UNASSIGNED: 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.
UNASSIGNED: 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.
UNASSIGNED: 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.
UNASSIGNED:研究设计是对相关随机对照试验和非随机对照比较研究的系统评价和荟萃分析。
UNASSIGNED:该系统综述包括8项研究(6,669例患者);7项(6,569例患者)纳入荟萃分析,
UNASSIGNED:目前的系统评价和荟萃分析证明,DF在改善背痛方面优于D,