Management of lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of rehabilitation, surgical, injection, and medication interventions

Effects of calcitonin on lumbar spinal stenosis

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE

There is some controversy about the effects of calcitonin (CT) on lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). This systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the strength of the evidence supporting the use of CT in the treatment of patients with LSS.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

We performed an electronic search depicting randomized controlled trials (RCTs) through 4 databases from the date of database creation to January 2023. 3 different researchers conducted independent literature screening, data extractions, and quality assessments. The outcome measures included visual analogue scale (VAS), walking distance, and oswestry disability index (ODI). Meta-analysis and trial sequence analysis (TSA) were carried out using RevMan 5.4, Stata 16.0, and TSA 0.9. GRADE 3.6 was used to evaluate the evidence quality.

RESULTS

We accepted 9 studies with 496 participants. The meta-analysis revealed that CT offered no significant improvement in VAS, walking distance, or ODI in patients with LSS.

CONCLUSION

There is no evidence that CT has a benefit in patients with LSS, either alone or in combination with other treatments, or depending on the route of administration, according to the systematic review and meta-analysis of relevant RCTs.

Exercise treatments for lumbar spinal stenosis: A systematic review and intervention component analysis of randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To analyse the components used in exercise interventions for people with symptoms of neurogenic claudication due to lumbar spinal stenosis and identify components associated with successful interventions.

DATA SOURCES

Eligible papers published up to April 2023 from MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and trial registry websites.

REVIEW METHODS

Literature searches were performed by an Information Specialist. We searched for randomised trials evaluating exercise interventions for people with neurogenic claudication symptoms (the primary symptom of lumbar spinal stenosis). Two authors independently performed study selection, data extraction, and quality assessments using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool Version 2 and the TIDieR checklist for intervention reporting. Details of intervention components were extracted, tabulated, and synthesised using an intervention component analysis approach.

RESULTS

We found thirteen trials reporting 23 exercise interventions delivered to 1440 participants. These featured 60 different components. Most exercise interventions included supervision and flexion-based exercises. Balance exercises were rarely included. Exercise components featured more frequently in successful interventions included stretches, strength or trunk muscle exercises, fitness exercises, especially cycling, and psychologically informed approaches. Interpretation is limited by low study numbers and heterogeneity. No conclusions could be drawn about exercise supervision or dose.

DISCUSSION

Exercise interventions for people with neurogenic claudication typically feature multiple components. Common features such as supervision, lumbar flexion, and aerobic fitness exercises and also less common features such as stretches, strengthening exercises, and psychologically informed approaches warrant consideration for inclusion when designing and optimising exercise interventions for people with lumbar spinal stenosis.

The Effectiveness of Pharmacopuncture in Patients with Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Protocol for a Multi-Centered, Pragmatic, Randomized, Controlled, Parallel Group Study

Purpose

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a chronic degenerative disease. Non-surgical intervention is recommended, considering the risks and benefits for the affected age group, as well as the characteristics of the disease. However, to date, no studies have compared various non-surgical interventions to ascertain the appropriate first-line non-surgical treatment for LSS. Therefore, the objective of this study will be to assess the efficacy of pharmacopuncture as a non-surgical, conservative treatment for LSS.

Patients and Methods

A multi-centered, pragmatic, parallel-group study will be conducted. In total, 98 patients will be recruited at seven institutes; recruitment began in May 2022. After two treatment sessions per week over a period of 12 weeks, follow-up assessments will be held at weeks 13, 25, and 53.

Results

The efficacy of pharmacopuncture and conservative care will be pragmatically compared in patients radiologically diagnosed with LSS. Pain severity will be measured using the numeric rating scale and visual analog scale. Walking distance will also be evaluated. Patient-centered evaluations will include the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire, Short-Form 12 for Health-Related Quality of Life, EuroQoL 5 Dimension 5 Levels, and Patient Global Impression of Change.

Conclusion

The results of this study will confirm the efficacy of pharmacopuncture in comparison to conventional non-surgical treatment and will thus facilitate the prioritization of patient-centered interventions for LSS.

Trial registration

This study was registered at Clinicaltrials.gov (registration identifier: NCT05242497) and CRiS (registration identifier: KCT0007145).

Outcome of Percutaneous Transforaminal Endoscopic Lumbar Decompression for Multisegment Lumbar Spinal Stenosis and the Effect on VAS Scores

Purpose

To investigate the efficacy of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic lumbar decompression (PTED) in the treatment of multisegment lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) and its effect on VAS scores.

Methods

126 patients with multisegment LSS admitted between August 2017 and August 2021 were selected and divided into the PTED group and the traditional open surgery group (TOS group) according to the different treatment methods. There were 70 cases in the PTED group, treated with PTED, and 56 cases in the TOS group, treated with traditional open surgery. The clinical outcomes, the preoperative and postoperative pain visual analogue scale (VAS), the Oswestry disability index (ODI), the SF-36 quality of life questionnaire scores, the perioperative indicators (operative time, days in hospital, intraoperative blood loss), the postoperative complications, and imaging data were compared between the two groups.

Results

After the operation, the excellent and good rate in the PTED group (91.43%) was significantly higher than that in the TOS group (75.00%) (P < 0.05). At each time after the operation, the VAS and ODI scores of the two groups were lower than those before the operation, and the VAS scores of the PTED group at 1 day and 3 months after operation were lower than those of the TOS group, and the ODI scores of the PTED group at 3 months after operation were lower than those of the TOS group (P < 0.05). 3 months after the operation, the SF-36 scores in both groups were higher than those before the operation, and those in the PTED group were higher than those in the TOS group (P < 0.05). The operation time and days in hospital in the PTED group were shorter than those in the TOS group, and the intraoperative dominant blood loss and recessive blood loss were less than those in the TOS group (P < 0.05). The total incidence of complications in the PTED group (15.71%) was significantly lower than that in the TOS group (32.14%) (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Both PTED and traditional open surgery are effective in treating patients with multisegmental LSS, and both show positive postoperative changes in all indicators, but the former has more promising near -term results in improving lumbar spine pain, function and quality of life than the latter, and has the advantages of less trauma, less bleeding, and fewer complications.

GOLDIC therapy in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: randomized, controlled trial

Aim: Comparison of the efficacy of conservative treatment methods: epidural GOLDIC serum, epidural steroid injections, manual therapy. Materials & methods: A randomized, controlled trial. Three groups, each containing 30 patients. GOLDIC or steroid injections (dexamethasone) epidural versus manual therapy. Assessment: initial assessment and 4 (T1), 12 (T2) and 24 (T3) weeks after the last intervention. Primary outcomes: Pain intensity in numeric rating scale, Oswestry disability index, Zurich claudication questionnaire, EQ-5D-5L questionnaire. Results: GOLDIC has shown the highest mean differences and number of cases with minimal important difference among groups for every primary outcome. Conclusion: GOLDIC therapy could be a new option for the nonoperative, symptomatic treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis and is not inferior to epidural steroid injections and manual therapy.