↓ Skip to main content

Effectiveness of decompression alone versus decompression plus fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
57 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
93 Mendeley
Title
Effectiveness of decompression alone versus decompression plus fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, March 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00402-017-2685-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wenli Chang, Peizhi Yuwen, Yanbing Zhu, Ning Wei, Chen Feng, Yingze Zhang, Wei Chen

Abstract

The debate on efficacy of fusion added to decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is ongoing. No meta-analysis has compared the effectiveness of decompression versus decompression plus fusion in treating patients with LSS. A literature search was performed in the Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, and Springer databases from 1970 to 2016. Relevant references were selected and the included studies were manually reviewed. We included trials evaluating decompression surgery compared to decompression plus fusion surgery in treating patients with LSS. The primary outcomes analyzed were back pain, leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index scores (ODI), the quality-of-life EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), duration of operation, intraoperative blood loss, length of hospital stay, major complications, walking ability, number of reoperation, and finally clinically excellent and good rates. Data analysis was conducted using the Review Manager 5.2 software. Fifteen studies involving 17,785 patients with LSS were included. The overall effect mean difference (MD) (95% CI) in the differences between pre- and post-operative back pain, leg pain, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, and length of stay were 0.04 (-0.36, 0.44), 0.69 (-0.38, 1.76), -2.04 (-3.12, -0.96), -3.96 (-6.64, -1.27) and -4.21 (-10.03, 1.62) (z = 0.18, 1.26, 3.71, 2.89 and 1.41, respectively; P = 0.86, 0.55, 0.0002, 0.004 and 0.16, respectively) in random effects models. The overall effect MD (95% CI) in ODI, EQ-5D, and walking ability were 0.43 (-1.15, 2.00), 0.01 (-0.01, 0.03) and 0.04 (-0.49, 0.57) (z = 0.52, 1.16 and 0.15, respectively; P = 0.59, 0.24 and 0.88, respectively) in fixed effects models. The overall effect odds ratio (OR) (95% CI) of major complications, number of reoperations, and clinically excellent and good rates between the two groups were 0.70 (0.60, 0.81), 1.04 (0.90, 1.19) and 0.31 (0.06, 1.59) (z = 4.63, 0.53 and 1.40, respectively; P < 0.00001, 0.60 and 0.16, respectively). Our study reveals no difference in the effectiveness between the two surgical techniques. The additional fusion in the management of LSS yielded no clinical improvements over decompression alone within a 2-year follow-up period. But fusion resulted in a longer duration of operation, more blood loss, and a higher risk of complications. Therefore, the appropriate surgical protocol for LSS should be discussed further.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 93 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 16%
Student > Bachelor 10 11%
Other 10 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 9%
Student > Postgraduate 6 6%
Other 17 18%
Unknown 27 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 49%
Neuroscience 5 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Engineering 2 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 1 1%
Unknown 34 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 October 2018.
All research outputs
#6,478,735
of 23,815,455 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery
#239
of 1,215 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,805
of 310,456 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery
#3
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,815,455 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,215 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 310,456 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.