Randomized Controlled Trials of Miniscalpel Acupuncture for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Cited in the China National Knowledge Infrastructure Database

The objective is to analyze the treatment used in relatively high quality randomized controlled trials to identify any similarities of therapeutic approaches and subsequently present recommendations for a standard acupuncture procedure for the treatment of peripheral facial paralysis (PFP). We searched Chinese and English language literatures through MEDLINE (January 1966 to October 2007), EMbase (January 1980 to October 2007), Chinese Biomedical Database (January 1978 to October 2007) and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (January 1979 to October 2007) for randomized controlled trials. With independent assessment by 2 observers, 33 of 386 originally identified articles were finally included. The extracted information from these articles was focused on the selection of meridians and acupoints, types of stimulation and duration of treatment. On the whole, when treating PFP, the best acupoints options are Dicang (ST4), Xiaguan (ST7), Jiache (ST6), Chengjiang (CV24), Yingxiang (LI20), Quanliao (SI18), Yifeng (TE17), Yangbai (GB14), Sibai (ST2), Fengchi (GB20), Shuigou (GV26), Yuyao (EX-HN4) and Hegu (LI4). Manual stimulation or electro-acupuncture combined with moxibustion is recommended. Moreover, the suggested duration of acupuncture treatment refers to once a day, 10 times for each course, 2 to 5 days as courses interval, and 20 to 40 treatments in total.

Download Full-text

Decompression Surgery versus Interspinous Devices for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Asian Spine Journal ◽

10.31616/asj.2019.0105 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 14 (4) ◽

pp. 526-542 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Jennifer Tram ◽

Shanmukha Srinivas ◽

Arvin R. Wali ◽

Courtney S. Lewis ◽

Martin H. Pham

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trials ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Incidence Rate ◽

Spinal Stenosis ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Vas Scores ◽

Interspinous Devices ◽

Dural Tears ◽

Lumbar Spinal

In this retrospective review study, the authors systematically reviewed the literature to elucidate the efficacy and complications associated with decompression and interspinous devices (ISDs) used in surgeries for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). LSS is a debilitating condition that affects the lumbar spinal cord and spinal nerve roots. However, a comprehensive report on the relative efficacy and complication rate of ISDs as they compare to traditional decompression procedures is currently lacking. The PubMed database was queried to identify clinical studies that exclusively investigated decompression, those that exclusively investigated ISDs, and those that compared decompression with ISDs. Only prospective cohort studies, case series, and randomized controlled trials that evaluated outcomes using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index, or Japanese Orthopedic Association scores were included. A random-effects model was established to assess the difference between preoperative and the 1–2-year postoperative VAS scores between ISD surgery and lumbar decompression. This study included 40 papers that matched our criteria. Twenty-five decompression-exclusive clinical trials with 3,386 patients and a mean age of 68.7 years (range, 31–88 years) reported a 2.2% incidence rate of dural tears and a 2.6% incidence rate of postoperative infections. Eight ISD-exclusive clinical trials with 1,496 patients and a mean age of 65.1 (range, 19–89 years) reported a 5.3% incidence rate of postoperative leg pain and a 3.7% incidence rate of spinous process fractures. Seven studies that compared ISDs and decompression in 624 patients found a reoperation rate of 8.3% in ISD patients vs. 3.9% in decompression patients; they also reported dural tears in 0.32% of ISD patients vs. 5.2% in decompression patients. A meta-analysis of the randomized controlled trials found that the differences in preoperative and postoperative VAS scores between the two groups were not significant. Both decompression and ISD interventions are unique surgical interventions with different therapeutic efficacies and complications. The collected studies do not consistently demonstrate superiority of either procedure over the other but understanding the differences between the two techniques can help tailor treatment regimens for patients with LSS.

Download Full-text