ABSTRACT
Introduction: Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis affects approximately 10% of adults over 40. Although decompression has been the treatment of choice, some surgeons note possible instability development after decompression alone (D). Previous studies show that decompression with fusion (DF) has similar complication rates but is better at preventing slip progression and reducing pain. However, others stated the additional instrumentation does not result in superior functional outcomes and has higher costs and complication rates. This study aims to provide an objective, two-arm comparison of the two treatments using systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: The study design was a systematic review and meta-analysis of relevant randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized comparative studies. A systematic search was conducted from April 2021 to September 2021 to identify relevant studies using PubMed, Google Scholar, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases based on PRISMA guidelines. Results: This systematic review included 8 studies (6,669 patients); 7 (6,569 patients) were included in the meta-analysis, with a follow-up period of up to 143 months. The most commonly affected level was L4-5, with females being more affected than males. Visual Analog Scale improvement on back pain was significantly better in DF group (Heterogeneity, I2=32%; WMD -0.72; 95% Confidence Interval (CI), -1.35 to -0.08; P=0.03), as well as postoperative back pain (I2=96%; WMD 0.87; 95% CI, 0.19 to 1.55; P=0.01). The leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), satisfaction rate, complication rate, and revision rate were comparable between the two procedures. Conclusions: Current systematic review and meta-analysis proved that DF is better than D in terms of back pain improvement, and the two procedures are comparable in terms of leg pain, ODI, satisfaction rate, complication rate, and revision rate.
ABSTRACT
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aim to thoroughly describe and objectively compare the efficacy of anterior cervical plate (ACP) and stand-alone cage (SAC). Although recognized as an effective procedure for cervical degenerative disease (CDD), a debate between the methods of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion exists. ACP provides stability to the fusion construct; however, some complications have been reported, such as dysphagia, adjacent disc disease, and soft tissue injury. To overcome these complications, a SAC was later introduced. A systematic search was conducted on the basis of PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) guidelines to identify relevant studies through PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane database. A total of 14 studies (960 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. Twenty outcomes were clinically and radiologically compared between the two procedures. ACP and SAC were comparable in terms of dysphasia rate, loss of segmental angle, loss of disc height, the Odom criteria, Robinson's criteria, hospital stay, Japanese Orthopaedic Association score, Neck Disability Index, Visual Analog Scale, and fusion time. However, SAC was superior in terms of shorter operation time, less blood loss, lower dysphagia rate, and lower rate of adjacent level disease, whereas ACP was advantageous in terms of lower subsidence rate, better maintenance of the cervical global and segmental angles and disc height, and higher fusion rate. Both procedures can be used in patients with CDD, although it might be more beneficial to choose ACP in patients with multi-level pathologies, wherein better mechanical stability is provided. However, SAC may be more beneficial to use in patients with comorbidities, anemia, or swelling problems because it offers lower complication rates.
