Xuedong Bai1, Jiahai Chen2, Liyang Liu1, Xiaochuan Li1, Yaohong Wu1, Deli Wang1, Dike Ruan3. 1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Navy General Hospital, No. 6 Fucheng Road, Beijing, 100048, China. 2. Department of Orthopedics Surgery, Xijing Hospital, The Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, China. 3. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Navy General Hospital, No. 6 Fucheng Road, Beijing, 100048, China. ruandikengh@163.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of arthrodesis in situ with arthrodesis after reduction in low-grade spondylolisthesis. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search of both observational and randomized clinical trials published up to April 2016 in PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases. The outcomes included age, sex, operative time, blood loss, and at least 2 years clinical results of Oswestry disability index (ODI), visual analogue scale (VAS), lumbar lordosis, slippage, fusion rate, the rate of good and excellent and the complication rate. Two authors independently extracted the articles and the predefined data. RESULTS: Seven eligible studies, involving four RCTs and three cohort studies were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Patients who underwent reduction did achieved better slippage correction comparing with arthrodesis in situ (P < 0.00001). However, there was no significant difference in the case of operative time, blood loss, VAS (P = 0.36), ODI (P = 0.50), lumbar lordosis (P = 0.47), the rate of good and excellent (P = 0.84), fusion rate (P = 0.083) and complication rate (P = 0.33) between the arthrodesis in situ group and the reduction group. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis on this review, arthrodesis after reduction of low-grade spondylolisthesis potentially reduced vertebral slippage. Reduction was neither associated with a longer operative time nor more blood loss. There was no significant difference in the outcomes between reduction and arthrodesis in situ group. Both procedures could be expected to achieve good clinical result. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IIa.
PURPOSE: To compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of arthrodesis in situ with arthrodesis after reduction in low-grade spondylolisthesis. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search of both observational and randomized clinical trials published up to April 2016 in PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases. The outcomes included age, sex, operative time, blood loss, and at least 2 years clinical results of Oswestry disability index (ODI), visual analogue scale (VAS), lumbar lordosis, slippage, fusion rate, the rate of good and excellent and the complication rate. Two authors independently extracted the articles and the predefined data. RESULTS: Seven eligible studies, involving four RCTs and three cohort studies were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Patients who underwent reduction did achieved better slippage correction comparing with arthrodesis in situ (P < 0.00001). However, there was no significant difference in the case of operative time, blood loss, VAS (P = 0.36), ODI (P = 0.50), lumbar lordosis (P = 0.47), the rate of good and excellent (P = 0.84), fusion rate (P = 0.083) and complication rate (P = 0.33) between the arthrodesis in situ group and the reduction group. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis on this review, arthrodesis after reduction of low-grade spondylolisthesis potentially reduced vertebral slippage. Reduction was neither associated with a longer operative time nor more blood loss. There was no significant difference in the outcomes between reduction and arthrodesis in situ group. Both procedures could be expected to achieve good clinical result. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IIa.
Entities:
Keywords:
Arthrodesis; In situ; Low-grade; Lumbar spine; Reduction; Spondylolisthesis
Authors: Gordon H Guyatt; Andrew D Oxman; Victor Montori; Gunn Vist; Regina Kunz; Jan Brozek; Pablo Alonso-Coello; Ben Djulbegovic; David Atkins; Yngve Falck-Ytter; John W Williams; Joerg Meerpohl; Susan L Norris; Elie A Akl; Holger J Schünemann Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2011-07-30 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Alessandro Liberati; Douglas G Altman; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Cynthia Mulrow; Peter C Gøtzsche; John P A Ioannidis; Mike Clarke; P J Devereaux; Jos Kleijnen; David Moher Journal: BMJ Date: 2009-07-21
Authors: Thomas Andersen; Finn B Christensen; Bente L Langdahl; Carsten Ernst; Søren Fruensgaard; Jørgen Østergaard; Jens Langer Andersen; Sten Rasmussen; Bent Niedermann; Kristian Høy; Peter Helmig; Randi Holm; Niels Egund; Cody Bünger Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2013-08-19 Impact factor: 3.411