Effects of posterior lumbar nonfusion surgery with isobar devices versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion surgery on clinical and radiological features in patients with lumbar degenerative diseases: a meta-analysis

被引:15
|
作者
Guan, Jianbin [1 ]
Liu, Tao [1 ]
Li, Wenhao [1 ]
Zhao, He [1 ]
Yang, Kaitan [1 ]
Li, Chuanhong [1 ]
Feng, Ningning [1 ]
Jiang, Guozheng [1 ]
Yang, Yongdong [1 ]
Yu, Xing [1 ]
机构
[1] Beijing Univ Chinese Med, Dongzhimen Hosp, Beijing 100700, Peoples R China
关键词
Isobar device; Lumbar nonfusion surgery; Posterior lumbar interbody fusion; Meta-analysis; ADJACENT SEGMENT DEGENERATION; DYNAMIC STABILIZATION; SPINE; SYSTEM; INSTRUMENTATION; PAIN;
D O I
10.1186/s13018-022-03015-6
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
Purpose: The aim of this study was to systematically evaluate the efficacy of posterior lumbar isobar nonfusion with isobar devices versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in the treatment of patients with lumbar degenerative diseases (LDDs). Materials and method: We performed a literature review and meta-analysis in accordance with the Cochrane methodology. The analysis included a Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation assessments, Jadad Quality Score evaluations, and Risk of Bias in Randomized Studies of Interventions assessments. The PubMed, Ovid, EMBASE, Web of Science, MEDLINE, CNKI, VIP and WanFang databases were searched to collect and compare relevant randomized controlled trials and cohort studies of isobar nonfusion and PLIF in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases. The retrieval time was from database inception to June 2021. Two evaluators independently screened the literature, extracted data, and evaluated the quality of the included studies. Outcome measures of interest included low back pain, disability, and radiological features. The protocol for this systematic review was registered on INPLASY (2021110059) and is available in full on inplasy.com (https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2021-11-0059/). Results: Of the 7 RCTs, 394 patients met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis results showed that isobar nonfusion surgery shortened the surgical duration (P = 0.03), reducing intraoperative bleeding (P = 0.001), retained the ROM of surgical segment (P < 0.00001) and the ROM of the lumbar spine (P < 0.00001), and reduced the incidence of ASD (P = 0.0001). However, no significant difference in the postoperative ODI index (P = 0.81), VAS score of LBP (P = 0.59, VAS score of lower limb pain (P = 0.05, and JOA score (P = 0.27) was noted. Conclusions: Posterior lumbar nonfusion surgery with isobar devices is superior to PLIF in shortening the surgical duration, reducing intraoperative bleeding, retaining the ROM of surgical segments and the lumbar spine to a certain extent, and preventing ASD. Given the possible publication bias, we recommend further large-scale studies.
引用
收藏
页数:14
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] 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
    ARCHIVES OF ORTHOPAEDIC AND TRAUMA SURGERY, 2023, 143 (09) : 5657 - 5670
  • [22] 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
    Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, 2023, 143 : 5657 - 5670
  • [23] Pedicle screws versus cortical screws in posterior lumbar interbody fusion surgery for degenerative spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Chang, Min Cheol
    Choo, Yoo Jin
    Lee, Gun Woo
    SPINE JOURNAL, 2021, 21 (07): : 1126 - 1134
  • [24] Clinical and radiological relationship between posterior lumbar interbody fusion and posterolateral lumbar fusion
    Lidar, Z
    Beaumont, A
    Lifshutz, J
    Maiman, DJ
    SURGICAL NEUROLOGY, 2005, 64 (04): : 303 - 308
  • [25] Clinical and radiological outcome of minimally invasive posterior lumbar interbody fusion in primary versus revision surgery
    B. Hentenaar
    A. B. Spoor
    J. de Waal Malefijt
    C. H. Diekerhof
    B. L. den Oudsten
    Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, 11
  • [26] Clinical and radiological outcome of minimally invasive posterior lumbar interbody fusion in primary versus revision surgery
    Hentenaar, B.
    Spoor, A. B.
    Malefijt, J. de Waal
    Diekerhof, C. H.
    den Oudsten, B. L.
    JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY AND RESEARCH, 2016, 11
  • [27] Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion as an Adjunct to Posterior Instrumented Correction of Degenerative Lumbar Scoliosis
    Crandall, Dennis G.
    Revella, Jan
    SPINE, 2009, 34 (20) : 2126 - 2133
  • [28] A comparison of posterior lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a literature review and meta-analysis
    Zhang, Qunhu
    Yuan, Zhen
    Zhou, Min
    Liu, Huan
    Xu, Yong
    Ren, Yongxin
    BMC MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS, 2014, 15
  • [29] A comparison of posterior lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a literature review and meta-analysis
    Qunhu Zhang
    Zhen Yuan
    Min Zhou
    Huan Liu
    Yong Xu
    Yongxin Ren
    BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 15
  • [30] 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