Prevalence of lumbar spinal stenosis in general and clinical populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis
European Spine Journal , Volume 29 - Issue 9 p. 2143- 2163
Purpose To estimate the prevalence of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) in adults, identifed by clinical symptoms and/or radiological criteria. Methods Systematic review of the literature. Pooled prevalence estimates by care setting and clinical or radiological diagnostic criteria were calculated and plotted [PROSPERO ID: CRD42018109640]. Results In total, 41 papers reporting on 55 study samples were included. The overall risk of bias was considered high in two-thirds of the papers. The mean prevalence, based on a clinical diagnosis of LSS in the general population, was 11% (95% CI 4–18%), 25% (95% CI 19–32%) in patients from primary care, 29% (95% CI 22–36%) in patients from secondary care and 39% (95% CI 39–39%) in patients from mixed primary and secondary care. Evaluating the presence of LSS based on radiological diagnosis, the pooled prevalence was 11% (95% CI 5–18%) in the asymptomatic population, 38% (95% CI −10 to 85%) in the general population, 15% (95% CI 13–18%) in patients from primary care, 32% (95% CI 22–41%) in patients from secondary care and 21% (95% CI 16–26%) in a mixed population from primary and secondary care. Conclusions The mean prevalence estimates based on clinical diagnoses vary between 11 and 39%, and the estimates based on radiological diagnoses similarly vary between 11 and 38%. The results are based on studies with high risk of bias, and the pooled prevalence estimates should therefore be interpreted with caution. With an growing elderly population, there is a need for future low risk-of-bias research clarifying clinical and radiological diagnostic criteria of lumbar spinal stenosis.
|European Spine Journal|
|Organisation||Department of General Practice|
Jensen, R.K., Jensen, T.S., Koes, B.W, & Hartvigsen, J. (2020). Prevalence of lumbar spinal stenosis in general and clinical populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. European Spine Journal, 29(9), 2143–2163. doi:10.1007/s00586-020-06339-1