Lumbar Interspinous Process Fixation and Fusion with Stand-Alone Interlaminar Lumbar Instrumented Fusion Implant in Patients with Degenerative Spondylolisthesis Undergoing Decompression for Spinal Stenosis

24-Month Outcomes of Indirect Decompression Using a Minimally Invasive Interspinous Fixation Device versus Standard Open Direct Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Prospective Comparison

Purpose

An early-stage, multi-centre, prospective, randomised control trial with five-year follow-up was approved by Health Research Authority to compare the efficacy of a minimally invasive, laterally implanted interspinous fixation device (IFD) to open direct surgical decompression in treating lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). Two-year results are presented.

Patients and Methods

Forty-eight participants were randomly assigned to IFD or decompression. Primary study endpoints included changes from baseline at 8-weeks, 6, 12 and 24-months follow-ups for leg pain (visual analogue scale, VAS), back pain (VAS), disability (Oswestry Disability Index, ODI), LSS physical function (Zurich Claudication Questionnaire), distance walked in five minutes and number of repetitions of sitting-to-standing in one minute. Secondary study endpoints included patient and clinician global impression of change, adverse events, reoperations, operating parameters, and fusion rate.

Results

Both treatment groups demonstrated statistically significant improvements in mean leg pain, back pain, ODI disability, LSS physical function, walking distance and sitting-to-standing repetitions compared to baseline over 24 months. Mean reduction of ODI from baseline levels was between 35% and 56% for IFD (p<0.002), and 49% to 55% for decompression (p<0.001) for all follow-up time points. Mean reduction of IFD group leg pain was between 57% and 78% for all time points (p<0.001), with 72% to 94% of participants having at least 30% reduction of leg pain from 8-weeks through 24-months. Walking distance for the IFD group increased from 66% to 94% and sitting-to-standing repetitions increased from 44% to 64% for all follow-up time points. Blood loss was 88% less in the IFD group (p=0.024) and operating time parameters strongly favoured IFD compared to decompression (p<0.001). An 89% fusion rate was assessed in a subset of IFD participants. There were no intraoperative device issues or re-operations in the IFD group, and only one healed and non-symptomatic spinous process fracture observed within 24 months.

Conclusion

Despite a low number of participants in the IFD group, the study demonstrated successful two-year safety and clinical outcomes for the IFD with significant operation-related advantages compared to surgical decompression.

Pacific Spine and Pain Society (PSPS) Evidence Review of Surgical Treatments for Lumbar Degenerative Spinal Disease: A Narrative Review

INTRODUCTION

Interventional treatment options for the lumbar degenerative spine have undergone a significant amount of innovation over the last decade. As new technologies emerge, along with the surgical specialty expansion, there is no manuscript that utilizes a review of surgical treatments with evidence rankings from multiple specialties, namely, the interventional pain and spine communities. Through the Pacific Spine and Pain Society (PSPS), the purpose of this manuscript is to provide a balanced evidence review of available surgical treatments.

METHODS

The PSPS Research Committee created a working group that performed a comprehensive literature search on available surgical technologies for the treatment of the degenerative spine, utilizing the ranking assessment based on USPSTF (United States Preventative Services Taskforce) and NASS (North American Spine Society) criteria.

RESULTS

The surgical treatments were separated based on disease process, including treatments for degenerative disc disease, spondylolisthesis, and spinal stenosis.

CONCLUSIONS

There is emerging and significant evidence to support multiple approaches to treat the symptomatic lumbar degenerative spine. As new technologies become available, training, education, credentialing, and peer review are essential for optimizing patient safety and successful outcomes.

Bibliometric analysis of interspinous device in treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases

In recent years, with the introduction of the concept of lumbar non-fusion, the interspinous device has emerged. The purpose of this study is to bibliometrically analyze the state, areas of interest, and emerging trends in the usage of interspinous devices for the treatment of lumbar degeneration disease, as well as related research fields. Between January 1, 2000 and June 14, 2023, a comprehensive collection of publications on the topic of interspinous devices in the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease (IDTLDD) was procured from the Web of Science. A bibliometric analysis and visualization were subsequently conducted, utilizing various tools including HisCite, VOSviewer, CiteSpace, and bibliometrix package. This process involved the gathering of data on the country, institution, author, journal, reference, and keywords. A comprehensive analysis of 401 publications sourced from 149 journals was conducted, with 1718 authors affiliated with 1188 institutes across 240 countries/regions. Notably, the United States emerged as the leading contributor with 134 published articles on interspinous devices in the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease (33.42%). The most productive institution was Capital Medical University, with (10, 2.49%) publications. The author with the highest publication output was Block, Jon E, with 10 publications. European Spine Journal demonstrated the highest level of productivity, with a publication of (n = 39, 9.73%). The term "X-Stop" was the most frequently utilized keyword, followed by "Lumbar spinal stenosis." The study identified various topics of current interest, such as "Invasive decompression" and "Coflex." The present study provides a comprehensive survey of research trends and developments in the application of interspinous device for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases, including relevant research findings and collaborative efforts among authors, institutions, and countries.

Prospective 5-year follow-up of L5-S1 versus L4-5 midline decompression and interspinous-interlaminar fixation as a stand-alone treatment for spinal stenosis compared with laminectomies

Background

Spinal stenosis treatment includes laminectomies with or without fusion or with interspinous distraction with or without fixation. Lack of published data on interspinous fixation devices (IFD) at L5-S1 is less considered as an option due to the smaller anatomical S1 spinous process and the higher stresses from the immobile sacrum. Our objective was to evaluate the outcomes of an IFD used as a stand-alone treatment for spinal stenosis at L5-S1 and L4-5 compared to historical data on open laminectomies.

Methods

Prospective comparative cohort study (Level 2) looking at collected preoperatively and postoperatively Visual Analog Scores (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) data, complications, and revision rates on 100 consecutive patients with spinal stenosis treated with midline decompression and InSpan (InSpan LLC, Malden, MA, USA) IFD, at L5-S1 and L4-5, up to five-year follow-up. All patients were treated by a single surgeon in an academic private practice. Historical published outcome data for open laminectomies were compared.

Results

Among the 100 patients, 45 underwent surgery at L5-S1 with a mean VAS pain score that decreased by 75% and ODI improved by 63% (P<0.001). Fifty-five patients had surgery at L4-5 with mean VAS and ODI scores improved by 80% and 66% (P<0.001) respectively. Preoperative and postoperative ODI and preoperative VAS scores were similar at L5-S1 and L4-5, however, postoperative VAS scores were significantly less for L4-5 versus L5-S1 (P<0.01). All surgeries were completed in less than one hour. There was a total of one L4-5 revision (1.8%) and two L5-S1 revisions (4.4%). Comparable laminectomy data showed decrease in VAS and ODI scores by 51% and 62% (P<0.05). The reoperation rate for laminectomies at five to ten years varied up to 24%.

Conclusions

Spinal stenosis patients treated with midline decompression and InSpan IFD, used as a stand-alone treatment for interspinous-interlaminar fixation, at L4-5 and L5-S1, showed improved outcome scores and low complication and revision rates at five years and were comparable to historical open laminectomy data. InSpan is a successful substitute for laminectomies in selected patients and was performed in less than 60 minutes. We recommend choosing the appropriately sized implant to achieve adequate distraction decompression to avoid recurrent symptoms.

Early Functional Outcomes in Low Back Pain Subjects with a Novel Interspinous Fusion Device: REFINE Study 6-Month Results

Purpose

Lumbar interlaminar decompression with interspinous fixation is an established safe and effective treatment for spinal stenosis. Early maintenance of improvements in pain intensity and function are critical for durability of symptom relief. The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy of minimally invasive treatments for low back pain during the early period after treatment and their utility in setting the course for longer term success.

Patients and Methods

This study utilized patient evaluations at 3- and 6-months following treatment and is part of an actively enrolling, institutional review board (IRB) approved, single-arm, multicenter, prospective, open-label 12-month study. Clinical efficacy was assessed primarily using the change from baseline in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) of the back and leg pain during walking and standing, and Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ), and secondarily using the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) 29 v2.1. The safety endpoints were the adverse events and reoperations or revisions at the index level(s).

Results

At 6-month post-op, 76%, 62%-64%, and 64% of patients demonstrated clinical meaningful, and statistically significant improvement in their pain as defined by ZCQ, VAS (back and leg), and ODI, respectively. In addition, 78% of patients noted improvement in PGIC. Two procedure-related adverse events were noted which fully resolved without surgical intervention.

Conclusion

This 6-month interim analysis at 42% enrollment of patients was conducted to determine prolonged safety and efficacy of the interspinous fusion device. Our analysis showed a sustained improvement in clinical efficacy, and safety endpoints, when compared to the 3-months evaluations, across both interventional pain and neurosurgery specialties.

Instrumented Posterior Arthrodesis of the Lumbar Spine: Prospective Study Evaluating Fusion Outcomes in Patients Receiving an Interspinous Fixation Device for the Treatment of Degenerative Spine Diseases

Purpose

Prospective evaluation of radiographic fusion outcomes in patients receiving instrumented posterior arthrodesis of the lumbar spine using a minimally invasive interspinous fixation device.

Patients and Methods

All patients (n = 110) from a single US physician's practice who received instrumented posterior arthrodesis of the lumbar spine with a minimally invasive interspinous fixation device in the calendar year 2020 were invited to return for a follow-up CT scan to radiographically assess fusion. Forty-three patients, representing 69 total treated levels, consented to participate and received a lumbar CT scan at a mean of 459 days post-surgery (177 to 652). The interspinous/interlaminar fusion was assessed by 3 independent radiologists using a novel grading scale. Spinous process fractures were also assessed.

Results

92.8% of the assessed levels were considered fused. There were no intraoperative spinous process fractures. There were 4 spinous process fractures (5.8%) identified on CT imaging, all of which were asymptomatic and healed without subsequent intervention. There were no instances of device mechanical failure or device-related reoperation.

Conclusion

Instrumented posterior arthrodesis of the lumbar spine using a minimally invasive interspinous fixation device provides clinically meaningful fusion rates with no reoperations and a low risk of spinous process fracture or other device-related complications.

A Prospective, Observational, Open-Label, Non-Randomized, Multicenter Study Measuring Functional Outcomes in a Novel Interspinous Fusion Device in Subjects with Low Back Pain: REFINE Study

INTRODUCTION

Lumbar degenerative disease and the accompanying pain and dysfunction affect a significant number of patients in the USA and around the world. As surgery and innovation are moving towards minimally invasive treatments, this study looks to explore interspinous fixation as a standalone posterior approach to treat lumbar degenerative disc disease in the presence of neurogenic claudication and spinal stenosis.

METHODS

This study was approved by an institutional review board (IRB) and is actively enrolling in a single-arm, multicenter, prospective, open-label fashion. Patients are followed with reporting at 3 months, and 12 months for primary endpoint analysis of efficacy and safety based on improved composite endpoints relative to baseline, with success defined as greater than 20 mm back pain reduction in Visual Analog Scale 100 mm (VAS) while standing or walking, greater than 20 mm leg pain reduction in VAS while standing or walking, Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ) improvement of 0.5 or greater in two or three domains, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) improvement of a least 10 points and no reoperations or revisions at the index level(s). Secondary endpoints included a multidimensional assessment in the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) 29 v2.1 and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC).

RESULTS

In this interim 3-month analysis, 82% of patients reported they were improved from the procedure, while 65% of patients demonstrated clinical meaningful improvement in their pain and function, as defined by the VAS, ODI, and ZCQ. There was only one adverse event and no complications were identified at last clinic research follow-up visit.

CONCLUSIONS

This interim analysis of the first 20% of the enrolled patients out to 3 months was to determine safety of the procedure and report on adverse events, acknowledging the heterogeneity of surgical specialty. Further follow-up and greater numbers are needed as the study is ongoing.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT05504499.

A New Interlaminar/Interspinous and Facet-Joint Stabilization System in Lumbar Degenerative Disk Disease: 2 Years of Results

INTRODUCTION

In lumbar degenerative disk diseases (DDDs), we include a wide range of lumbar pathologies. Lumbar spinal stenosis with or without spondylolisthesis is a common cause of lower-limb pain in elderly patients. The surgical treatment of lumbar DDD consists of the decompression of the neural structures or the decompression and fusion of the involved motion segment. Unfortunately, rigid spinal implants followed by fusion cause increased stresses on the neighboring spinal segments, often leading to adjacent segment degeneration. The aim of this paper is to present a new system for interlaminar/interspinous and facet-joint stabilization and fusion.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

From March 2018 to June 2021, 175 patients with severe lumbar back and/or leg pain were operated on with this device after the failure of conservative treatment for a minimum of 6 months. For this study, we considered 75 available patients with a minimum follow-up time of 24 months. Patients rated their back pain and leg pain on a visual analog scale (VAS) after surgery and at the last follow-up; also, the postoperative consumption of analgesic drugs was investigated. Finally, patients were asked whether they would undergo this kind of surgery again or recommend it. The device is designed to promote a better and more efficient intervertebral fusion: Bone Ingrowth technology allows the system to achieve the best response from the bone tissue.

RESULTS

All procedures were performed without any complications. A reoperation was required in five cases (6.7%) because of implant failure. In one case, a spinous process and unilateral articular process fracture occurred. In four cases, a subcutaneous ISCHIA (one case) or FILICUDI (three cases) pullout was observed. Significant improvements following lumbar surgery were observed when evaluating the postoperative VAS values, analgesic drug consumption levels, and patients' satisfaction ratings. Evident fusion was seen in 58 of 75 patients (77.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our interspinous/interlaminar and facet-joint implant solution, associated with bone grafting, provided vertebral fusion in most stenotic patients with Grade I DS undergoing bilateral microdecompression (BMD) or bilateral decompression via the unilateral approach (BDUA). A higher number of patients and a longer follow-up will certainly be required to completely validate these new devices, but this minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is currently very encouraging and satisfactory.

The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline of Interventional Treatments for Low Back Pain

Introduction

Painful lumbar spinal disorders represent a leading cause of disability in the US and worldwide. Interventional treatments for lumbar disorders are an effective treatment for the pain and disability from low back pain. Although many established and emerging interventional procedures are currently available, there exists a need for a defined guideline for their appropriateness, effectiveness, and safety.

Objective

The ASPN Back Guideline was developed to provide clinicians the most comprehensive review of interventional treatments for lower back disorders. Clinicians should utilize the ASPN Back Guideline to evaluate the quality of the literature, safety, and efficacy of interventional treatments for lower back disorders.

Methods

The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) identified an educational need for a comprehensive clinical guideline to provide evidence-based recommendations. Experts from the fields of Anesthesiology, Physiatry, Neurology, Neurosurgery, Radiology, and Pain Psychology developed the ASPN Back Guideline. The world literature in English was searched using Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, BioMed Central, Web of Science, Google Scholar, PubMed, Current Contents Connect, Scopus, and meeting abstracts to identify and compile the evidence (per section) for back-related pain. Search words were selected based upon the section represented. Identified peer-reviewed literature was critiqued using United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria and consensus points are presented.

Results

After a comprehensive review and analysis of the available evidence, the ASPN Back Guideline group was able to rate the literature and provide therapy grades to each of the most commonly available interventional treatments for low back pain.

Conclusion

The ASPN Back Guideline represents the first comprehensive analysis and grading of the existing and emerging interventional treatments available for low back pain. This will be a living document which will be periodically updated to the current standard of care based on the available evidence within peer-reviewed literature.

Best Practices for Minimally Invasive Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Treatment 2.0 (MIST): Consensus Guidance from the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN)

Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion

A novel minimally invasive technique of inter-spinal distraction fusion surgery for single-level lumbar spinal stenosis in octogenarians: a retrospective cohort study

Objective

Surgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) in octogenarians (patients aged ≥ 80 years) has been a challenge. Inter-spinal distraction fusion (ISDF)—a minimally invasive procedure—was used for treating LSS in octogenarians. This retrospective cohort study aimed to investigate the clinical efficacy and safety of a minimally invasive ISDF technique for LSS in octogenarian patients.

Methods

From April 2015 to April 2019, octogenarian patients who underwent lumbar fusion surgery due to single-segment LSS were included. The patients were grouped into the ISDF group and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) group based on the type of surgery. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using scores of the visual analog pain scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Japanese Orthopedics Association (JOA) scale. Radiographs were assessed for the intervertebral angle (IA), lumbar lordosis (LL), and posterior disc height (PDH). After 2 years postoperatively, all patients underwent computed tomography (CT) to evaluate the fusion condition. Perioperative data and related complications were recorded.

Results

Sixty-two patients were included (mean age: 82.22 ± 1.95 years). The ISDF and the PLIF groups had 34 and 28 patients, respectively. The average follow-up time was 2.1 ± 0.25 years. There was no significant difference in VAS, ODI, JOA, and PDH scores between both groups preoperatively and at each postoperative time-point. The IA and LL showed significant differences between both groups after surgery (p < 0.05). The postoperative IA in the ISDF group were significantly lower than the preoperative values, while that in the PLIF group were markedly increased. The PLIF group had an increased LL compared with that preoperatively (p < 0.05), while the LL in the ISDF did not significantly change. The operative time, blood loss, hospital stay time, and the rate of perioperative complications of the ISDF group were significantly lower than those of the PLIF group (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the fusion rates between both groups.

Conclusion

ISDF surgery is a viable method for octogenarian patients with LSS that provides a similar clinical efficacy, shorter operative time, less blood loss, shorter hospital stay time, and fewer complications, compared to the PLIF surgery.

Computational modeling of lumbar disc degeneration before and after spinal fusion

BACKGROUND

Advancing age and degeneration frequently lead to low back pain, which is the most prevalent musculoskeletal disorder worldwide. Degenerative changes in intervertebral discs and musculo-ligamentous incapacity to compensate sagittal imbalance are typically amongst the sources of instability, with spinal fusion techniques being the main treatment options to relieve pain. The aims of this work were to: (i) assess the link between ligament degeneration and spinal instability by determining the role of each ligament per movement, (ii) evaluate the impact of disc height reduction in degenerative changes, and (iii) unveil the most advantageous type of posterior fixation in Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion to prevent adjacent disc degeneration.

METHODS

Two L3-L5 finite element models were developed, being the first in healthy condition and the second having reduced L4-L5 height. Different degrees of degeneration were tested, combined with different fixation configurations for Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

FINDINGS

Facet capsular ligament and anterior longitudinal ligament were the most influential ligaments for spinal stability, particularly with increasing degeneration and disc height reduction. Pre-existent degeneration had lower influence than the fusion procedure for the risk of adjacent disc degeneration, being the highest stability and minimal degeneration achieved with bilateral fixation. Right unilateral fixation was more suited to reduce disc stress than left unilateral fixation.

INTERPRETATION

Bilateral fixation is the best option to stabilize the spinal segment, but unilateral right fixation may suffice. This has direct implications for clinical practice, and the extension to a population-based study will allow for more efficient fusion surgeries.

Inter Spinal Fixation and Stabilization Device for Lumbar Radiculopathy and Back Pain

Introduction: Generally, interspinal distractor fixation devices are used for severe low back pain associated with neurogenic claudication, and radiculopathy with central or lateral recess stenosis and/or foraminal narrowing. In this paper, the authors result in cases of severe low back pain and lumbar radiculopathy in whom this device was used with excellent results.

Method: This is a retrospective study. Patients were contacted via phone call and their pain score and other data were recorded at different timelines. The final data presented in this paper are the data collected at the final follow-up that ranges from 14 months to 24 months. Surgeries were performed in the outpatient setting and although no identifiable patient information is included in this paper, yet, patients were asked for their verbal consent. The patient data are only included if verbal consent was obtained.

Results: Over the past 24 months, 13 patients with disc protrusion and/or central and/or foraminal spinal stenosis were treated with this procedure. Follow-up ranges from 14 months to 24 months with a median of 19 months, male/female ratio of 6/7, and a median age of 68 years. There were no complications or reoperation. Statistical analysis showed significant improvement in the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) for back and radicular leg pain (p-value = 0.000552 for back pain and p-value = 0.000291 for radicular leg pain).

Conclusion: The system reported in this paper is a solid fixation system that works both as a distractor and internal decompressor of the spinal canal. It is simple to use and safe. Though the number of patients is small, statistically significant improvement was reported at a median follow-up of 19 months.

Multicenter Retrospective Review of Safety and Efficacy of a Novel Minimally Invasive Lumbar Interspinous Fusion Device

Introduction

Several treatment options exist for those with spinal stenosis, as well as degenerative changes. This series evaluates the use of an interspinous fixation (ISF) device as performed by interventional pain physicians.

Methods

This is a retrospective analysis identifying 32 patients with the diagnosis of lumbar degenerative disc disease with secondary diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis being treated with ISF with Aurora Spine Zip Interspinous Spacer. Serious adverse events, specifically nerve injury, hematoma, infection, and death, were analyzed quantitatively for reported complications within 90 days from the procedure. In addition, VAS was analyzed for patient reported outcomes.

Results

Adverse event rate was 0% with no incidences of reoperation, or device removal. Estimated blood loss was recorded as less than 50 cc for all patients. The preoperative pain assessment demonstrated an average pain score of 8.1 and a postoperative pain score of 2.65 equating to a percentage pain reduction of 67%.

Conclusion

This case series demonstrates the success and safety of ISF being performed by interventional pain physicians in an outpatient setting. It is a valuable tool in the treatment of moderate to severe lumbar spinal stenosis and degenerative disc disease that has decreased morbidity and significant efficacy.

Changes of MRI in inter-spinal distraction fusion for lumbar degenerative disease: A retrospective analysis covering 3 years

OBJECTIVE

To assess the preoperative and postoperative changes in MRI image and the short-term efficacy of the ISDF with BacFuse covering 3 years.

METHODS

32 patients who underwent ISDF were involved in this retrospective study. The symptoms assessment including VAS, ODI, and SF-12 were evaluated preoperative and postoperative at 1 year and 3 years. The X-ray was used to measure posterior disk height (PDH), foramina height (FH), foramina width (FW), and MRI was taken to assess the cross-sectional area of dura sac (CSADS), cross-sectional area of canal (CSAC), herniated disc area, ligamentum flavum area. The preoperative ratio of herniated disc area and ligamentum flavum area to CSAC were compared with post-operative ratio. The modified Pfirrmann grade system was used to assess the surgical lumbar disc.

RESULTS

The symptom indexes were significantly improved after surgery. PDH and FH increased significantly (P < 0.05) after surgery compared with that before surgery, but there was no statistical difference in FW (P > 0.05). CSADS and CSAC increased obviously (P < 0.05), while the area of herniated disc and ligamentum flavum decreased significantly (P < 0.05). The ratio changes showed a significant difference between last follow-up and pre-operation (P < 0.05), but there was no statistical significance in grade changes of surgical disc.

CONCLUSION

ISDF with BacFuse could relieve clinical symptoms and expanse the spinal canal area in MRI. During 3-year observation, it could provide continuous traction and maintain the area of spinal canal, so as to partially retract the herniated disc and make it possible to repair the disc.

Comparison of Decompression Alone Versus Decompression with Fusion for Stenotic Lumbar Spine: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

The first line of treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis (with or without lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis) involves conservative options such as anti-inflammatory drugs and analgesics. Approximately, 10%-15% of patients require surgery. Surgical treatment aims to decompress the spinal canal and dural sac from degenerative bony and ligamentous overgrowth. Different studies have given conflicting results. The aim of our study is to clear the confusion by comparing two surgical techniques. This meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. A literature search was conducted of the Ovid Embase, Scopus, Pubmed, Ovid Medline, Google Scholar, and Cochrane library databases. A quality and risk of bias assessment was also done. The analysis was done using Revman software (The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014, Copenhagen, Denmark). A total of 76 studies were extracted from the literature search and 29 studies with relevant information were shortlisted. Nine studies were included in the meta-analysis after a quality assessment and eligibility. Fusion with decompression surgery was found to be a better technique when compared to decompression alone for spinal stenosis in terms of the Oswestry Disability index and the visual analog pain scale for back and leg pain. On the basis of the meta-analysis of the recent medical literature, the authors concluded that decompression with fusion is a 3.5-times better surgical technique than decompression alone for spinal stenosis.