Decompression with fusion is not in superiority to decompression alone in lumbar stenosis based on randomized controlled trials: A PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis.

November 16, 2019

BACKGROUND:

Although some studies had been published, it was more controversial on the superiority of decompression alone (D) and decompression with fusion (F) for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) recently, especially newest articles with different opinions. A meta-analysis was performed to compare efficacy on D and F for LSS regardless of degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) with randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS:

The databases include PUBMED/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from January 1970 to December 2018. The information of screened studies included demographics, clinical outcomes, and secondary measures, then data synthesis and meta-analysis were progressed. Subgroup analysis was stratified by DS and follow-up time (36 months). Continuous variables and dichotomous variables were respectively reported as weighted mean difference and odds ratios (ORs). The strength of evidence was evaluated by the grades of recommendation, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) system.

RESULTS:

Nine RCTs met inclusion criteria with a total of 857 patients (367 were in D group and 490 were in F group). There were no statistical difference in visual analog scale changes on back and leg pain between D and F group (mean difference [MD] = -0.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] [-0.38, 0.76], z = 0.08, P = .94; MD = 0.11, 95% CI [-1.08, 1.30], z = 0.18, P = .86, respectively); patients’ satisfaction was of no difference between the 2 groups, together with the change of the Oswestry disability index and European quality of life-5 dimensions (P > .05). There were no difference in the rate of complication (P = .50) and reoperation (P = .11) while a statistical significance of longer operation duration (P < .0001), more blood loss (P = .004) but amazing lower rate of adjacent segment degenerative/disease (ASD) (OR = 2.35, P = .02) in F group. The subgroup analysis on DS showed that basically all measures were in consistency with meta-analysis. There was a higher reoperation rate in middle-to-long term (>36 months) in D group and ASD was the most seasons of reoperation no matter the follow-up time. According to the GRADE system, the grade of this meta-analysis was of “High” quality.

CONCLUSION:

F group has no better clinical results than D alone in LSS, regardless of DS and follow-up. The conclusion is of “High” quality and the grade strength of recommendation was “Strong.”