Adjacent segment degeneration after lumbar spinal fusion compared with motion-preservation procedures: a meta-analysis
This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy of motion-preservation procedures to prevent the adjacent segment degeneration (ASDeg) or adjacent segment disease (ASDis) compared with fusion in lumbar spine.
PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library were comprehensively searched and a meta-analysis was performed of all randomized controlled trials and well designed prospective or retrospective comparative cohort studies assessing the lumbar fusion and motion-preservation procedures. We compared the ASDeg and ASDis rate, reoperation rate, operation time, blood loss, length of hospital stay, visual analogue scale (VAS) and oswestry disability index (ODI) improvement of the two procedures.
A total of 15 studies consisting of 1474 patients were included in this study. The meta-analysis indicated that the prevalence of ASDeg, ASDis and reoperation rate on the adjacent level were lower in motion-preservation procedures group than in the fusion group (P = 0.001; P = 0.0004; P < 0.0001). Moreover, shorter length of hospital stay was found in motion-preservation procedures group (P < 0.0001). No difference was found in terms of operation time (P = 0.57), blood loss (P = 0.27), VAS (P = 0.76) and ODI improvement (P = 0.71) between the two groups.
The present evidences indicated that the motion-preservation procedures had an advantage on reducing the prevalence of ASDeg, ASDis and the reoperation rate due to the adjacent segment degeneration compared with the lumbar fusion. And the clinical outcomes of the two procedures are similar.
KeywordsAdjacent segment degeneration Adjacent segment disease Lumbar spinal fusion Motion-preservation procedures Meta-analysis
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
None of the authors has any potential conflict of interest. No funds were received in support of this work. No benefits in any form have been or will be received from any commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this manuscript.
- 1.Bono CM, Lee CK (2004) Critical analysis of trends in fusion for degenerative disc disease over the past 20 years: influence of technique on fusion rate and clinical outcome. Spine 29:455–463Google Scholar
- 4.Schmoelz W, Huber JF, Nydegger T, Dipl-Ing, Claes L, Wilke HJ (2003) Dynamic stabilization of the lumbar spine and its effects on adjacent segments: an in vitro experiment. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:418–423Google Scholar
- 9.Yang Y, Hong Y, Liu H, Song Y, Li T, Liu L, Gong Q (2015) Comparison of clinical and radiographic results between isobar posterior dynamic stabilization and posterior lumbar inter-body fusion for lumbar degenerative disease: a four-year retrospective study. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 136:100–106CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 11.Olsen JJ, Skov J, Ingerslev J, Thorn JJ, Pinholt EM (2015) Prevention of bleeding in orthognathic surgery—a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Oral Maxillofac SurgGoogle Scholar
- 13.Kumar A, Beastall J, Hughes J, Karadimas EJ, Nicol M, Smith F, Wardlaw D (2008) Disc changes in the bridged and adjacent segments after Dynesys dynamic stabilization system after two years. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:2909–2914Google Scholar
- 20.Guyer RD, McAfee PC, Banco RJ, Bitan FD, Cappuccino A, Geisler FH, Hochschuler SH, Holt RT, Jenis LG, Majd ME, Regan JJ, Tromanhauser SG, Wong DC, Blumenthal SL (2009) Prospective, randomized, multicenter food and drug administration investigational device exemption study of lumbar total disc replacement with the CHARITE artificial disc versus lumbar fusion: five-year follow-up. Spine J 9:374–386CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 22.Kaner T, Dalbayrak S, Oktenoglu T, Sasani M, Aydin AL, Ozer AF (2010) Comparison of posterior dynamic and posterior rigid transpedicular stabilization with fusion to treat degenerative spondylolisthesis. Orthopedics 33:1433–1434Google Scholar
- 24.McAfee PC, Geisler FH, Saiedy SS, Moore SV, Regan JJ, Guyer RD, Blumenthal SL, Fedder IL, Tortolani PJ, Cunningham B (2006) Revisability of the CHARITE artificial disc replacement: analysis of 688 patients enrolled in the US IDE study of the CHARITE Artificial Disc. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:1217–1226Google Scholar
- 25.Lawrence BD, Wang J, Arnold PM, Hermsmeyer J, Norvell DC, Brodke DS (2012) Predicting the risk of adjacent segment pathology after lumbar fusion: a systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37(22 Suppl):123–132Google Scholar
- 27.Wai EK, Santos ER, Morcom RA, Fraser RD (2006) Magnetic resonance imaging 20 years after anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:1952–1956Google Scholar
- 28.Park P, Garton HJ, Gala VC, Hoff JT, McGillicuddy JE (2004) Adjacent segment disease after lumbar or lumbosacral fusion: review of the literature. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29:1938–1944Google Scholar
- 30.Booth KC, Bridwell KH, Eisenberg BA, Baldus CR, Lenke LG (1999) Minimum 5-year results of degenerative spondylolisthesis treated with decompression and instrumented posterior fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 24:1721–1727Google Scholar
- 31.Hambly MF, Wiltse LL, Raghavan N, Schneiderman G, Koenig C (1998) The transition zone above a lumbosacral fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 23:1785–1792Google Scholar
- 32.Kumar MN, Jacquot F, Hall HN (2001) Long-term follow-up of functional outcomes and radiographic changes at adjacent levels following lumbar spine fusion for degenerative disc disease. Eur Spine J 10:309–313Google Scholar
- 33.Grob D, Benini A, Junge A, Mannion AF (2005) Clinical experience with the Dynesys semirigid fixation system for the lumbar spine: surgical and patient-oriented outcome in 50 cases after an average of 2 years. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:324–331Google Scholar
- 34.Korovessis P, Papazisis Z, Koureas G, Lambiris E (2004) Rigid, semirigid versus dynamic instrumentation for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a correlative radiological and clinical analysis of short-term results. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29:735–742Google Scholar
- 38.Lu S, Kong C, Hai Y, Wang Q, Zang L, Kang N, Meng X, Wang Y (2015) Retrospective study on effectiveness of activ L total disc replacement: clinical and radiographical results of 1- to 3-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 40:411–417Google Scholar
- 39.Büttner-Janz K, Guyer RD, Ohnmeiss DD (2014) Indications for lumbar total disc replacement: selecting the right patient with the right indication for the right total disc. Int J Spine Surg 8:1Google Scholar
- 43.Putzier M, Schneider SV, Funk JF, Tohtz SW, Perka C (2005) The surgical treatment of the lumbar disc prolapse: nucleotomy with additional transpedicular dynamic stabilization versus nucleotomy alone. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:E109–E114Google Scholar
- 44.Nockels RP (2005) Dynamic stabilization in the surgical management of painful lumbar spinal disorders. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30(16 Suppl):68–72Google Scholar