Comparison of instrumented and stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Both instrumented and stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) have been widely used to treat lumbar degenerative disease. However, it remains controversial as whether posterior internal fixation is required when LLIF is performed. This meta-analysis aims to compare the radiographic and cl...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:BMC musculoskeletal disorders 2024-02, Vol.25 (1), p.108-108, Article 108
Hauptverfasser: Jiang, Lianghai, Liu, Lantao, Dong, Liang, Xu, Zhengwei, Zhang, Xiaobo, Qian, Lixiong
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Both instrumented and stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) have been widely used to treat lumbar degenerative disease. However, it remains controversial as whether posterior internal fixation is required when LLIF is performed. This meta-analysis aims to compare the radiographic and clinical results between instrumented and stand-alone LLIF. PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Collaboration Library up to March 2023 were searched for studies that compared instrumented and stand-alone LLIF in the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease. The following outcomes were extracted for comparison: interbody fusion rate, cage subsidence rate, reoperation rate, restoration of disc height, segmental lordosis, lumbar lordosis, visual analog scale (VAS) scores of low-back and leg pain and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores. 13 studies involving 1063 patients were included. The pooled results showed that instrumented LLIF had higher fusion rate (OR 2.09; 95% CI 1.16-3.75; P = 0.01), lower cage subsidence (OR 0.50; 95% CI 0.37-0.68; P 
ISSN:1471-2474
1471-2474
DOI:10.1186/s12891-024-07214-6