Martin C Ryan, Gruszczynski Adam T, Braunsfurth Heike A, Fallatah Salah M, O'Neil Joseph, Wai Eugene K
University of Ottawa, Faculty of Medicine, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007 Jul 15;32(16):1791-8. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3180bc219e.
Systematic review.
To identify whether there is an advantage to instrumented or noninstrumented spinal fusion over decompression alone for patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.
The operative management of degenerative spondylolisthesis includes spinal decompression with or without instrumented or noninstrumented spinal fusion. Evidence on the operative management of degenerative spondylolisthesis is still divisive.
Relevant RCT and comparative observational studies between 1966 and June 2005 were identified. Abstracted outcomes included clinical outcome, reoperation rate, and solid fusion status. Analyses were separated into: 1) fusion versus decompression alone and 2) instrumented fusion versus noninstrumented fusion.
Thirteen studies were included. The studies were generally of low methodologic quality. A satisfactory clinical outcome was significantly more likely with fusion than with decompression alone (relative risk, 1.40; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.89; P < 0.05). The use of adjunctive instrumentation significantly increased the probability of attaining solid fusion (relative risk, 1.37; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.75; P < 0.05), but no significant improvement in clinical outcome was recorded (relative risk, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.92-1.54). There was a nonsignificant trend toward lower repeat operations with fusion compared with both decompression alone and instrumented fusion.
Spinal fusion may lead to a better clinical outcome than decompression alone. No conclusion about the clinical benefit of instrumenting a spinal fusion could be made. However, there is moderate evidence that the use of instrumentation improves the chance of achieving solid fusion.
系统评价。
确定对于退行性腰椎滑脱患者,与单纯减压相比,器械辅助或非器械辅助脊柱融合术是否具有优势。
退行性腰椎滑脱的手术治疗包括伴有或不伴有器械辅助或非器械辅助脊柱融合术的脊柱减压。关于退行性腰椎滑脱手术治疗的证据仍存在分歧。
确定1966年至2005年6月期间的相关随机对照试验(RCT)和比较性观察研究。提取的结果包括临床结局、再次手术率和牢固融合状态。分析分为:1)融合术与单纯减压术;2)器械辅助融合术与非器械辅助融合术。
纳入13项研究。这些研究的方法学质量普遍较低。与单纯减压相比,融合术更有可能获得满意的临床结局(相对危险度,1.40;95%可信区间,1.04 - 1.89;P < 0.05)。使用辅助器械显著增加了获得牢固融合的概率(相对危险度,1.37;95%可信区间,1.07 - 1.75;P < 0.05),但未记录到临床结局有显著改善(相对危险度,1.19;95%可信区间,0.92 - 1.54)。与单纯减压术和器械辅助融合术相比,融合术的再次手术率有降低的趋势,但差异无统计学意义。
脊柱融合术可能比单纯减压术带来更好的临床结局。关于器械辅助脊柱融合术的临床益处无法得出结论。然而,有中等证据表明使用器械可提高获得牢固融合的机会。