You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
PEDro systematic review update
No clinically important benefits of surgery over rehabilitation for lumbar spinal stenosis (PEDro synthesis)
  1. Gustavo C Machado1,
  2. Manuela L Ferreira1,2
  1. 1The George Institute for Global Health, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  2. 2Institute of Bone and Joint Research, The Kolling Institute, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Gustavo C Machado, The George Institute for Global Health, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney. P.O. Box M201, Missenden Road, Sydney, NSW 2050, Australia; gmachado{at}georgeinstitute.org.au

https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2016-097238

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    ▸ Zaina F, Tomkins-Lane C, Carragee E, et al. Surgical versus non-surgical treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016;(1):CD010264.

    This section features a recent systematic review that is indexed on PEDro, the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (http://www.pedro.org.au). PEDro is a free, web-based database of evidence relevant to physiotherapy.

    Background

    Lumbar spinal stenosis affects over 200 000 people in the USA and is the most common indication for spine surgery in older adults.1 Nearly 38 000 surgical procedures are performed every year, and decompression is often the surgical procedure of choice.2 Some surgeons, however, decide to perform fusion, though this procedure has been associated with an increased risk of complications and resource use.2 We currently lack placebo-controlled trials of surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis,3 thus the evidence to support surgery for this population comes largely from trials comparing surgery with non-surgical treatments.4

    Aim

    The aim of the review was to investigate the effects of surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis compared with non-surgical treatments. For this PEDro synthesis, we updated the pooled analyses by including data of a …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors GCM selected the systematic review. GCM wrote the first draft of the manuscript. MLF contributed to interpretation of the data and revision of the final manuscript.

    • Competing interests GCM is supported by an international postgraduate research scholarship from the Australian Department of Education and Training. MLF is supported by a Sydney Medical Foundation Fellowship from the Sydney Medical School.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.