Cochrane · systematic review · CD010036
Effectiveness of posterior decompression techniques compared with conventional laminectomy for lumbar stenosis
Overdevest, GM, Jacobs, W, Vleggeert‐Lankamp, C, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2015 · Cochrane Library
Back and NeckAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
18
current version
GRADE rated
17
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 1 · 5.6%Very low 6 · 33.3%Low 11 · 61.1%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Summary of findings: bilateral laminotomy compared with conventional laminectomy
Population: patients with lumbar stenosis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Standardized Disability Index (0 to 100) Bilateral laminotomy compared with conventional laminectomy Disability scores converted to 0 to 100 scale to allow for comparison of different disability scales (RDQ, ODI) Summary of findings: bilateral laminotomy vs conventional laminectomy | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 294 participants | Very low |
Satisfactory recovery Bilateral laminotomy compared with conventional laminectomy Satisfactory recovery was defined as 'good' or 'excellent' self‐perceived recovery Summary of findings: bilateral laminotomy vs conventional laminectomy | OR 5.69 [2.55, 12.71] | 2 studies · 223 participants | Low |
VAS leg (0 to 10) Bilateral laminotomy compared with conventional laminectomy Summary of findings: bilateral laminotomy vs conventional laminectomy | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 223 participants | Very low |
VAS back (0 to 10) Unilateral laminotomy compared with conventional laminectomy Summary of findings: bilateral laminotomy vs conventional laminectomy | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 223 participants | Low |
Incidence of postoperative instability Summary of findings: bilateral laminotomy vs conventional laminectomy | OR 0.1 [0.02, 0.55] | 3 studies · 294 participants | Low |
Incidence of perioperative complications Summary of findings: bilateral laminotomy vs conventional laminectomy | OR 0.33 [0.07, 1.59] | 3 studies · 293 participants | Low |
Summary of findings: unilateral laminotomy compared with conventional laminectomy
Population: patients with lumbar stenosis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Standardised Disability Index (0 to 100) Unilateral laminotomy compared with conventional laminectomy Disability scores converted to 0 to 100 scale to allow for comparison of different disability scales (RDQ, ODI, JOA) Summary of findings: unilateral laminotomy vs conventional laminectomy | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 166 participants | Low |
Satisfactory recovery Unilateral laminotomy compared with conventional laminectomy Satisfactory recovery was defined as 'good' or 'excellent' self‐perceived recovery Summary of findings: unilateral laminotomy vs conventional laminectomy | OR 1.04 [0.37, 2.98] | 1 study · 73 participants | Low |
VAS leg (0 to 10) Unilateral laminotomy compared with conventional laminectomy Summary of findings: unilateral laminotomy vs conventional laminectomy | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Low |
VAS back (0 to 10) Unilateral laminotomy compared with conventional laminectomy Summary of findings: unilateral laminotomy vs conventional laminectomy | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Very low |
Incidence of postoperative instability Summary of findings: unilateral laminotomy vs conventional laminectomy | OR 0.28 [0.07, 1.15] | 3 studies · 166 participants | Low |
Incidence of perioperative complications Summary of findings: unilateral laminotomy vs conventional laminectomy | OR 0.73 [0.24, 2.2] | 3 studies · 173 participants | Low |
Summary of findings: split‐spinous process laminotomy compared with conventional laminectomy
Population: patients with lumbar stenosis
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Standardised Disability Index (0 to 100) Split‐spinous process laminotomy compared with conventional laminectomy Disability scores converted to 0 to 100 scale to allow for comparison of different disability scales (RDQ, ODI, JOA) Summary of findings: split‐spinous process laminotomy vs conventional laminectomy | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 139 participants | Low |
Satisfactory recovery Split‐spinous process laminotomy compared with conventional laminectomy Satisfactory recovery was defined as 'good' or 'excellent' self‐perceived recovery Summary of findings: split‐spinous process laminotomy vs conventional laminectomy | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |
VAS leg (0 to 10) Split‐spinous process laminotomy compared with conventional laminectomy Summary of findings: split‐spinous process laminotomy vs conventional laminectomy | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 223 participants | Very low |
VAS back (0 to 10) Unilateral laminotomy compared with conventional laminectomy Summary of findings: split‐spinous process laminotomy vs conventional laminectomy | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 107 participants | Very low |
Incidence of postoperative instability Summary of findings: split‐spinous process laminotomy vs conventional laminectomy | no estimate extracted | NR | Very low |
Incidence of perioperative complications Summary of findings: split‐spinous process laminotomy vs conventional laminectomy | OR 1.21 [0.2, 7.16] | 3 studies · 141 participants | Low |