Skip to main content
main-content

01.12.2015 | Research article | Ausgabe 1/2015 Open Access

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 1/2015

Arguments for the choice of surgical treatments in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis – a systematic appraisal of randomized controlled trials

Zeitschrift:
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders > Ausgabe 1/2015
Autoren:
Jakob M Burgstaller, François Porchet, Johann Steurer, Maria M Wertli
Wichtige Hinweise

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.​1186/​s12891-015-0548-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ contributions

JB and MMW performed the search, study selection, data extraction and data analyses, and wrote the method part. JB, FP, JS, and MMW wrote background, results, discussion, conclusion and abstract. All authors read and approved the final version.

Abstract

Background

Lumbar spinal stenosis is the most common reason for spinal surgery in elderly patients. However, the surgical management of spinal stenosis is controversial. The aim of this review was to list aspects a surgeon considers when choosing a specific type of treatment.

Methods

Appraisal of arguments reported in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) included in systematic reviews published or indexed in the Cochrane library studying surgical treatments in patients with spinal stenosis.

Results

Eight out of nine RCTs listed arguments for the choice of their treatments under investigation. The argument for decompression alone was the high success rate, the argument against was a potential increase in vertebral instability. The argument for decompression and fusion without instrumentation was that it is a well-established technique with a high fusion success rate, the argument against it was that the indication for fusion in spinal stenosis has remained unclear. The argument for decompression and fusion with instrumentation was an increased fusion rate compared to decompression and fusion without instrumentation, the argument against this was that the invasive procedure is associated with more complications.

Conclusions

The main argument identified in this appraisal for and against decompression alone in patient with lumbar spinal stenosis was whether or not instability should be treated with (instrumented) fusion procedures. However, there is disagreement on how instability should be defined. In a first step it is important that researchers and clinicians agree on definitions for important key concepts such as instability and reoperations.
Zusatzmaterial
Additional file 1: Overview surgical procedure, follow-up, and author’s conclusion.
12891_2015_548_MOESM1_ESM.docx
Literatur
Über diesen Artikel

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2015

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 1/2015 Zur Ausgabe

Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

21.11.2019 | ACR 2019 | Kongressbericht | Onlineartikel

Anifrolumab bei SLE nun doch mit signifikanten Ergebnissen

21.11.2019 | ACR 2019 | Kongressbericht | Onlineartikel

Handarthrose: Tops und Flops vom ACR-Kongress

21.11.2019 | ACR 2019 | Kongressbericht | Onlineartikel

JAK - selektive Inhibitoren bei RA mit Vorteilen?

21.11.2019 | ACR 2019 | Kongressbericht | Onlineartikel

Erste Daten zur Differentialtherapie der PsA

Mail Icon II Newsletter

Bestellen Sie unseren kostenlosen Newsletter Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.

Bildnachweise