Journal of neurosurgery. Spine · 2024
Interbody cages versus structural bone grafts in lumbar arthrodesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Систематический обзорСтатьяМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Johnson Sarah E, Michalopoulos Giorgos D, Flanigan Patrick M, Katsos Konstantinos, Ibrahim Sufyan, Freedman Brett A, Bydon Mohamad
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The role of interbodies in lumbar arthrodesis has been insufficiently supported by evidence, impacting clinical decision-making and occasionally insurance coverage. This study aimed to compare clinical and radiological outcomes between lumbar arthrodesis with a synthetic interbody spacer (cage) versus structural bone graft alone (autograft or allograft) in patients with degenerative spine disease.
METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify studies directly comparing outcomes of lumbar interbody arthrodesis with and without interbody cage use. The outcomes of individual studies were synthesized in meta-analyses using random-effects models.
RESULTS: Twenty studies with 1508 patients (769 with an interbody cage and 739 without an interbody cage) were included. Interbody cage placement was associated with a significantly greater increase in disc height after surgery (4.0 mm vs 3.4 mm, p < 0.01). There was a significantly greater reduction of back pain (visual analog scale [VAS] score) in cases in which an interbody cage was used (5.4 vs 4.7, p = 0.03). Fusion rates were 5.5% higher in the cage group (96.3% vs 90.8%) and reached statistical significance (p = 0.03). No statistically significant differences were identified between the two groups regarding all-cause reoperation rates, complication rates, or improvement in Oswestry Disability Index score or leg pain (VAS score).
CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that implantation of an interbody cage is associated with higher rates of fusion, more effective maintenance of disc height, and greater improvement of back pain. This study underlines the clinical value of interbody cages in lumbar arthrodesis for patients with degenerative spine disease.
METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify studies directly comparing outcomes of lumbar interbody arthrodesis with and without interbody cage use. The outcomes of individual studies were synthesized in meta-analyses using random-effects models.
RESULTS: Twenty studies with 1508 patients (769 with an interbody cage and 739 without an interbody cage) were included. Interbody cage placement was associated with a significantly greater increase in disc height after surgery (4.0 mm vs 3.4 mm, p < 0.01). There was a significantly greater reduction of back pain (visual analog scale [VAS] score) in cases in which an interbody cage was used (5.4 vs 4.7, p = 0.03). Fusion rates were 5.5% higher in the cage group (96.3% vs 90.8%) and reached statistical significance (p = 0.03). No statistically significant differences were identified between the two groups regarding all-cause reoperation rates, complication rates, or improvement in Oswestry Disability Index score or leg pain (VAS score).
CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that implantation of an interbody cage is associated with higher rates of fusion, more effective maintenance of disc height, and greater improvement of back pain. This study underlines the clinical value of interbody cages in lumbar arthrodesis for patients with degenerative spine disease.