Which is the most effective treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis: Decompression, fusion, or interspinous process device? A Bayesian network meta-analysis

• Main Authors: Yijian Zhang, Dongdong Lu, Wei Ji, Fan He, Angela Carley Chen, Huilin Yang, Xuesong Zhu
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Elsevier 2021-01-01
• Series: Journal of Orthopaedic Translation
• Subjects: Lumbar spinal stenosis; Decompression; Fusion; Interspinous process device; Network meta-analysis
• Online Access: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214031X20300899

Summary: Objective: To compare the clinical efficacy, complications, and reoperation rates among three major treatments for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS): decompression, fusion, and interspinous process device (IPD), using a Bayesian network meta-analysis. Materials and methods: Databases including Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Web of Science were used for the literature search. Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) with three treatment methods were reviewed and included in the study. R software (version 3.6.0), Stata (version 14.0), and Review Manager (version 5.3) were used to perform data analysis. Results: A total of 10 RCTs involving 1254 patients were enrolled in the present study and each study met an acceptable quality according to our quality assessment described later. In direct comparison, IPD exhibited a higher incidence of reoperation than fusion (OR ​= ​2.93, CI: 1.07–8.02). In indirect comparison, the rank of VAS leg (from best to worst) was as follows: IPD (64%) ​> ​decompression (25%) ​> ​fusion (11%), and the rank of ODI (from best to worst) was: IPD (84%) ​> ​fusion (13%) ​> ​decompression (4%). IPD had the lowest incidence of complications; the rank of complications (from best to worst) was: IPD (60%) ​> ​decompression (27%) ​> ​fusion (14%). However, for the rank of reoperation, fusion showed the best results (from best to worst): fusion (79%) ​> ​decompression (20%) ​> ​IPD (1%). Consistency tests at global and local level showed satisfactory results and heterogeneity tests using loop text indicated a favorable stability. Conclusion: The present study preliminarily indicates that non-fusion methods including decompression and IPD are optimal choices for treating LSS, which achieves favorable clinical outcomes. IPD exhibits a low incidence of complications, but its high rate of reoperation should be treated with caution. The translational potential of this article: For the treatment of LSS, several procedures including decompression, fusion, and IPD have been reported. However, each method has its own advantages and disadvantages. To date, the golden standard treatment for LSS is still controversial. In this network meta-analysis, our results demonstrate that both decompression and IPD obtain satisfactory clinical effects for LSS. IPD is accompanied with a low incidence of complications, however, its high rate of reoperation should be acknowledged with discretion.