ArticleJournal of orthopaedic translation2021
Which is the most effective treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis: Decompression, fusion, or interspinous process device? A Bayesian network meta-analysis.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic translation, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Differences in radiographic and clinical outcomes of different oblique lumbar interbody fusions for lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.Neurosurgical review · 2025Pooled it
- Surgical interventions for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review with network meta-analysis.BMC medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus conventional interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2023Pooled it
- Efficacy and Safety of the Use of Interspinous Spacers in the Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Mapping Gap and Scoping Review.Pain practice : the official journal of World Institute of Pain · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Indirect Decompression Effect After Extreme Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Three-Dimensional Volumetric Measurements-A Retrospective Study.Orthopaedic surgery · 2025Article
- A Biomechanical Evaluation of a Novel Interspinous Process Device: In Vitro Flexibility Assessment and Finite Element Analysis.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Three-year results of the MOTION randomized controlled trial for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis using the percutaneousInterventional pain medicine · 2025Article
- INNOVATIVE FULL-ENDOSCOPIC DECOMPRESSION TECHNIQUE FOR LUMBAR SPINAL STENOSIS: PROMISING EARLY RESULTS FROM VIETNAM.Orthopedic reviews · 2025Article
- Unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion vs. posterior lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of bilateral lumbar spinal stenosis.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- A fully automatic MRI-guided decision support system for lumbar disc herniation using machine learning.JOR spine · 2024Article
- Feasibility, safety, and efficacy of a new percutaneous interspinous device: a retrospective multicenter study.Neuroradiology · 2024Article
- Complications and radiographic changes after implantation of interspinous process devices: average eight-year follow-up.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2023Article
- The Fusion Rate of Cortical Bone Trajectory Screw Fixation and Pedicle Screw Fixations in L4-5 Interbody Fusion: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Orthopaedic surgery · 2023Article
- Lumbar Stenosis Spinal Surgery-Associated Cerebrospinal Fluid Leak Without Headache: An Autobiographical Case Report.Cureus · 2022Article
- Interspinous Process Devices Do Not Reduce Intervertebral Foramina and Discs Heights on Adjacent Segments.Journal of pain research · 2022Article
- Medicine and models of degenerative orthopaedic disorders.Journal of orthopaedic translation · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the clinical efficacy, complications, and reoperation rates among three major treatments for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS): decompression, fusion, and interspinous process device (IPD), using a Bayesian network meta-analysis. MATERIALS AND
methodsDatabases including Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Web of Science were used for the literature search. Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) with three treatment methods were reviewed and included in the study. R software (version 3.6.0), Stata (version 14.0), and Review Manager (version 5.3) were used to perform data analysis.
resultsA total of 10 RCTs involving 1254 patients were enrolled in the present study and each study met an acceptable quality according to our quality assessment described later. In direct comparison, IPD exhibited a higher incidence of reoperation than fusion (OR = 2.93, CI: 1.07-8.02). In indirect comparison, the rank of VAS leg (from best to worst) was as follows: IPD (64%) > decompression (25%) > fusion (11%), and the rank of ODI (from best to worst) was: IPD (84%) > fusion (13%) > decompression (4%). IPD had the lowest incidence of complications; the rank of complications (from best to worst) was: IPD (60%) > decompression (27%) > fusion (14%). However, for the rank of reoperation, fusion showed the best results (from best to worst): fusion (79%) > decompression (20%) > IPD (1%). Consistency tests at global and local level showed satisfactory results and heterogeneity tests using loop text indicated a favorable stability.
conclusionThe present study preliminarily indicates that non-fusion methods including decompression and IPD are optimal choices for treating LSS, which achieves favorable clinical outcomes. IPD exhibits a low incidence of complications, but its high rate of reoperation should be treated with caution. THE TRANSLATIONAL POTENTIAL OF THIS ARTICLE: For the treatment of LSS, several procedures including decompression, fusion, and IPD have been reported. However, each method has its own advantages and disadvantages. To date, the golden standard treatment for LSS is still controversial. In this network meta-analysis, our results demonstrate that both decompression and IPD obtain satisfactory clinical effects for LSS. IPD is accompanied with a low incidence of complications, however, its high rate of reoperation should be acknowledged with discretion.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.