Fei Jia1,2, Guodong Wang1, Xiaoyang Liu1, Tao Li1, Jianmin Sun3. 1. Department of Spine, Shandong Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University, No. 9677, Jingshi Road, Jinan, Shandong Province, China. 2. Department of Orthopaedics, Peking University Third Hospital, North Garden Street No. 49, Haidian District, Beijing, China. 3. Department of Spine, Shandong Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University, No. 9677, Jingshi Road, Jinan, Shandong Province, China. spine2000@msn.cn.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Choosing an optimal distal fusion level for adult spinal deformity (ASD) is still controversial. To compare the radiographic and clinical outcomes of distal fusion to L5 versus the sacrum in ASD, we conducted a meta-analysis. METHODS: Relevant studies on long fusion terminating at L5 or the sacrum in ASD were retrieved from the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Google Scholar databases. Then, studies were manually selected for inclusion based on predefined criteria. The meta-analysis was performed by RevMan 5.3. RESULTS: Eleven retrospective studies with 1211 patients were included in meta-analysis. No significant difference was found in overall complication rate (95% CI 0.60 to 1.30) and revision rate (95% CI 0.59 to 1.99) between fusion to L5 group (L group) and fusion to the sacrum group (S group). Significant lower rate of pseudarthrosis and implant-related complications (95% CI 0.29 to 0.64) as well as proximal adjacent segment disease (95% CI 0.35 to 0.92) was found in L group. Patients in S group obtained a better correction of lumbar lordosis (95% CI - 7.85 to - 0.38) and less loss of sagittal balance (95% CI - 1.80 to - 0.50). CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis suggested that long fusion terminating at L5 or the sacrum was similar in scoliosis correction, overall complication rate, revision rate, and improvement in pain and disability. However, fusion to L5 had advantages in lower rate of pseudarthrosis, implant-related complications, and proximal adjacent segment disease, while fusion to the sacrum had advantages in the restoration of lumbar lordosis, maintenance of sagittal balance, and absence of distal adjacent segment disease. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
PURPOSE: Choosing an optimal distal fusion level for adult spinal deformity (ASD) is still controversial. To compare the radiographic and clinical outcomes of distal fusion to L5 versus the sacrum in ASD, we conducted a meta-analysis. METHODS: Relevant studies on long fusion terminating at L5 or the sacrum in ASD were retrieved from the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Google Scholar databases. Then, studies were manually selected for inclusion based on predefined criteria. The meta-analysis was performed by RevMan 5.3. RESULTS: Eleven retrospective studies with 1211 patients were included in meta-analysis. No significant difference was found in overall complication rate (95% CI 0.60 to 1.30) and revision rate (95% CI 0.59 to 1.99) between fusion to L5 group (L group) and fusion to the sacrum group (S group). Significant lower rate of pseudarthrosis and implant-related complications (95% CI 0.29 to 0.64) as well as proximal adjacent segment disease (95% CI 0.35 to 0.92) was found in L group. Patients in S group obtained a better correction of lumbar lordosis (95% CI - 7.85 to - 0.38) and less loss of sagittal balance (95% CI - 1.80 to - 0.50). CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis suggested that long fusion terminating at L5 or the sacrum was similar in scoliosis correction, overall complication rate, revision rate, and improvement in pain and disability. However, fusion to L5 had advantages in lower rate of pseudarthrosis, implant-related complications, and proximal adjacent segment disease, while fusion to the sacrum had advantages in the restoration of lumbar lordosis, maintenance of sagittal balance, and absence of distal adjacent segment disease. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
Authors: T R Kuklo; K H Bridwell; S J Lewis; C Baldus; K Blanke; T M Iffrig; L G Lenke Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2001-09-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Arash Emami; Vedat Deviren; Sigurd Berven; Jason A Smith; Serena S Hu; David S Bradford Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2002-04-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: K R Eck; K H Bridwell; F F Ungacta; K D Riew; M A Lapp; L G Lenke; C Baldus; K Blanke Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2001-05-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Gang Li; Peter Passias; Michal Kozanek; Eric Fu; Shaobai Wang; Qun Xia; Guoan Li; Frank E Rand; Kirkham B Wood Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2009-09-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Craig A Kuhns; Keith H Bridwell; Lawrence G Lenke; Courtney Amor; Ronald A Lehman; Jacob M Buchowski; Charles Edwards; Baldus Christine Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2007-11-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: James M Mok; Jordan M Cloyd; David S Bradford; Serena S Hu; Vedat Deviren; Jason A Smith; Bobby Tay; Sigurd H Berven Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2009-04-15 Impact factor: 3.468