Reoperations After Decompression With or Without Fusion for L3-4 Spinal Stenosis With Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: A Study of 372 Patients in Swespine, the National Swedish Spine Register

Decompression alone or fusion in single-level lumbar spinal stenosis with spondylolisthesis? A systematic review and meta analysis

PURPOSE

The objective of this systematic review and metaanalysis is to compare the efficacy and safety of decompression alone versus decompression plus fusion in single-level lumbar spinal stenosis with spondylolisthesis.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Ovid Medline databases was conducted to find randomized control trials (RCTs) or cohort studies that compared decompression alone and decompression plus fusion in single-level lumbar spinal stenosis with spondylolisthesis. Operation time; reoperation; postoperative complications; postoperative Oswestry disability index(ODI) scores and scores related to back and leg pain were collected from eligible studies for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

We included 3 randomized controlled trials and 9 cohort studies with 6182 patients. The decompression alone group showed less operative time(P < 0.001) and intraoperative blood loss(p = 0.000), and no significant difference in postoperative complications was observed in randomized controlled trials(p = 0.428) or cohort studies(p = 0.731). There was no significant difference between the other two groups in reoperation(P = 0.071), postoperative ODI scores and scores related to back and leg pain.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, we found that the decompression alone group performed better in terms of operation time and intraoperative blood loss, and there was no significant difference between the two surgical methods in rate of reoperation and postoperative complications, ODI, low back pain and leg pain. Therefore, we come to the conclusion that decompression alone is not inferior to decompression and fusion in patients with single-level lumbar spinal stenosis with spondylolisthesis.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of risk factors for reoperation after degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis surgery

BACKGROUND

Considering the high reoperation rate in degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) patients undergoing lumbar surgeries and controversial results on the risk factors for the reoperation, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the reoperation rate and risk factors for the reoperation in DLS patients undergoing lumbar surgeries.

METHODS

Literature search was conducted from inception to October 28, 2022 in Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Odds ratio (OR) was used as the effect index for the categorical data, and effect size was expressed as 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity test was performed for each outcome effect size, and subgroup analysis was performed based on study design, patients, surgery types, follow-up time, and quality of studies to explore the source of heterogeneity. Results of all outcomes were examined by sensitivity analysis. Publication bias was assessed using Begg test, and adjusted using trim-and-fill analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 39 cohort studies (27 retrospective cohort studies and 12 prospective cohort studies) were finally included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The overall results showed a 10% (95%CI: 8%-12%) of reoperation rate in DLS patients undergoing lumbar surgeries. In surgery types subgroup, the reoperation rate was 11% (95%CI: 9%-13%) for decompression, 10% (95%CI: 7%-12%) for fusion, and 9% (95%CI: 5%-13%) for decompression and fusion. An increased risk of reoperation was found in patients with obesity (OR = 1.91, 95%CI: 1.04-3.51), diabetes (OR = 2.01, 95%CI: 1.43-2.82), and smoking (OR = 1.51, 95%CI: 1.23-1.84).

CONCLUSIONS

We found a 10% of reoperation rate in DLS patients after lumbar surgeries. Obesity, diabetes, and smoking were risk factors for the reoperation.

Laminectomy With Fusion is Associated With Greater Functional Improvement Compared With Laminectomy Alone for the Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE

To compare outcomes and complications profile of laminectomy alone versus laminectomy and fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis is a common cause of back pain and functional impairment. DLS is associated with high monetary (up to $100 billion annually in the US) and nonmonetary societal and personal costs. While nonoperative management remains the first-line treatment for DLS, decompressive laminectomy with or without fusion is indicated for the treatment-resistant disease.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed and EMBASE for RCTs and cohort studies from inception through April 14, 2022. Data were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. The risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute risk of bias tool. We generated odds ratio and standard mean difference estimates for select parameters.

RESULTS

A total of 23 manuscripts were included (n=90,996 patients). Complication rates were higher in patients undergoing laminectomy and fusion compared with laminectomy alone (OR: 1.55, P <0.001). Rates of reoperation were similar between both groups (OR: 0.67, P =0.10). Laminectomy with fusion was associated with a longer duration of surgery (Standard Mean Difference: 2.60, P =0.04) and a longer hospital stay (2.16, P =0.01). Compared with laminectomy alone, the extent of functional improvement in pain and disability was superior in the laminectomy and fusion cohort. Laminectomy with fusion had a greater mean change in ODI (-0.38, P <0.01) compared with laminectomy alone. Laminectomy with fusion was associated with a greater mean change in NRS leg score (-0.11, P =0.04) and NRS back score (-0.45, P <0.01).

CONCLUSION

Compared with laminectomy alone, laminectomy with fusion is associated with greater postoperative improvement in pain and disability, albeit with a longer duration of surgery and hospital stay.

Handling of missing items in the Oswestry disability index and the neck disability index. A study from Swespine, the National Swedish spine register

PURPOSE

The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the Neck Disability Index (NDI) scoring algorithms used by the Swedish spine register (Swespine) until April 2022 handled missing items somewhat differently than the original algorithms. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate possible differences in the ODI and NDI scores between the Swespine and the original scoring algorithms.

METHODS

Patients surgically treated for degenerative conditions of the lumbar or cervical spine between 2003-2019 (lumbar) and 2006-2019 (cervical) were identified in Swespine. Preoperative and 1-year postoperative ODI/NDI data were used to evaluate differences between the Swespine and the original ODI/NDI algorithms with adjustment for at most 1 or 2 missing items using mean imputation.

RESULTS

The preoperative as well as the 1-year postoperative ODI/NDI were approximately 1 unit out of 100 smaller for the Swespine algorithm, irrespective of adjustment model. The differences between preoperative and postoperative ODI/NDI scores were similar between the Swespine and the original scoring algorithms. There were occasional statistically significant differences between the preoperative-postoperative differences due to large sample sizes.

CONCLUSIONS

The Swespine algorithms, used until April 2022, underestimated the ODI and NDI by approximately 1 out of 100 units compared with the original algorithms. In addition, there were no statistically significant differences between the original algorithms when adjusting for at most 1 or 2 missing items. The algorithm has now been changed, also for historical data.

[Lumbar spinal stenosis]

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) represents a frequent degenerative condition, however, striking a clear correlation between typical symptoms and imaging features remains a challenge. Reasons are a high prevalence of radiological LSS in the older population, a considerable percentage of asymptomatic LSS and the existence of differential diagnoses with similar symptomatology. This discrepancy also affects the outcomes - especially of surgically treated patients with LSS. When considering surgical decompression of LSS, the decision with regards to additive instrumentation and/or fusion remains a controversial point of discussion, in particular at the presence of degenerative spondylolisthesis. Recent, well-designed studies, however, clearly point towards a non-inferiority of decompression alone as opposed to the more invasive strategies.