Lumbar Disc Replacement Versus Interbody Fusion: Meta-analysis of Complications and Clinical Outcomes.

BACKGROUND

Lumbar spinal fusion is a commonly performed operation with relatively high complication and revision surgery rates. Lumbar disc replacement is less commonly performed but may have some benefits over spinal fusion. This meta-analysis aims to compare the outcomes of lumbar disc replacement (LDR) versus interbody fusion (IBF), assessing their comparative safety and effectiveness in treating lumbar DDD.

METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar (pages 1-2) were searched up until February 2024. The studied outcomes included operative room (OR) time, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of hospital stay (LOS), complications, reoperations, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), back pain, and leg pain.

RESULTS

Ten studies were included in this meta-analysis, of which six were randomized controlled trials, three were retrospective studies, and one was a prospective study. A total of 1720 patients were included, with 1034 undergoing LDR and 686 undergoing IBF. No statistically significant differences were observed in OR time, EBL, or LOS between the LDR and IBF groups. The analysis also showed no significant differences in the rates of complications, reoperations, and leg pain between the two groups. However, the LDR group demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in mean back pain (p=0.04) compared to the IBF group.

CONCLUSION

Both LDR and IBF procedures offer similar results in managing CLBP, considering OR time, EBL, LOS, complication rates, reoperations, and leg pain, with slight superiority of back pain improvement in LDR. This study supports the use of both procedures in managing degenerative spinal disease.