A systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical efficacy of anterior lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of orthopedic spondylolisthesis

被引:4
|
作者
Xu, Xiyan [1 ]
Li, Xiuyang [2 ]
Yang, Tao [3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Chinese Acad Sci, Peoples Hosp Chongqing 5, Dept Orthoped Surg, Chongqing Renji Hosp, Chongqing, Peoples R China
[2] Seventh Peoples Hosp Chongqing, Dept Orthoped, Chongqing, Peoples R China
[3] Chongqing Univ, Chongqing Municipal Clin Res Ctr Geriatr Dis, Gorges Hosp 3, Chongqing, Peoples R China
关键词
Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF); orthopedic; spondylolisthesis; clinical efficacy; meta-analysis; POSTEROLATERAL FUSION; INSTRUMENTATION; FIXATION; OUTCOMES;
D O I
10.21037/apm-21-3330
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Many studies have reported the advantages of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), but the technique is associated with many complications involving nerve injury. This meta-analysis compared the outcome indicators associated with 2 fusion methods, namely, ALIF and posterolateral fusion (PLF). The clinical efficacy of ALIF was explored to provide evidence-based data for the determination of surgical methods for treating orthopedic spondylolisthesis. Methods: Relevant literatures were retrieved from the CBMdisc, CNKI, PubMed, EBSCO, MEDLINE, Science Direct, and Cochrane databases. Keywords in Chinese and English included spondylolisthesis, spine, surgical treatment, ALIF, and PLF. Data including the visual analogue scale (VAS) score, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), time of operation, and fusion rate were collated. According to Cochrane manual, Rev Man 5.3 software was used for analysis. Results: A total of 6 articles were included in this meta-analysis. There were significant differences in intraoperative blood loss [Z=3.34; mean difference (MD) =-142.54; 95% confidence interval (CI): -226.17 to -58.92; P=0.0008] and operation time (Z=5.45; MD =-54.31; 95% CI: -73.83 to -34.79; P<0.00001) between patients in the ALIF group and patients in the PLF group. Significant differences were observed in VAS score (Z=3.55; MD =-1.04; 95% CI: -1.62 to -0.47; P=0.0004) nor ODI score (Z=3.07; MD =-6.33; 95% CI: -10.37 to -2.28; P=0.002) between the ALIF group and the PLF group. Interestingly, there was a significant difference in the hospitalization time between the 2 groups (Z=2.39; MD=-1.48; 95% CI: -2.70 to -0.27; P=0.02). Bone fusion rate was no significantly different between patients in the ALIF group and patients in the PLF group [Z=0.43; odds ratio (OR) =0.42; 95% CI: 0.01 to 21.82; P=0.66]. Discussion: The results of this meta-analysis confirmed that ALIF can effectively improve the degree of spondylolisthesis, provide superior structural stability, and ensure surgical efficacy.
引用
收藏
页码:12607 / 12617
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Efficacy and Safety of Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Liu, Ai-Feng
    Guo, Tian-Ci
    Chen, Ji-Xin
    Yu, Wei-Jie
    Feng, Hui-Chuan
    Niu, Pu-Yu
    Zhai, Jing-Bo
    [J]. WORLD NEUROSURGERY, 2022, 158 : E964 - E974
  • [2] Anterior lumbar interbody fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion - systematic review and meta-analysis
    Phan, Kevin
    Thayaparan, Ganesha K.
    Mobbs, Ralph J.
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY, 2015, 29 (05) : 705 - 711
  • [3] Endoscopic Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Brown, Nolan J.
    Pennington, Zach
    Kuo, Cathleen C.
    Lopez, Alexander M.
    Picton, Bryce
    Solomon, Sean
    Nguyen, Oanh
    Yang, Chenyi
    Tantry, Evelyne K.
    Shahin, Hania
    Gendreau, Julian
    Albano, Stephen
    Pham, Martin H.
    Oh, Michael Y.
    [J]. ASIAN SPINE JOURNAL, 2023,
  • [4] Meta-analysis of the clinical efficacy and safety of oblique lateral interbody fusion and transforaminal interbody fusion in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis
    Sun, Wen-xi
    Liu, Hao-nan
    Chen, Meng-tong
    Lin, Yong-peng
    Wang, Hong-shen
    Chen, Bo-lai
    [J]. EFORT OPEN REVIEWS, 2022, 7 (09) : 663 - 670
  • [5] A systematic review with meta-analysis of posterior interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion in lumbar spondylolisthesis
    Xiaoyang Liu
    Yipeng Wang
    Guixing Qiu
    Xisheng Weng
    Bin Yu
    [J]. European Spine Journal, 2014, 23 : 43 - 56
  • [6] A systematic review with meta-analysis of posterior interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion in lumbar spondylolisthesis
    Liu, Xiaoyang
    Wang, Yipeng
    Qiu, Guixing
    Weng, Xisheng
    Yu, Bin
    [J]. EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL, 2014, 23 (01) : 43 - 56
  • [7] 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
    [J]. SPINE JOURNAL, 2017, 17 (11): : 1712 - 1721
  • [8] Efficacy of oblique lumbar interbody fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Xi-yong Li
    Yun-lu Wang
    Su Yang
    Chang-sheng Liao
    Song-feng Li
    Peng-yong Han
    Peng-fei Han
    [J]. Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, 2023, 143 : 5657 - 5670
  • [9] Efficacy of oblique lumbar interbody fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Li, Xi-yong
    Wang, Yun-lu
    Yang, Su
    Liao, Chang-sheng
    Li, Song-feng
    Han, Peng-yong
    Han, Peng-fei
    [J]. ARCHIVES OF ORTHOPAEDIC AND TRAUMA SURGERY, 2023, 143 (09) : 5657 - 5670
  • [10] Effect of interbody fusion compared with posterolateral fusion on lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Dantas, Francois
    Rolemberg Dantas, Fernando Luiz
    Botelho, Ricardo Vieira
    [J]. SPINE JOURNAL, 2022, 22 (05): : 756 - 768