Trivedi Nikunj N, Wilson Sean M, Puchi Luis A, Lebl Darren R
University Hospitals/Case Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA.
Global Spine J. 2018 Feb;8(1):95-102. doi: 10.1177/2192568217734876. Epub 2018 Feb 6.
Narrative review.
The etiology of adjacent segment degeneration (ASDeg) and adjacent segment disease (ASDz) after lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) remains controversial. The aim of this narrative review was to provide an evidence-based analysis of the peer-reviewed literature on clinical studies of ASDeg and ASDz after LIF.
A review was performed utilizing Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Two reviewers independently extracted relevant data from each included study. Statistical comparisons were made when appropriate.
Nine articles that matched the inclusion and exclusion criteria were included. All the studies were Level III and retrospective. MINORS scores ranged from 9.5 to 13. Clinical outcomes were assessed in all 9 studies, but only 6 studies used validated outcomes measures. Only 6 studies reported values for both ASDeg and ASDz. ASDeg alone was reported in 3 studies. Due to the variability in the criteria for designation as ASDz (different radiographic modalities) and ASDeg (different outcomes measures), we were unable to calculate frequency-weighted mean values or compare the various surgical techniques.
This review highlights the various limitations of the current literature on ASDeg and ASDz after lumbar fusion, specifically the absence of a rigorous definition and classification system and an extraordinary heterogeneity in methodology. There needs to be a fundamental shift in the current ASDeg and ASDz research landscape, toward a consensus, so that the high-level clinical research that is essential for treatment of spinal pathology may become available.
叙述性综述。
腰椎椎间融合术(LIF)后相邻节段退变(ASDeg)和相邻节段疾病(ASDz)的病因仍存在争议。本叙述性综述的目的是对经同行评审的关于LIF术后ASDeg和ASDz临床研究的文献进行循证分析。
利用Medline、Embase和Cochrane数据库进行综述。两名评审员独立从每项纳入研究中提取相关数据。在适当情况下进行统计学比较。
纳入了9篇符合纳入和排除标准的文章。所有研究均为III级且为回顾性研究。MINORS评分范围为9.5至13。所有9项研究均评估了临床结局,但只有6项研究使用了经过验证的结局指标。只有6项研究报告了ASDeg和ASDz的值。3项研究仅报告了ASDeg。由于ASDz(不同的影像学方式)和ASDeg(不同的结局指标)的定义标准存在差异,我们无法计算频率加权平均值或比较各种手术技术。
本综述突出了当前关于腰椎融合术后ASDeg和ASDz文献的各种局限性,特别是缺乏严格的定义和分类系统以及方法学上的显著异质性。当前ASDeg和ASDz的研究格局需要发生根本性转变,达成共识,以便获得对于脊柱疾病治疗至关重要的高水平临床研究。