Lumbar Fusion for Spondylolisthesis A Bayesian Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

被引:2
作者
Zhou, Shi Guo [1 ]
Liu, Chun Hua [2 ]
Dai, Ke Hui [2 ]
Lai, Yong Xin [3 ]
机构
[1] Fujian Med Univ, Fujian Prov Hosp, Dept Orthopaed Surg, Fuzhou, Peoples R China
[2] Fujian Univ Tradit Chinese Med, Quanzhou Orthoped Traumatol Hosp, Dept Spinal Surg, Quanzhou 362000, Fujian, Peoples R China
[3] Huian Cty Hosp, Dept Internal Med, Quanzhou, Fujian, Peoples R China
来源
CLINICAL SPINE SURGERY | 2021年 / 34卷 / 05期
关键词
spondylolisthesis; lumbar fusion; network meta-analysis; POSTEROLATERAL INSTRUMENTED FUSION; INTERBODY FUSION; DEGENERATIVE SPONDYLOLISTHESIS; CLINICAL-TRIAL; TLIF; OUTCOMES; DRUGS; PLIF;
D O I
10.1097/BSD.0000000000001094
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
Study Design: This was a Bayesian network meta-analysis. Objective: We aimed to assess the comparative efficacies of the 5 most commonly used procedures for spondylolisthesis in a Bayesian network meta-analysis. Summary of Background: Lumbar fusion procedures are the backbone for the surgical treatment of spondylolisthesis. However, the current evidence has only considered head-to-head comparisons of different fusion procedures and failed to definitively favor one fusion procedure over another. Materials and Methods: A Bayesian random-effects model was used, and radiographic fusion and complications were assessed by risk ratio with a corresponding 95% credible interval; Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores were assessed by mean difference and 95% credible interval. Furthermore, with respect to each endpoint, ranking probabilities for each fusion procedure were evaluated using the value of the surface under the cumulative ranking curve. Results: In all, 12 studies were identified. Significant differences in associated complications were found between minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MTLIF) and each of the other 4 fusion procedures. Surface under the cumulative ranking curve results suggested that for the most effective radiographic fusion, open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (OTLIF) had the maximum probability of being successful (76.6%), followed by MTLIF (70.4%) and open posterior lumbar interbody fusion (OPLIF, 48.7%). In terms of ODI scores, OTLIF might be the best intervention (70.5%), followed by MTLIF (68.8%) and then OPLIF (44.0%). However, MTLIF is ranked the safest (99.8%) regarding associated complications, followed sequentially by OTLIF (57.1%) and posterolateral fusion (30.1%). Conclusions: OTLIF for spondylolisthesis was found to be the more efficient procedure in terms of radiographic fusion and ODI scores. Importantly, MTLIF is most likely to have a lower associated complication rate compared with other fusion procedures.
引用
收藏
页码:189 / 195
页数:7
相关论文
共 35 条
[1]   The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials [J].
Bucher, HC ;
Guyatt, GH ;
Griffith, LE ;
Walter, SD .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 1997, 50 (06) :683-691
[2]   One-Level Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis and Posterior Approach: Is Transforaminal Lateral Interbody Fusion Mandatory? A Randomized Controlled Trial With 2-Year Follow-Up [J].
Challier, Vincent ;
Boissiere, Louis ;
Obeid, Ibrahim ;
Vital, Jean-Marc ;
Castelain, Jean-Etienne ;
Benard, Antoine ;
Ong, Nathalie ;
Ghailane, Soufiane ;
Pointillart, Vincent ;
Mazas, Simon ;
Mariey, Remi ;
Gille, Olivier .
SPINE, 2017, 42 (08) :531-539
[3]   Comparison of Posterolateral Fusion and Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in the Treatment of Lumbar Spondylolithesis: A Meta-Analysis [J].
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
[4]   Posterior lumbar interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion in spondylolisthesis: a prospective controlled study in the Han nationality [J].
Cheng, Lei ;
Nie, Lin ;
Zhang, Li .
INTERNATIONAL ORTHOPAEDICS, 2009, 33 (04) :1043-1047
[5]   Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in lumbar spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis [J].
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
[6]   Checking consistency in mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis [J].
Dias, S. ;
Welton, N. J. ;
Caldwell, D. M. ;
Ades, A. E. .
STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2010, 29 (7-8) :932-944
[7]   Long-term outcome after spinal fusion for isthmic spondylolisthesis in adults [J].
Endler, P. ;
Ekman, P. ;
Ljungqvist, H. ;
Brismar, T. B. ;
Gerdhem, P. ;
Moller, H. .
SPINE JOURNAL, 2019, 19 (03) :501-508
[8]   Posterolateral instrumented fusion with and without transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of adult isthmic spondylolisthesis: A randomized clinical trial with 2-year follow-up [J].
Etemadifar, Mohammad Reza ;
Hadi, Abdollah ;
Masouleh, Mehran Feizi .
JOURNAL OF CRANIOVERTEBRAL JUNCTION AND SPINE, 2016, 7 (01) :43-49
[9]  
Fariborz S, 2016, Neurosurg Q, V26, P14, DOI 10.1097/WNQ.0000000000000197.
[10]   Posterolateral versus Posterior Interbody Fusion in Isthmic Spondylolisthesis [J].
Farrokhi, Majid Reza ;
Rahmanian, Abdolkarim ;
Masoudi, Mohammad Sadegh .
JOURNAL OF NEUROTRAUMA, 2012, 29 (08) :1567-1573