Decompression alone versus decompression with instrumented fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of adding instrumented spinal fusion to decompression to treat degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS). DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Scopus, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from inception to May 2022. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing decompression with instrumented fusion to decompression alone in patients with DS. Two reviewers independently screened the studies, assessed the risk of bias and extracted data. We provide the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation assessment of the certainty of evidence (COE). RESULTS: We identified 4514 records and included four trials with 523 participants. At a 2-year follow-up, adding fusion to decompression likely results in trivial difference in the Oswestry Disability Index (range 0-100, with higher values indicating greater impairment) with mean difference (MD) 0.86 (95% CI -4.53 to 6.26; moderate COE). Similar results were observed for back and leg pain measured on a scale of 0 to 100, with higher values indicating more severe pain. There was a slightly increased improvement in back pain (2-year follow-up) in the group without fusion shown by MD -5·92 points (95% CI -11.00 to -0.84; moderate COE). There was a trivial difference in leg pain between the groups, slightly favouring the one without fusion, with MD -1.25 points (95% CI -6.71 to 4.21; moderate COE). Our findings at 2-year follow-up suggest that omitting fusion may increase the reoperation rate slightly (OR 1.23; 0.70 to 2.17; low COE). CONCLUSIONS: Evidence suggests no benefits of adding instrumented fusion to decompression for treating DS. Isolated decompression seems sufficient for most patients. Further RCTs assessing spondylolisthesis stability are needed to determine which patients would benefit from fusion. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022308267.

The relationship of hip loading asymmetry and radiological parameters of the spine in Lenke type 1 idiopathic scoliosis.

BACKGROUND: Idiopathic scoliosis does not only cause structural changes in the spine, but also functional changes of the musculoskeletal system. RESEARCH QUESTION: Does idiopathic scoliosis lead to asymmetric hip loading in severe Lenke type 1 deformity? METHODS: 23 patients (18 girls, 5 boys) aged 15 ± 2.8 years with an adolescent idiopathic main thoracic curve (Cobb angle 48.8°+/- 9.2°) were included. Measured X-ray parameters were: Cobb angle of primary thoracic and secondary lumbar curve, translation of the C7- plumb line, apical thoracic vertebra and apical lumbar vertebra from the central sacral vertical line. Subjects were examined by means of kinematic and kinetic gait analysis. The symmetry index (SI) was calculated as a ratio of hip frontal moments during a single stance for both sides when the symmetrical load was considered SI = 0 + /- 29.36 (0 +/- 1 SD of the mean SI of the healthy population). The Pearson correlation coefficient was used to show the relation between hip loading and radiologic measures of spinal deformity. RESULTS: Only 34.8% of subjects with Lenke type 1 deformity showed symmetrical hip loading. Significant negative correlation was proved between SI and apical thoracic vertebra translation (R = - 0541; p < 0,05) as well as between SI and coronal imbalance (R = -0,5197; p < 0,05). There was no correlation between SI and the magnitude of the primary thoracic curve (R = -0.19; p = 0.385). Coronal imbalance correlates positively with translation of apical thoracic vertebra (R = 0,7255; p < 0,05). SIGNIFICANCE: Two-thirds of subjects with Lenke type 1 deformity showed asymmetrical hip loading. This asymmetry is related to the translation of the apical thoracic vertebra and coronal imbalance and is not related to the magnitude of the main thoracic curve. On the contrary, the secondary lumbar curve plays role in the compensatory mechanism of the trunk.