Loading…

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

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,...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:European spine journal 2024-05, Vol.33 (5), p.1748-1761
Main Authors: Wang, Dongfan, Wang, Wei, Han, Di, Muthu, Sathish, Cabrera, Juan P., Hamouda, Waeel, Ambrosio, Luca, Cheung, Jason P. Y., Le, Hai V., Vadalà, Gianluca, Buser, Zorica, Wang, Jeffrey C., Cho, Samuel, Yoon, S. Tim, Lu, Shibao, Chen, Xiaolong, Diwan, Ashish D.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary: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.
ISSN:0940-6719
1432-0932
1432-0932
DOI:10.1007/s00586-023-08041-4