File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Clinical effectiveness of reduction and fusion versus in situ fusion in the management of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

TitleClinical effectiveness of reduction and fusion versus in situ fusion in the management of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Authors
KeywordsDegenerative spondylolisthesis
In situ fusion
Lumbar spine
Meta-analysis
Reduction and fusion
Review
Issue Date3-Dec-2023
PublisherSpringer
Citation
European Spine Journal, 2023 How to Cite?
Abstract

Purpose

To compare the clinical effectiveness of reduction and fusion with in situ fusion in the management of patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS).

Methods

The systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. Relevant studies were identified from PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar. The inclusion criteria were: (1) comparative studies of reduction and fusion versus in situ fusion for DLS patients, (2) outcomes reported as VAS/NRS, ODI, JOA score, operating time, blood loss, complication rate, fusion rate, or reoperation rate, (3) randomized controlled trials and observational studies published in English from the inception of the databases to January 2023. The exclusion criteria included: (1) reviews, case series, case reports, letters, and conference reports, (2) in vitro biomechanical studies and computational modeling studies, (3) no report on study outcomes. The risk of bias 2 (RoB2) tool and the Newcastle–Ottawa scale was conducted to assess the risk of bias of RCTs and observational studies, respectively.

Results

Five studies with a total of 704 patients were included (375 reduction and fusion, 329 in situ fusion). Operating time was significantly longer in the reduction and fusion group compared to in situ fusion group (weighted mean difference 7.20; 95% confidence interval 0.19, 14.21; P = 0.04). No additional significant intergroup differences were noted in terms of other outcomes analyzed.

Conclusion

While the reduction and fusion group demonstrated a statistically longer operating time compared to the in situ fusion group, the clinical significance of this difference was minimal. The findings suggest no substantial superiority of lumbar fusion with reduction over without reduction for the management of DLS.


Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/339437
ISSN
2021 Impact Factor: 2.721
2020 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.448

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorWang, Dongfan-
dc.contributor.authorWang, Wei-
dc.contributor.authorHan, Di-
dc.contributor.authorMuthu, Sathish-
dc.contributor.authorCabrera, Juan P-
dc.contributor.authorHamouda, Waeel-
dc.contributor.authorAmbrosio, Luca-
dc.contributor.authorCheung, Jason P Y-
dc.contributor.authorLe Hai, V-
dc.contributor.authorVadalà, Gianluca-
dc.contributor.authorBuser, Zorica-
dc.contributor.authorWang, Jeffrey C-
dc.contributor.authorCho, Samuel-
dc.contributor.authorYoon, S Tim-
dc.contributor.authorLu, Shibao-
dc.contributor.authorChen, Xiaolong-
dc.contributor.authorDiwan, Ashish D-
dc.date.accessioned2024-03-11T10:36:36Z-
dc.date.available2024-03-11T10:36:36Z-
dc.date.issued2023-12-03-
dc.identifier.citationEuropean Spine Journal, 2023-
dc.identifier.issn0940-6719-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/339437-
dc.description.abstract<h3>Purpose</h3><p>To compare the clinical effectiveness of reduction and fusion with in situ fusion in the management of patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS).</p><h3>Methods</h3><p>The systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. Relevant studies were identified from PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar. The inclusion criteria were: (1) comparative studies of reduction and fusion versus in situ fusion for DLS patients, (2) outcomes reported as VAS/NRS, ODI, JOA score, operating time, blood loss, complication rate, fusion rate, or reoperation rate, (3) randomized controlled trials and observational studies published in English from the inception of the databases to January 2023. The exclusion criteria included: (1) reviews, case series, case reports, letters, and conference reports, (2) in vitro biomechanical studies and computational modeling studies, (3) no report on study outcomes. The risk of bias 2 (RoB2) tool and the Newcastle–Ottawa scale was conducted to assess the risk of bias of RCTs and observational studies, respectively.</p><h3>Results</h3><p>Five studies with a total of 704 patients were included (375 reduction and fusion, 329 in situ fusion). Operating time was significantly longer in the reduction and fusion group compared to in situ fusion group (weighted mean difference 7.20; 95% confidence interval 0.19, 14.21; <em>P</em> = 0.04). No additional significant intergroup differences were noted in terms of other outcomes analyzed.</p><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>While the reduction and fusion group demonstrated a statistically longer operating time compared to the in situ fusion group, the clinical significance of this difference was minimal. The findings suggest no substantial superiority of lumbar fusion with reduction over without reduction for the management of DLS.</p>-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherSpringer-
dc.relation.ispartofEuropean Spine Journal-
dc.subjectDegenerative spondylolisthesis-
dc.subjectIn situ fusion-
dc.subjectLumbar spine-
dc.subjectMeta-analysis-
dc.subjectReduction and fusion-
dc.subjectReview-
dc.titleClinical effectiveness of reduction and fusion versus in situ fusion in the management of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s00586-023-08041-4-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-85178443712-
dc.identifier.eissn1432-0932-
dc.identifier.issnl0940-6719-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats