Elizabeth A Lechtholz-Zey, Mina Ayad, Brandon S Gettleman, Emily S Mills, Hannah Shelby, Andy Ton, William J Karakash, Ishan Shah, Jeffrey C Wang, Ram K Alluri, Raymond J Hah
{"title":"腰椎椎间融合术后节段和腰椎后凸的变化：系统回顾与元分析》。","authors":"Elizabeth A Lechtholz-Zey, Mina Ayad, Brandon S Gettleman, Emily S Mills, Hannah Shelby, Andy Ton, William J Karakash, Ishan Shah, Jeffrey C Wang, Ram K Alluri, Raymond J Hah","doi":"10.1097/BSD.0000000000001728","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>Systematic review and meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare radiographic outcomes across lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) techniques, assessing segmental and global lumbar lordosis restoration.</p><p><strong>Summary of background data: </strong>LIF is a commonly utilized procedure to treat various spinal conditions, including degenerative pathology and adult spinal deformity. Common approaches include posterior LIF (PLIF), transforaminal LIF (TLIF), anterior LIF (ALIF), oblique LIF (OLIF), and lateral LIF (LLIF).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review and meta-analysis were carried out using PRISMA guidelines with appropriate MeSH terms. Papers were included based on relevance, number of patients, and a minimum of 1-year radiographic follow-up. Radiographic outcomes included segmental lordosis (SL) and lumbar lordosis (LL). Only papers directly comparing SL restoration between two or more LIF techniques were utilized in the systematic review, while all articles meeting the aforementioned criteria were used in the meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nineteen studies were included in the final systematic review, and 88 papers were included in the meta-analysis. Seven studies in the systematic review showed a significantly higher increase in SL with ALIF versus TLIF, and two showed significantly higher SL gain with ALIF compared with LLIF. When comparing ALIF versus OLIF, one study favored ALIF, while another favored OLIF for SL restoration. OLIF likewise demonstrated superior restoration of SL compared with TLIF. LLIF demonstrated improved SL restoration compared with TLIF in 2 of the 3 studies comparing the 2 procedures. Furthermore, both ALIF and OLIF demonstrated superior LL restoration compared with TLIF in 4 and 3 studies, respectively. The meta-analysis results demonstrated that ALIF provided significantly better restoration of SL than TLIF, LLIF, and OLIF, while TLIF conferred significantly lower SL restoration than ALIF and OLIF. Similarly, LL restoration was significantly reduced with TLIF relative to OLIF and LLIF (all P<0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The included studies demonstrated superior SL and LL restoration with ALIF, OLIF, and LLIF compared with TLIF. ALIF improved SL to a greater extent when directly compared with all other interbody techniques.</p>","PeriodicalId":10457,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Spine Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Changes in Segmental and Lumbar Lordosis Following Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Elizabeth A Lechtholz-Zey, Mina Ayad, Brandon S Gettleman, Emily S Mills, Hannah Shelby, Andy Ton, William J Karakash, Ishan Shah, Jeffrey C Wang, Ram K Alluri, Raymond J Hah\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/BSD.0000000000001728\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>Systematic review and meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare radiographic outcomes across lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) techniques, assessing segmental and global lumbar lordosis restoration.</p><p><strong>Summary of background data: </strong>LIF is a commonly utilized procedure to treat various spinal conditions, including degenerative pathology and adult spinal deformity. Common approaches include posterior LIF (PLIF), transforaminal LIF (TLIF), anterior LIF (ALIF), oblique LIF (OLIF), and lateral LIF (LLIF).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review and meta-analysis were carried out using PRISMA guidelines with appropriate MeSH terms. Papers were included based on relevance, number of patients, and a minimum of 1-year radiographic follow-up. Radiographic outcomes included segmental lordosis (SL) and lumbar lordosis (LL). Only papers directly comparing SL restoration between two or more LIF techniques were utilized in the systematic review, while all articles meeting the aforementioned criteria were used in the meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nineteen studies were included in the final systematic review, and 88 papers were included in the meta-analysis. Seven studies in the systematic review showed a significantly higher increase in SL with ALIF versus TLIF, and two showed significantly higher SL gain with ALIF compared with LLIF. When comparing ALIF versus OLIF, one study favored ALIF, while another favored OLIF for SL restoration. OLIF likewise demonstrated superior restoration of SL compared with TLIF. LLIF demonstrated improved SL restoration compared with TLIF in 2 of the 3 studies comparing the 2 procedures. Furthermore, both ALIF and OLIF demonstrated superior LL restoration compared with TLIF in 4 and 3 studies, respectively. The meta-analysis results demonstrated that ALIF provided significantly better restoration of SL than TLIF, LLIF, and OLIF, while TLIF conferred significantly lower SL restoration than ALIF and OLIF. Similarly, LL restoration was significantly reduced with TLIF relative to OLIF and LLIF (all P<0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The included studies demonstrated superior SL and LL restoration with ALIF, OLIF, and LLIF compared with TLIF. ALIF improved SL to a greater extent when directly compared with all other interbody techniques.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10457,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Spine Surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Spine Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000001728\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Spine Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000001728","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Changes in Segmental and Lumbar Lordosis Following Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Study design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Objective: To compare radiographic outcomes across lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) techniques, assessing segmental and global lumbar lordosis restoration.
Summary of background data: LIF is a commonly utilized procedure to treat various spinal conditions, including degenerative pathology and adult spinal deformity. Common approaches include posterior LIF (PLIF), transforaminal LIF (TLIF), anterior LIF (ALIF), oblique LIF (OLIF), and lateral LIF (LLIF).
Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were carried out using PRISMA guidelines with appropriate MeSH terms. Papers were included based on relevance, number of patients, and a minimum of 1-year radiographic follow-up. Radiographic outcomes included segmental lordosis (SL) and lumbar lordosis (LL). Only papers directly comparing SL restoration between two or more LIF techniques were utilized in the systematic review, while all articles meeting the aforementioned criteria were used in the meta-analysis.
Results: Nineteen studies were included in the final systematic review, and 88 papers were included in the meta-analysis. Seven studies in the systematic review showed a significantly higher increase in SL with ALIF versus TLIF, and two showed significantly higher SL gain with ALIF compared with LLIF. When comparing ALIF versus OLIF, one study favored ALIF, while another favored OLIF for SL restoration. OLIF likewise demonstrated superior restoration of SL compared with TLIF. LLIF demonstrated improved SL restoration compared with TLIF in 2 of the 3 studies comparing the 2 procedures. Furthermore, both ALIF and OLIF demonstrated superior LL restoration compared with TLIF in 4 and 3 studies, respectively. The meta-analysis results demonstrated that ALIF provided significantly better restoration of SL than TLIF, LLIF, and OLIF, while TLIF conferred significantly lower SL restoration than ALIF and OLIF. Similarly, LL restoration was significantly reduced with TLIF relative to OLIF and LLIF (all P<0.05).
Conclusions: The included studies demonstrated superior SL and LL restoration with ALIF, OLIF, and LLIF compared with TLIF. ALIF improved SL to a greater extent when directly compared with all other interbody techniques.
期刊介绍：
Clinical Spine Surgery is the ideal journal for the busy practicing spine surgeon or trainee, as it is the only journal necessary to keep up to date with new clinical research and surgical techniques. Readers get to watch leaders in the field debate controversial topics in a new controversies section, and gain access to evidence-based reviews of important pathologies in the systematic reviews section. The journal features a surgical technique complete with a video, and a tips and tricks section that allows surgeons to review the important steps prior to a complex procedure.
Clinical Spine Surgery provides readers with primary research studies, specifically level 1, 2 and 3 studies, ensuring that articles that may actually change a surgeon’s practice will be read and published. Each issue includes a brief article that will help a surgeon better understand the business of healthcare, as well as an article that will help a surgeon understand how to interpret increasingly complex research methodology. Clinical Spine Surgery is your single source for up-to-date, evidence-based recommendations for spine care.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
