cervical radiculopathy, cervical disc disease, spinal stenosis, facet joint pathology, cervical epidural injections, steroid injections, local anesthetic injections, systematic review, meta-analysis, randomized control trial

Download Full-text

Endoscopic decompression for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal of Neurosurgery Spine ◽

10.3171/2021.8.spine21890 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 1-9

Author(s):

Roberto J. Perez-Roman ◽

Wendy Gaztanaga ◽

Victor M. Lu ◽

Michael Y. Wang

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Back Pain ◽

Length Of Stay ◽

Blood Loss ◽

Minimally Invasive ◽

Spinal Stenosis ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Lumbar Stenosis ◽

Lumbar Spinal ◽

Endoscopic Methods

OBJECTIVE Lumbar stenosis treatment has evolved with the introduction of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) techniques. Endoscopic methods take the concepts applied to MIS a step further, with multiple studies showing that endoscopic techniques have outcomes that are similar to those of more traditional approaches. The aim of this study was to perform an updated meta-analysis and systematic review of studies comparing the outcomes between endoscopic (uni- and biportal) and microscopic techniques for the treatment of lumbar stenosis. METHODS Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic search was performed using the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Ovid Embase, and PubMed databases from their dates of inception to December 14, 2020. All identified articles were then systematically screened against the following inclusion criteria: 1) studies comparing endoscopic (either uniportal or biportal) with minimally invasive approaches, 2) patient age ≥ 18 years, and 3) diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis. Bias was assessed using quality assessment criteria and funnel plots. Meta-analysis using a random-effects model was used to synthesize the metadata. RESULTS From a total of 470 studies, 14 underwent full-text assessment. Of these 14 studies, 13 comparative studies were included for quantitative analysis, totaling 1406 procedures satisfying all criteria for selection. Regarding postoperative back pain, 9 studies showed that endoscopic methods resulted in significantly lower pain scores compared with MIS (mean difference [MD] −1.0, 95% CI −1.6 to −0.4, p < 0.01). The length of stay data were reported by 7 studies, with endoscopic methods associated with a significantly shorter length of stay versus the MIS technique (MD −2.1 days, 95% CI −2.7 to −1.4, p < 0.01). There was no significant difference with respect to leg visual analog scale scores, Oswestry Disability Index scores, blood loss, surgical time, and complications, and there were not any significant quality or bias concerns. CONCLUSIONS Both endoscopic and MIS techniques are safe and effective methods for treating patients with symptomatic lumbar stenosis. Patients who undergo endoscopic surgery seem to report less postoperative low-back pain and significantly reduced hospital stay with a trend toward less perioperative blood loss. Future large prospective randomized trials are needed to confirm the findings in this study.

Download Full-text

Management for lumbar spinal stenosis: A network meta-analysis and systematic review

International Journal of Surgery ◽

10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.11.014 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 85 ◽

pp. 19-28 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Fei-Long Wei ◽

Cheng-Pei Zhou ◽

Rui Liu ◽

Kai-Long Zhu ◽

Ming-Rui Du ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Spinal Stenosis ◽

Lumbar Spinal Stenosis ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Lumbar Spinal

Download Full-text

Lumbar Fusion for Degenerative Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Neurosurgery ◽

10.1093/neuros/nyw162 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 80 (5) ◽

pp. 701-715 ◽

Cited By ~ 31

Author(s):

Daniel Yavin ◽

Steven Casha ◽

Samuel Wiebe ◽

Thomas E Feasby ◽

Callie Clark ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Cohort Studies ◽

Spinal Stenosis ◽

Lumbar Fusion ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Current Evidence ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Cochrane Central Register ◽

Safety And Efficacy ◽

Relative Safety

Abstract BACKGROUND: Due to uncertain evidence, lumbar fusion for degenerative indications is associated with the greatest measured practice variation of any surgical procedure. OBJECTIVE: To summarize the current evidence on the comparative safety and efficacy of lumbar fusion, decompression-alone, or nonoperative care for degenerative indications. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted using PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (up to June 30, 2016). Comparative studies reporting validated measures of safety or efficacy were included. Treatment effects were calculated through DerSimonian and Laird random effects models. RESULTS: The literature search yielded 65 studies (19 randomized controlled trials, 16 prospective cohort studies, 15 retrospective cohort studies, and 15 registries) enrolling a total of 302 620 patients. Disability, pain, and patient satisfaction following fusion, decompression-alone, or nonoperative care were dependent on surgical indications and study methodology. Relative to decompression-alone, the risk of reoperation following fusion was increased for spinal stenosis (relative risk [RR] 1.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06-1.28) and decreased for spondylolisthesis (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.68-0.83). Among patients with spinal stenosis, complications were more frequent following fusion (RR 1.87, 95% CI 1.18-2.96). Mortality was not significantly associated with any treatment modality. CONCLUSION: Positive clinical change was greatest in patients undergoing fusion for spondylolisthesis while complications and the risk of reoperation limited the benefit of fusion for spinal stenosis. The relative safety and efficacy of fusion for chronic low back pain suggests careful patient selection is required (PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews number, CRD42015020153).

Download Full-text