Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 26, 2026
Author Spotlight: Scope of LE-ULBD as a Safe, Effective, and Minimally Invasive Approach to Treat Lumbar Spinal Stenosis
Published on: February 9, 2024
Effectiveness of surgery versus conservative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis: A system review and meta-analysis
Xin-Long Ma1, Xing-Wen Zhao2, Jian-Xiong Ma1
1Orthopaedics Institute, Tianjin Hospital, Tianjin 300050, PR China.
Purpose:
Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) was a common degenerative disease that affected the lumbar spine function and quality of life, which can be treated both surgery and conservative treatment. We did this study to compare the effectiveness of surgery versus conservative treatment for LSS.
Methods:
We searched PubMed as well as other databases in September.18th.2016. Randomized controlled trials compared surgery versus conservative treatment for patients with LSS were enrolled. Outcomes and complications were collected with data selection criteria and analyzed with Review Manager Version 5.3.
Results:
Nine RCTs (14 articles) and 1658 patients were included, and three of them were high-quality studies. At first 6 months after treatment, there were no significant differences for ODI scores between two therapeutic groups (P > 0.05), however, surgery group showed significant higher ODI scores at one year (P < 0.05) and two years (P < 0.05). Two studies reported no significant difference between laminectomy and conservative treatment for the SF-36 physical function scores at 3 months, 6 months, 12 months and 24 months (P > 0.05) and two studies reported patients were satisfied with X-STOP implanted at six weeks, six months, and one year. No statistical differences for the adverse events intra-operation or within 72 h (P > 0.05) between surgery and non-surgery groups. Moreover, subgroup analysis showed there were no safety differences between laminectomy and conservative treatment, X-STOP and conservative treatment at early stage of duration. However, the surgical groups had higher complication rates than non-surgery groups throughout the follow-up duration.
Conclusion:
Surgery groups showed better late clinical outcomes after one year and higher complication rate throughout the follow-up duration, although it had no significant differences compared with conservative groups in the first six months post-treatment. However, there was no evidence that a definitive method could be firmly recommended to LSS patients. Further researches were needed to achieve high quality and credible results.
