Does Concomitant Degenerative Spondylolisthesis Influence the Outcome of Decompression Alone in Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis? A Meta-Analysis of Comparative Studies

2019 ◽  
Vol 123 ◽  
pp. 226-238 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miao Wang ◽  
Xiao Ji Luo ◽  
Yong Jie Ye ◽  
Zhi Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Lumbar Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Comparative Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Degenerative Spondylolisthesis ◽  
Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Lumbar Spinal

scholarly journals Fusion or Not for Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (21;1) ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Jie Hao
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Spinal Fusion ◽  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Lumbar Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Fusion Surgery ◽  
Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Lumbar Spinal

Background: Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS) is the main cause for chronic low back pain in the elderly. When refractory to conservative treatment, symptomatic patients commonly undergo surgery. However, whether or not fusion is a relatively better surgical option still remains unclear. Objective: The purpose of the present study was to systematically review the clinical outcomes of spinal decompression with or without spinal fusion for DLSS. Study Design: A systematic review of the therapeutic effect for DLSS with or without fusion. Methods: A literature search of 5 electronic databases was performed including PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and CENTRAL from inception to August 2016. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the comparison between decompression and fusion surgery for DLSS were included. Results: A total of 5 RCTs involving 438 patients met the inclusion criteria. Low-quality evidence of the meta-analysis was performed for the heterogeneity of the included studies. Pooled analysis showed no significant differences between decompression alone and fusion groups for the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores at the baseline (P = 0.50) and 2 years follow-up (P = 0.71), and the satisfaction rate of operations was also similar for the groups (P = 0.53). However, operation time (P = 0.002), blood loss (P < 0.00001), and length of hospital stay (P = 0.007) were remarkably higher in the fusion group. Furthermore, there was no difference in the reoperation rate between these 2 groups at the latest follow-up (P = 0.49). Limitation: The methodological criteria and sample sizes were highly variable. The studies were heterogeneous. Conclusion: The present meta-analysis is the first to compare the efficacy of decompression alone and spinal fusion for the treatment of DLSS, including 5 RCTs. Our results demonstrate that additional fusion surgery seems unlikely to result in better outcomes for patients with DLSS, but it may increase additional risks and costs. High-quality homogeneous research is required to provide further evidence about surgical procedures for patients with DLSS. Key words: Decompression, fusion, lumbar spinal stenosis, meta-analysis

scholarly journals Comparative efficacy and safety of surgical and invasive treatments for adults with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: protocol for a network meta-analysis and systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. e024752
Author(s):  
Lingxiao Chen ◽  
Paulo H Ferreira ◽  
Paula R Beckenkamp ◽  
Manuela L Ferreira
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Lumbar Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Invasive Procedures ◽  
Comparative Efficacy ◽  
Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Lumbar Spinal

IntroductionSurgical and invasive procedures are widely used in adults with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis when conservative treatments fail. However, little is known about the comparative efficacy and safety of these interventions. To address this, we will perform a network meta-analysis (NMA) and systematic review to compare the efficacy and safety of surgical and invasive procedures for adults with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.Methods and analysisWe will include randomised controlled trials assessing surgical and invasive treatments for adults with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. We will search AMED, CINAHL, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and MEDLINE. Only English studies will be included and no restriction will be set for publication status. For efficacy, our primary outcome will be physical function. Secondary outcomes will include pain intensity, health-related quality of life, global impression of recovery, work absenteeism and mobility. For safety, our primary outcome will be all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes will include adverse events (number of events or number of people with an event) and treatment withdrawal due to adverse effect. Two reviewers will independently select studies, extract data and assess the risk of bias (Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials) of included studies. The quality of the evidence will be evaluated through the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. Random-effects NMA will be performed to combine all the evidence under the frequentist framework and the ranking results will be presented through the surface under the cumulative ranking curve and mean rank. All analyses will be performed in Stata and R.Ethics and disseminationNo ethical approval is required. The research will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018094180.

scholarly journals The identification of novel gene mutations for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis using whole-exome sequencing in a Chinese cohort

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Xin Jiang ◽  
Dong Chen
Keyword(s):  
Exome Sequencing ◽  
Whole Exome Sequencing ◽  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Lumbar Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Gene Mutations ◽  
Specific Gene ◽  
Single Nucleotide ◽  
Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Whole Exome ◽  
Lumbar Spinal

Abstract Background Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS) is a common lumbar disease that requires surgery. Previous studies have indicated that genetic mutations are implicated in DLSS. However, studies on specific gene mutations are scarce. Whole-exome sequencing (WES) is a valuable research tool that identifies disease-causing genes and could become an effective strategy to investigate DLSS pathogenesis. Methods From January 2016 to December 2017, we recruited 50 unrelated patients with symptoms consistent with DLSS and 25 unrelated healthy controls. We conducted WES and exome data analysis to identify susceptible genes. Allele mutations firstly identified potential DLSS variants in controls to the patients’ group. We conducted a site-based association analysis to identify pathogenic variants using PolyPhen2, SIFT, Mutation Taster, Combined Annotation Dependent Depletion, and Phenolyzer algorithms. Potential variants were further confirmed using manual curation and validated using Sanger sequencing. Results In this cohort, the major classification variant was missense_mutation, the major variant type was single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP), and the major single nucleotide variation was C > T. Multiple SNPs in 34 genes were identified when filtered allele mutations in controls to retain only patient mutations. Pathway enrichment analyses revealed that mutated genes were mainly enriched for immune response-related signaling pathways. Using the Novegene database, site-based associations revealed several novel variants, including HLA-DRB1, PARK2, ACTR8, AOAH, BCORL1, MKRN2, NRG4, NUP205 genes, etc., were DLSS related. Conclusions Our study revealed that deleterious mutations in several genes might contribute to DLSS etiology. By screening and confirming susceptibility genes using WES, we provided more information on disease pathogenesis. Further WES studies incorporating larger DLSS patient cohorts are required to comprehend the genetic landscape of DLSS pathophysiology fully.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document