Dynamic Stabilization Adjacent to Fusion versus Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Meta-Analysis

被引:4
|
作者
Sun, Xiangyao [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Chen, Zhaoxiong [3 ]
Sun, Siyuan [4 ]
Wang, Wei [1 ,2 ]
Zhang, Tongtong [1 ,2 ,5 ]
Kong, Chao [1 ,2 ]
Lu, Shibao [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Capital Med Univ, Dept Orthopaed, Xuanwu Hosp, Beijing 100053, Peoples R China
[2] Natl Clin Res Ctr Geriatr Dis, Beijing 100053, Peoples R China
[3] Charite Univ Med Berlin, D-113353 Berlin, Germany
[4] Purdue Univ, Dept Interdisciplinary, Life Sci, W Lafayette, IN 47907 USA
[5] Tsinghua Univ, Chui Yang Liu Hosp, Dept Orthopaed, Beijing 100020, Peoples R China
基金
中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词
SEGMENT DEGENERATION; TOPPING-OFF; FOLLOW-UP; SURGERY; QUALITY; REDUCE;
D O I
10.1155/2020/9309134
中图分类号
Q81 [生物工程学(生物技术)]; Q93 [微生物学];
学科分类号
071005 ; 0836 ; 090102 ; 100705 ;
摘要
This study evaluated differences in outcome variables between dynamic stabilization adjacent to fusion (DATF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease. A systematic review of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane was performed. The variables of interest included clinical adjacent segment pathologies (CASPs), radiological adjacent segment pathologies (RASPs), lumbar lordosis (LL), visual analogue scale (VAS) of back (VAS-B) and leg (VAS-L), Oswestry disability index (ODI), Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, duration of surgery (DS), estimated blood loss (EBL), complications, and reoperation rate. Nine articles identified as meeting all of the inclusion criteria. DATF was better than PLIF in proximal RASP, CASP, and ODI during 3 months follow-up, VAS-L. However, no significant difference between DATF and PLIF was found in distal RASP, LL, JOA score, VAS-B, ODI after 3 months follow-up, complication rates, and reoperation rate. These further confirmed that DATF could decrease the proximal ASP both symptomatically and radiographically as compared to fusion group; however, the influence of DATF on functional outcome was similar with PLIF. The differences between hybrid surgery and topping-off technique were located in DS and EBL in comparison with PLIF. Our study confirmed that DATF could decrease the proximal ASP both symptomatically and radiographically as compared to the fusion group; however, the influence of DATF on functional outcome was similar with PLIF. The difference between hybrid surgery and topping-off technique was not significant in treatment outcomes.
引用
收藏
页数:19
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] 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
  • [32] 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
  • [33] Comparison of One versus Two Cages in Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Disease: a Meta-analysis
    Liu, Jin
    Tang, Jing
    Liu, Hao
    ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY, 2014, 6 (03) : 236 - 243
  • [34] Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Kou, Yuanqiao
    Chang, Jianjun
    Guan, Xiaoming
    Chang, Qiang
    Feng, Haoyu
    WORLD NEUROSURGERY, 2021, 152 : E352 - E368
  • [35] Unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for single-segment lumbar degenerative disease: a meta-analysis
    He, Yanxing
    Cheng, Qianyue
    She, Jiang
    BMC MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS, 2024, 25 (01)
  • [36] Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of degenerative lumbar disease: systematic review and meta-analysis
    Kevin Phan
    Prashanth J. Rao
    Andrew C. Kam
    Ralph J. Mobbs
    European Spine Journal, 2015, 24 : 1017 - 1030
  • [37] Effects of Lumbar Fusion Surgery with ISOBAR Devices Versus Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery on Pain and Disability in Patients with Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Meta-Analysis
    Su, Shu-Fen
    Wu, Meng-Shan
    Yeh, Wen-Ting
    Liao, Ying-Chin
    JOURNAL OF INVESTIGATIVE SURGERY, 2020, 33 (01) : 79 - 93
  • [38] Posterolateral lumbar fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar scoliosis
    Li, Fang-cai
    Chen, Qi-xin
    Chen, Wei-shan
    Xu, Kan
    Wu, Qiong-hua
    Chen, Gang
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NEUROSCIENCE, 2013, 20 (09) : 1241 - 1245
  • [39] Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of degenerative lumbar disease: systematic review and meta-analysis
    Phan, Kevin
    Rao, Prashanth J.
    Kam, Andrew C.
    Mobbs, Ralph J.
    EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL, 2015, 24 (05) : 1017 - 1030
  • [40] Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF) versus Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion (OLIF) in Interbody Fusion Technique for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Chang, Min Cheol
    Kim, Gang-Un
    Choo, Yoo Jin
    Lee, Gun Woo
    LIFE-BASEL, 2021, 11 (07):