Zhao Yize, Huang Yong, Wang Zhe, Song Yueming, Feng Ganjun
Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Orthopedic Research Institute, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Eur Spine J. 2025 May;34(5):2002-2014. doi: 10.1007/s00586-025-08788-y. Epub 2025 Mar 20.
This study aimed to investigate which of the decompression alone (DA), decompression with fusion (DF), and decompression with dynamic stabilization (DS) produced the most favorable outcome for patients with low-grade degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (LDLS).
Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science were searched for all studies published before October 1, 2023. A review and data analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of three interventions was performed by Stata (version 17.0) and Review Manager (version 5.4).
21 RCT studies with 3192 patients were included in the network meta-analysis. DA was superior to DF (MD = -92.05, P < 0.05; MD = -295.57, P < 0.05; MD = -2.19, P < 0.05; RR = 0.54, P < 0.05, respectively) and DS (MD = -35.69, P < 0.05; MD = -100.7, P < 0.05; MD = -295.57, P < 0.05; MD = -2.19, P < 0.05; RR = 0.54, P < 0.05, respectively) in reducing operative time, intraoperative blood loss, length of hospital stay, and postoperative adverse events. DS was superior to DF in reducing operative time, intraoperative blood loss, and length of hospital stay (MD = -56.35, P < 0.05; MD = -194.84, P < 0.05; MD = -1.12, P < 0.05, respectively). DF was superior to DA in reducing reoperations (RR = 0.55, p < 0.05). DF was superior to DA (MD = -1.44, p < 0.05) and DS (MD = -0.41, p < 0.05) in controlling the progression of olisthesis.
DA was the most favorable treatment for LDLS, reducing operative time, bleeding, hospital stay, and postoperative complications. DF outperformed DA in reducing reoperation rates. Although DS showed benefits in operative time and bleeding compared to DF, it did not offer a significant advantage over DA.
本研究旨在探讨单纯减压(DA)、减压融合(DF)和减压动态稳定(DS)三种治疗方式中,哪一种对低度退行性腰椎滑脱(LDLS)患者的治疗效果最佳。
检索了截至2023年10月1日在PubMed、Embase、Cochrane和Web of Science上发表的所有研究。使用Stata(版本17.0)和Review Manager(版本5.4)对三种干预措施的所有随机对照试验(RCT)进行综述和数据分析。
网络荟萃分析纳入了21项RCT研究,共3192例患者。在减少手术时间、术中出血量、住院时间和术后不良事件方面,DA优于DF(MD分别为-92.05,P < 0.05;MD为-295.57,P < 0.05;MD为-2.19,P < 0.05;RR = 0.54,P < 0.05)和DS(MD分别为-35.69,P < 0.05;MD为-100.7,P < 0.05;MD为-295.57,P < 0.05;MD为-2.19,P < 0.05;RR = 0.54,P < 0.05)。在减少手术时间、术中出血量和住院时间方面,DS优于DF(MD分别为-56.35,P < 0.05;MD为-194.84,P < 0.05;MD为-1.12,P < 0.05)。在减少再次手术方面,DF优于DA(RR = 0.55,p < 0.05)。在控制滑脱进展方面,DF优于DA(MD = -1.44,p < 0.05)和DS(MD = -0.41,p < 0.05)。
DA是治疗LDLS的最佳方法,可减少手术时间、出血、住院时间和术后并发症。DF在降低再次手术率方面优于DA。尽管与DF相比,DS在手术时间和出血方面有优势,但与DA相比并无显著优势。