PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
UNASSIGNED: 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.
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: 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.
摘要：
未经证实：退变性腰椎滑脱影响约10%的40岁以上成人。虽然减压一直是治疗的选择，一些外科医生注意到单独减压后可能出现不稳定(D)。先前的研究表明，融合减压（DF）的并发症发生率相似，但在预防滑脱进展和减轻疼痛方面更好。然而,其他人表示,额外的仪器不会导致更优的功能结局,并且具有更高的成本和并发症发生率.本研究旨在提供一个客观的，使用系统评价和荟萃分析对两种治疗方法进行两组比较。
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。2021年4月至2021年9月进行了系统搜索，以确定使用PubMed的相关研究，谷歌学者，EMBASE,和基于PRISMA指南的Cochrane数据库。
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，随访期长达143个月。最常受影响的水平是L4-5，女性比男性受影响更大。DF组对背痛的视觉模拟量表改善明显更好(异质性，I2=32%；大规模杀伤性武器-0.72；95%置信区间(CI)，-1.35至-0.08；P=0.03），以及术后背痛（I2=96％；WMD0.87；95％CI，0.19至1.55；P=0.01）。腿部疼痛，Oswestry残疾指数（ODI），满意率,并发症发生率,两种方法的修订率相当。
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，两种手术在腿部疼痛方面具有可比性，ODI,满意率,并发症发生率,和修订率。
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，
