Houston Methodist Orthopedic and Sports Medicine, Houston.
Texas A&M University Health Science Center College of Medicine, Bryan, TX.
Clin Spine Surg. 2022 Jun 1;35(5):213-221. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000001266. Epub 2021 Oct 22.
Systematic review.
This systematic review compares radiographic and clinical outcomes between instrumented and noninstrumented posterolateral lumbar spine fusions for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.
The optimal method of fusion for instability from degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis remains to be an area of debate amongst spine surgeons. There are no prior comprehensive systematic review of comparative studies that compares outcomes between instrumented and noninstrumented posterolateral spine fusions for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.
A systematic review was registered with PROSPERO and performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using the PubMed, SCOPUS, and Ovid MEDLINE databases. All level I-III comparative studies published in the English language investigating the clinical outcomes between instrumented and noninstrumented posterolateral spine fusions for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis were included.
Seven studies (672 patients, 274 noninstrumented, 398 instrumented) were analyzed. One randomized study was level I evidence, 2 randomized studies were level II, and 4 nonrandomized studies were level III. Mean follow-up ranged from 1.4 to 5.9 years. Instrumented patients had a higher rate of solid fusion (87.6% vs. 77.1%, P=0.023) and a lower rate of definitive pseudarthrosis (5.3% vs. 19.9%, P<0.001). However, there was no difference in overall functional improvement at final follow-up between the 2 treatment groups (75.0% vs. 81.7%, P=0.258). In addition, there was no difference in reoperation or complication rates.
For the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis, there are significantly higher rates of fusion among patients undergoing instrumented posterolateral fusion compared with noninstrumented posterolateral fusion. However, there is no difference in overall functional improvement, pain-related outcome scores, reoperation rates, or complication rates between the 2 treatment groups.
Level III-systematic review of level I-III studies.
系统评价。
本系统评价比较了治疗退行性腰椎滑脱症后路器械与非器械固定融合的影像学和临床结果。
对于退行性腰椎滑脱症引起的不稳定,最佳的融合方法仍然是脊柱外科医生争论的焦点。目前尚无针对退行性腰椎滑脱症后路器械与非器械融合治疗结果的比较研究的综合系统评价。
根据系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA)指南,在 PROSPERO 上进行了系统评价,并使用 PubMed、SCOPUS 和 Ovid MEDLINE 数据库进行了检索。纳入了所有发表于英文期刊、探讨治疗退行性腰椎滑脱症后路器械与非器械融合的临床结果的 I-III 级比较研究。
共分析了 7 项研究(672 例患者,274 例非器械组,398 例器械组)。1 项为随机对照研究,为 I 级证据,2 项为随机对照研究,为 II 级证据,4 项为非随机对照研究,为 III 级证据。平均随访时间为 1.4 至 5.9 年。器械组患者融合率更高(87.6%比 77.1%,P=0.023),确定性假关节发生率更低(5.3%比 19.9%,P<0.001)。然而,两组患者最终随访时的整体功能改善程度没有差异(75.0%比 81.7%,P=0.258)。此外,两组患者的再手术率和并发症发生率没有差异。
对于退行性腰椎滑脱症的治疗,后路器械融合的融合率明显高于非器械融合。然而,两组患者的整体功能改善、疼痛相关结局评分、再手术率和并发症发生率没有差异。
III 级-对 I-III 级研究的系统评价。