Suppr超能文献

后路融合与椎间融合治疗腰椎退行性滑脱症的疗效比较:系统评价和荟萃分析。

Effect of interbody fusion compared with posterolateral fusion on lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

机构信息

Department of Neurosurgery, Biocor Instituto, Nova Lima, Minas Gerais, Brazil; Faculdade de Ciências Médicas de Minas Gerais, Feluma Post-Graduation, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil; Post-Graduation in Health Sciences, IAMSPE, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.

Department of Neurosurgery, Biocor Instituto, Nova Lima, Minas Gerais, Brazil; Post-Graduation in Health Sciences, IAMSPE, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.

出版信息

Spine J. 2022 May;22(5):756-768. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2021.12.001. Epub 2021 Dec 9.

Abstract

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis is a relatively common pathology, and surgical treatment is an option in selected cases. The common use of anterior column support by interbody fusion (IBF) has not been adequately studied.

PURPOSE

The primary objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the functional and surgical outcomes after posterolateral fusion (PLF) and IBF for the treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis.

STUDY DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to identify studies analyzing the effects of IBF compared to those of instrumented PLF on degenerative spondylolisthesis.

PATIENT SAMPLE

A total of 1,063 patients were included in the analysis. Of them, 470 patients were treated with PLF and 593 with IBF.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The outcomes analyzed were the visual analog scale and numerical rating scale scores for back pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) score, 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (physical and mental components) score, blood loss amount, surgical time, hospital stay duration, fusion rate, lumbar lordosis, sacral slope, and postoperative complications.

METHODS

A search was conducted using the MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Google Scholar databases for studies published between January 1985 and February 2021. Both retrospective and prospective studies that compared between IBF and PLF were included.

RESULTS

A total of 2,819 articles were screened, and 38 full-text articles were selected for a detailed investigation, of which 12 articles were found to match all the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. There was an improvement in the sacral slope (mean difference [MD] = 3 [95% confidence interval {CI} = 0.83-5.17]) and fusion rate (odds ratio [OR] = 0.47 [95% CI = 0.26-0.86]) in the IBF group. The incidence of neural injury was higher in the IBF group (OR = 0.28 [95% CI = 0.13-0.60]) than in the PLF group. There were no differences in the back pain scores, ODI, SF-36 score, blood loss amount, surgical time, hospital stay duration, lumbar lordosis, infection, and durotomy between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

IBF for the treatment of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis showed better results in terms of the fusion rate and sacral slope, but which did not translate into better clinical outcomes. Further randomized and prospective studies are necessary to elucidate the optimal therapeutic options.

摘要

背景

腰椎退行性滑脱是一种相对常见的病理,在某些情况下可选择手术治疗。椎间融合术(IBF)普遍用于前柱支撑,但尚未充分研究其效果。

目的

本系统评价和荟萃分析的主要目的是比较后路融合(PLF)和 IBF 治疗退行性滑脱的功能和手术结果。

研究设计

系统评价和荟萃分析,以确定比较 IBF 与器械辅助 PLF 对退行性滑脱影响的研究。

患者样本

共纳入 1063 名患者。其中,470 名患者接受 PLF 治疗,593 名患者接受 IBF 治疗。

结局测量

分析的结局包括背痛的视觉模拟评分和数字评分量表、Oswestry 残疾指数(ODI)、36 项简短健康调查问卷(SF-36)评分、12 项简短健康调查问卷(身体和精神成分)评分、出血量、手术时间、住院时间、融合率、腰椎前凸角、骶骨倾斜度以及术后并发症。

方法

使用 MEDLINE、Cochrane 和 Google Scholar 数据库检索 1985 年 1 月至 2021 年 2 月期间发表的研究。纳入比较 IBF 和 PLF 的回顾性和前瞻性研究。

结果

共筛选出 2819 篇文章,有 38 篇全文文章被选中进行详细调查,其中 12 篇文章符合所有纳入标准,并被纳入荟萃分析。IBF 组的骶骨倾斜度(平均差异 [MD] = 3 [95%置信区间 {CI} = 0.83-5.17])和融合率(优势比 [OR] = 0.47 [95% CI = 0.26-0.86])更高。IBF 组的神经损伤发生率更高(OR = 0.28 [95% CI = 0.13-0.60])。两组的背痛评分、ODI、SF-36 评分、出血量、手术时间、住院时间、腰椎前凸角、感染和硬脊膜切开术无差异。

结论

IBF 治疗腰椎退行性滑脱在融合率和骶骨倾斜度方面效果更好,但并未转化为更好的临床结局。需要进一步的随机和前瞻性研究来阐明最佳治疗选择。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验