Meta-Analysis of Circumferential Fusion Versus Posterolateral Fusion in Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

被引:20
|
作者
Liu, Xiao-Yang
Wang, Yi-Peng [1 ]
Qiu, Gui-Xing
Weng, Xi-Sheng
Yu, Bin
机构
[1] Chinese Acad Med Sci, Dept Orthoped Surg, Peking Union Med Coll Hosp, Beijing 100730, Peoples R China
来源
JOURNAL OF SPINAL DISORDERS & TECHNIQUES | 2014年 / 27卷 / 08期
关键词
meta-analysis; circumferential fusion; posterolateral fusion; lumbar fusion; spondylolisthesis; POSTERIOR INTERBODY FUSION; GRADE ISTHMIC SPONDYLOLISTHESIS; UPDATED METHOD GUIDELINES; PEDICLE SCREW FIXATION; DEGENERATIVE DISEASE; SPONDYLOLYTIC SPONDYLOLISTHESIS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS; SPINE; ANTERIOR; OUTCOMES;
D O I
10.1097/BSD.0000000000000116
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
Study Design: Literature review and meta-analysis. Summary of Background Data: Posterolateral fusion (PLF) and circumferential fusion (CF) were widely used in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis. There was a great controversy over the preferred fusion method. Objective: We performed a meta-analysis for determining which fusion method was better in lumbar spondylolisthesis. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Collaboration Library from January 1960 to December 2013. Comparative studies were selected according to eligibility criteria. Weighed mean differences (WMDs) and risk differences were calculated. The final strength of evidence was expressed as different levels recommended by the GRADE Working Group. Results: Eight comparative studies were identified. There was less evidence that no significant difference was found between CF and PLF for clinical satisfaction [odds ratio (OR), 0.63; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.30, 1.32; P = 0.22)] and for complication rate (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.23, 1.76; P = 0.39). The PLF was more effective than the CF for the reduction of complication rate for patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.23, 0.86; P = 0.02). There was no significant difference for fusion rate, reoperation rate, operating time, and blood loss. Subanalysis showed that the CF can increase the fusion rate of patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis (OR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.01, 1.00; P = 0.05). PLF was more effective than CF for the reduction in operating time (WMD = -75.68; 95% CI, -99.00, -52.37; P < 0.00001), and CF was more effective than PLF for the restoration of segment lordosis, disk height, and spondylolisthesis. Conclusions: There was really no difference for clinical satisfaction, complication rate, fusion rate, reoperation rate, operating time, and blood loss. PLF can reduce complication rate and operating time. CF can improve fusion rate for individuals with isthmic spondylolisthesis and restore lumbar alignment. The level of evidence was low.
引用
收藏
页码:E282 / E293
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [11] Outcome of posterior lumbar interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion for spondylolytic spondylolisthesis
    Madan, S
    Boeree, NR
    SPINE, 2002, 27 (14) : 1536 - 1542
  • [12] Posterior lumbar interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion in adult isthmic spondylolisthesis
    Ekman, Per
    Moller, Hans
    Tullberg, Tycho
    Neumann, Pavel
    Hedlund, Rune
    SPINE, 2007, 32 (20) : 2178 - 2183
  • [13] Posterolateral Versus Posterior Interbody Fusion in Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis
    Urquhart, Jennifer C.
    Alnaghmoosh, Nabeel
    Gurr, Kevin R.
    Bailey, Stewart I.
    Tallon, Corinne
    Dehens, Shauna
    Arellano, M. Patricia Rosas
    Bailey, Christopher S.
    CLINICAL SPINE SURGERY, 2018, 31 (09): : E446 - E452
  • [14] Circumferential fusion with open versus percutaneous posterior fusion for lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis
    Karamian, Brian A.
    Conaway, William K.
    Mao, Jennifer Z.
    Canseco, Jose A.
    Levy, Hannah A.
    Lee, Joseph K.
    Hilibrand, Alan S.
    Kepler, Christopher K.
    Vaccaro, Alexander R.
    Schroeder, Gregory D.
    CLINICAL NEUROLOGY AND NEUROSURGERY, 2021, 209
  • [15] Decompression Alone Versus Decompression and Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: A Meta-Analysis
    Chen, Zihao
    Xie, Peigen
    Feng, Feng
    Chhantyal, Kishor
    Yang, Yang
    Rong, Limin
    WORLD NEUROSURGERY, 2018, 111 : E158 - E170
  • [16] Comparison of Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Posterolateral Fusion for the Treatment of Isthmic Spondylolisthesis
    Luo, Jiaquan
    Cao, Kai
    Yu, Ting
    Li, Liangping
    Huang, Sheng
    Gong, Ming
    Cao, Cong
    Zou, Xuenong
    CLINICAL SPINE SURGERY, 2017, 30 (07): : E915 - E922
  • [17] Meta-analysis of instrumented posterior interbody fusion versus instrumented posterolateral fusion in the lumbar spine A review
    Zhou, Zhi-Jie
    Zhao, Feng-Dong
    Fang, Xiang-Qian
    Zhao, Xing
    Fan, Shun-Wu
    JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY-SPINE, 2011, 15 (03) : 295 - 310
  • [18] Comparison of Posterolateral Fusion and Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in the Treatment of Lumbar Spondylolithesis: A Meta-Analysis
    Chen, Ying-Chun
    Zhang, Lin
    Li, Er-Nan
    Ding, Li-Xiang
    Zhang, Gen-Ai
    Hou, Yu
    Yuan, Wei
    JOURNAL OF INVESTIGATIVE SURGERY, 2019, 32 (04) : 290 - 297
  • [19] Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in lumbar spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    de Kunder, Suzanne L.
    van Kuijk, Sander M. J.
    Rijkers, Kim
    Caelers, Inge J. M. H.
    van Hemert, Wouter L. W.
    de Bie, Rob A.
    van Santbrink, Henk
    SPINE JOURNAL, 2017, 17 (11): : 1712 - 1721
  • [20] Posterolateral Fusion Versus Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
    Said, Elsayed
    Abdel-Wanis, Mohamed E.
    Ameen, Mohamed
    Sayed, Ali A.
    Mosallam, Khaled H.
    Ahmed, Ahmed M.
    Tammam, Hamdy
    GLOBAL SPINE JOURNAL, 2022, 12 (05) : 990 - 1002