Long-term reoperation after decompression with versus without fusion among patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The debate over adding fusion after decompression in lumbar spinal stenosis patients without spondylolisthesis is due to the "absence of evidence" in its benefits, particularly in reoperation. However, this “absence of evidence” does not indicate “evidence of absence.” To investigate the r...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The spine journal 2024-11
Hauptverfasser: Tsuang, Fon-Yih, Hsu, Yu-Lun, Chou, Tzu-Yi, Chai, Chung Liang
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue
container_start_page
container_title The spine journal
container_volume
creator Tsuang, Fon-Yih
Hsu, Yu-Lun
Chou, Tzu-Yi
Chai, Chung Liang
description The debate over adding fusion after decompression in lumbar spinal stenosis patients without spondylolisthesis is due to the "absence of evidence" in its benefits, particularly in reoperation. However, this “absence of evidence” does not indicate “evidence of absence.” To investigate the reoperation rates following the addition of fusion after decompression in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis without spondylolisthesis. Systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases on December 12, 2021, with an updated search conducted on April 06, 2023. Inclusion criteria were adult patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Exclusions comprised cases of spondylolisthesis and instabilities. The occurrence of reoperation was summarized using odds ratios (OR), while other outcomes were presented as mean differences. We employed a Cox-based shared-frailty model with random effects for the time-to-event analysis of reoperation. Additionally, we used a 2-stage method to validate our estimates. Heterogeneity variance within the random-effects model was estimated using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method. A total of 1973 studies were identified and screened, of which 48 met selection criteria, and 17 were included in the meta-analysis. Comparison between fusion and non-fusion groups in patients with lumbar stenosis and neurological claudication revealed no significant difference in reoperation rates (odds ratio: 1.13 [95% CI: 0.88 to 1.46]; 8016 participants; 14 studies; I2 = 0%). Bayesian analysis indicated an 8.9-fold likelihood of similar reoperation rates. Time-to-reoperation analysis revealed a 16.46 months delay in the fusion group, though not statistically significant (mean difference: 16.46 [95% CI: -3.13–36.04]; 83 participants; 3 studies; I2 = 46%). Consistently, ODI, back pain, and leg pain VAS showed no significant differences. The certainty of the evidence was low for odds of reoperation and leg pain VAS, and very low for the remaining outcomes. In lumbar spinal stenosis patients without spondylolisthesis, the addition of fusion after decompression showed limited benefits in terms of reoperation rates, ODI, and leg pain.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.spinee.2024.11.015
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_3140887615</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S1529943024011549</els_id><sourcerecordid>3140887615</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2025-a143b5637e7ed7d73257186e7b3640f5fc7e30c260b1bb7d1f9238a7aeecd1073</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9UU1v1DAQtRAVLYV_gJCPXBI8cRInHJBQxZe0Epf2bDn2pHgVx8F2ttrf0z9a76Zw5OTxzHvz8R4h74CVwKD9uC_jYmfEsmJVXQKUDJoX5Ao60RXQ8upljpuqL_qas0vyOsY9Y6wTUL0il7xvoWl7fkUed36-LxIGRwP6BYNK1s9UjTlFDWrvloAxnnIPNv2mBwxxjefYr4mO67mkXO5Cl8zFOW3VTL7H-dzvgHRa3aACPW2sJhoTzj7a-IkqGo_55zJK5wUOFh-omg11mFShMvaYYW_IxaimiG-f32ty9-3r7c2PYvfr-8-bL7tCZwmaQkHNh6blAgUaYQSvGgFdi2Lgbc3GZtQCOdNVywYYBmFg7CveKaEQtQEm-DX5sPVdgv-zYkzS2ahxmtSMfo2SQ826TmTpMrTeoDr4GAOOcgnWqXCUwOTJHrmXmz3yZI8EkOxMe_88YR0cmn-kv35kwOcNgPnOrEaQUWdNNRobUCdpvP3_hCdJSKf6</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3140887615</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Long-term reoperation after decompression with versus without fusion among patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><creator>Tsuang, Fon-Yih ; Hsu, Yu-Lun ; Chou, Tzu-Yi ; Chai, Chung Liang</creator><creatorcontrib>Tsuang, Fon-Yih ; Hsu, Yu-Lun ; Chou, Tzu-Yi ; Chai, Chung Liang</creatorcontrib><description>The debate over adding fusion after decompression in lumbar spinal stenosis patients without spondylolisthesis is due to the "absence of evidence" in its benefits, particularly in reoperation. However, this “absence of evidence” does not indicate “evidence of absence.” To investigate the reoperation rates following the addition of fusion after decompression in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis without spondylolisthesis. Systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases on December 12, 2021, with an updated search conducted on April 06, 2023. Inclusion criteria were adult patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Exclusions comprised cases of spondylolisthesis and instabilities. The occurrence of reoperation was summarized using odds ratios (OR), while other outcomes were presented as mean differences. We employed a Cox-based shared-frailty model with random effects for the time-to-event analysis of reoperation. Additionally, we used a 2-stage method to validate our estimates. Heterogeneity variance within the random-effects model was estimated using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method. A total of 1973 studies were identified and screened, of which 48 met selection criteria, and 17 were included in the meta-analysis. Comparison between fusion and non-fusion groups in patients with lumbar stenosis and neurological claudication revealed no significant difference in reoperation rates (odds ratio: 1.13 [95% CI: 0.88 to 1.46]; 8016 participants; 14 studies; I2 = 0%). Bayesian analysis indicated an 8.9-fold likelihood of similar reoperation rates. Time-to-reoperation analysis revealed a 16.46 months delay in the fusion group, though not statistically significant (mean difference: 16.46 [95% CI: -3.13–36.04]; 83 participants; 3 studies; I2 = 46%). Consistently, ODI, back pain, and leg pain VAS showed no significant differences. The certainty of the evidence was low for odds of reoperation and leg pain VAS, and very low for the remaining outcomes. In lumbar spinal stenosis patients without spondylolisthesis, the addition of fusion after decompression showed limited benefits in terms of reoperation rates, ODI, and leg pain.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1529-9430</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1878-1632</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1878-1632</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2024.11.015</identifier><identifier>PMID: 39615693</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Decompression ; Laminectomy ; Lumbar canal stenosis ; Lumbar spinal stenosis ; Reoperation ; Spinal fusion</subject><ispartof>The spine journal, 2024-11</ispartof><rights>2024 The Author(s)</rights><rights>Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2025-a143b5637e7ed7d73257186e7b3640f5fc7e30c260b1bb7d1f9238a7aeecd1073</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-7775-4052 ; 0000-0002-4414-5872</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2024.11.015$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3548,27923,27924,45994</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39615693$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Tsuang, Fon-Yih</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hsu, Yu-Lun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chou, Tzu-Yi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chai, Chung Liang</creatorcontrib><title>Long-term reoperation after decompression with versus without fusion among patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis</title><title>The spine journal</title><addtitle>Spine J</addtitle><description>The debate over adding fusion after decompression in lumbar spinal stenosis patients without spondylolisthesis is due to the "absence of evidence" in its benefits, particularly in reoperation. However, this “absence of evidence” does not indicate “evidence of absence.” To investigate the reoperation rates following the addition of fusion after decompression in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis without spondylolisthesis. Systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases on December 12, 2021, with an updated search conducted on April 06, 2023. Inclusion criteria were adult patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Exclusions comprised cases of spondylolisthesis and instabilities. The occurrence of reoperation was summarized using odds ratios (OR), while other outcomes were presented as mean differences. We employed a Cox-based shared-frailty model with random effects for the time-to-event analysis of reoperation. Additionally, we used a 2-stage method to validate our estimates. Heterogeneity variance within the random-effects model was estimated using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method. A total of 1973 studies were identified and screened, of which 48 met selection criteria, and 17 were included in the meta-analysis. Comparison between fusion and non-fusion groups in patients with lumbar stenosis and neurological claudication revealed no significant difference in reoperation rates (odds ratio: 1.13 [95% CI: 0.88 to 1.46]; 8016 participants; 14 studies; I2 = 0%). Bayesian analysis indicated an 8.9-fold likelihood of similar reoperation rates. Time-to-reoperation analysis revealed a 16.46 months delay in the fusion group, though not statistically significant (mean difference: 16.46 [95% CI: -3.13–36.04]; 83 participants; 3 studies; I2 = 46%). Consistently, ODI, back pain, and leg pain VAS showed no significant differences. The certainty of the evidence was low for odds of reoperation and leg pain VAS, and very low for the remaining outcomes. In lumbar spinal stenosis patients without spondylolisthesis, the addition of fusion after decompression showed limited benefits in terms of reoperation rates, ODI, and leg pain.</description><subject>Decompression</subject><subject>Laminectomy</subject><subject>Lumbar canal stenosis</subject><subject>Lumbar spinal stenosis</subject><subject>Reoperation</subject><subject>Spinal fusion</subject><issn>1529-9430</issn><issn>1878-1632</issn><issn>1878-1632</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9UU1v1DAQtRAVLYV_gJCPXBI8cRInHJBQxZe0Epf2bDn2pHgVx8F2ttrf0z9a76Zw5OTxzHvz8R4h74CVwKD9uC_jYmfEsmJVXQKUDJoX5Ao60RXQ8upljpuqL_qas0vyOsY9Y6wTUL0il7xvoWl7fkUed36-LxIGRwP6BYNK1s9UjTlFDWrvloAxnnIPNv2mBwxxjefYr4mO67mkXO5Cl8zFOW3VTL7H-dzvgHRa3aACPW2sJhoTzj7a-IkqGo_55zJK5wUOFh-omg11mFShMvaYYW_IxaimiG-f32ty9-3r7c2PYvfr-8-bL7tCZwmaQkHNh6blAgUaYQSvGgFdi2Lgbc3GZtQCOdNVywYYBmFg7CveKaEQtQEm-DX5sPVdgv-zYkzS2ahxmtSMfo2SQ826TmTpMrTeoDr4GAOOcgnWqXCUwOTJHrmXmz3yZI8EkOxMe_88YR0cmn-kv35kwOcNgPnOrEaQUWdNNRobUCdpvP3_hCdJSKf6</recordid><startdate>20241129</startdate><enddate>20241129</enddate><creator>Tsuang, Fon-Yih</creator><creator>Hsu, Yu-Lun</creator><creator>Chou, Tzu-Yi</creator><creator>Chai, Chung Liang</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>6I.</scope><scope>AAFTH</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7775-4052</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4414-5872</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20241129</creationdate><title>Long-term reoperation after decompression with versus without fusion among patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis</title><author>Tsuang, Fon-Yih ; Hsu, Yu-Lun ; Chou, Tzu-Yi ; Chai, Chung Liang</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2025-a143b5637e7ed7d73257186e7b3640f5fc7e30c260b1bb7d1f9238a7aeecd1073</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Decompression</topic><topic>Laminectomy</topic><topic>Lumbar canal stenosis</topic><topic>Lumbar spinal stenosis</topic><topic>Reoperation</topic><topic>Spinal fusion</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Tsuang, Fon-Yih</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hsu, Yu-Lun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chou, Tzu-Yi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chai, Chung Liang</creatorcontrib><collection>ScienceDirect Open Access Titles</collection><collection>Elsevier:ScienceDirect:Open Access</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The spine journal</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Tsuang, Fon-Yih</au><au>Hsu, Yu-Lun</au><au>Chou, Tzu-Yi</au><au>Chai, Chung Liang</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Long-term reoperation after decompression with versus without fusion among patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis</atitle><jtitle>The spine journal</jtitle><addtitle>Spine J</addtitle><date>2024-11-29</date><risdate>2024</risdate><issn>1529-9430</issn><issn>1878-1632</issn><eissn>1878-1632</eissn><abstract>The debate over adding fusion after decompression in lumbar spinal stenosis patients without spondylolisthesis is due to the "absence of evidence" in its benefits, particularly in reoperation. However, this “absence of evidence” does not indicate “evidence of absence.” To investigate the reoperation rates following the addition of fusion after decompression in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis without spondylolisthesis. Systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases on December 12, 2021, with an updated search conducted on April 06, 2023. Inclusion criteria were adult patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Exclusions comprised cases of spondylolisthesis and instabilities. The occurrence of reoperation was summarized using odds ratios (OR), while other outcomes were presented as mean differences. We employed a Cox-based shared-frailty model with random effects for the time-to-event analysis of reoperation. Additionally, we used a 2-stage method to validate our estimates. Heterogeneity variance within the random-effects model was estimated using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method. A total of 1973 studies were identified and screened, of which 48 met selection criteria, and 17 were included in the meta-analysis. Comparison between fusion and non-fusion groups in patients with lumbar stenosis and neurological claudication revealed no significant difference in reoperation rates (odds ratio: 1.13 [95% CI: 0.88 to 1.46]; 8016 participants; 14 studies; I2 = 0%). Bayesian analysis indicated an 8.9-fold likelihood of similar reoperation rates. Time-to-reoperation analysis revealed a 16.46 months delay in the fusion group, though not statistically significant (mean difference: 16.46 [95% CI: -3.13–36.04]; 83 participants; 3 studies; I2 = 46%). Consistently, ODI, back pain, and leg pain VAS showed no significant differences. The certainty of the evidence was low for odds of reoperation and leg pain VAS, and very low for the remaining outcomes. In lumbar spinal stenosis patients without spondylolisthesis, the addition of fusion after decompression showed limited benefits in terms of reoperation rates, ODI, and leg pain.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>39615693</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.spinee.2024.11.015</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7775-4052</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4414-5872</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1529-9430
ispartof The spine journal, 2024-11
issn 1529-9430
1878-1632
1878-1632
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_3140887615
source Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete
subjects Decompression
Laminectomy
Lumbar canal stenosis
Lumbar spinal stenosis
Reoperation
Spinal fusion
title Long-term reoperation after decompression with versus without fusion among patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-10T15%3A31%3A44IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Long-term%20reoperation%20after%20decompression%20with%20versus%20without%20fusion%20among%20patients%20with%20degenerative%20lumbar%20spinal%20stenosis:%20a%20systematic%20review%20and%20meta-analysis&rft.jtitle=The%20spine%20journal&rft.au=Tsuang,%20Fon-Yih&rft.date=2024-11-29&rft.issn=1529-9430&rft.eissn=1878-1632&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.spinee.2024.11.015&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3140887615%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=3140887615&rft_id=info:pmid/39615693&rft_els_id=S1529943024011549&rfr_iscdi=true