Interspinous spacers versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spinal diseases: a meta-analysis of prospective studies
- 730 Downloads
Our aim is to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of interspinous spacers versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) for degenerative lumbar spinal diseases.
A comprehensive literature search was performed using PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane Library through September 2015. Included studies were performed according to eligibility criteria. Data of complication rate, post-operative back visual analogue scale (VAS) score, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score, estimated blood loss (EBL), operative time, length of hospital stay (LOS), range of motion (ROM) at the surgical, proximal and distal segments were extracted and analyzed.
Ten studies were selected from 177 citations. The pooled data demonstrated the interspinous spacers group had a lower estimated blood loss (weighted mean difference [WMD]: −175.66 ml; 95 % confidence interval [CI], −241.03 to −110.30; p < 0.00001), shorter operative time (WMD: −55.47 min; 95%CI, −74.29 to −36.65; p < 0.00001), larger range of motion (ROM) at the surgical segment (WMD: 3.97 degree; 95%CI, −3.24 to −1.91; p < 0.00001) and more limited ROM at the proximal segment (WMD: −2.58 degree; 95%CI, 2.48 to 5.47; p < 0.00001) after operation. Post-operative back VAS score, ODI score, length of hospital stay, complication rate and ROM at the distal segment showed no difference between the two groups.
Our meta-analysis suggested that interspinous spacers appear to be a safe and effective alternative to PLIF for selective patients with degenerative lumbar spinal diseases. However, more randomized controlled trials (RCT) are still needed to further confirm our results.
KeywordsInterspinous spacer PLIF Degenerative lumbar spinal diseases Meta-analysis
Thanks are due to Taifeng Zhou and Chong Chen for valuable discussion.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
- 1.Cole CD, McCall TD, Schmidt MH, Dailey AT (2009) Comparison of low back fusion techniques: transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) or posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) approaches. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2:118–126. doi: 10.1007/s12178-009-9053-8 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 5.Puzzilli F, Gazzeri R, Galarza M, Neroni M, Panagiotopoulos K, Bolognini A, Callovini G, Agrillo U, Alfieri A (2014) Interspinous spacer decompression (X-STOP) for lumbar spinal stenosis and degenerative disk disease: a multicenter study with a minimum 3-year follow-up. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 124:166–174. doi: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2014.07.004 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 7.Zhao-hui C, Qiang FU, Cong W et al (2010) Posterior single segment fusion or non-fusion in treatment of lumbar spinal disease: a comparative study. Orthop J China 18:629–632Google Scholar
- 8.Zeng Z, Guo Z, Zhu Z et al (2013) Posterior single segment fusion or non - fusion in treatment of lumbar spinal disease: a comparative study. Orthop J China 21:34–36Google Scholar
- 10.Hongsheng LIN, Guowei Z, Hao WU, Ning LIU, Zhengang ZHA et al (2011) Treatment of single degenerative disc disease with Coflex interspinous implant and posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a comparative analysis. J Sun Yat-sen Univ Med Sci 32:364–369Google Scholar
- 11.Liang C, Chang Y, Zhan S, Wang Y, Ke Y, Yin D, Xiao D, Zheng X et al (2014) A comparative study between single lever Coflex implantation and lumbar fusion in treating single-level degenerative lumbar spinal disorders. Chin J Clin Anat 32:98–101Google Scholar
- 12.Li Z, Qian J, Li C et al (2010) Comparison of short term outcome in the treatment of degenerative lumbar stenosis with Coflex implant versus laminectomy and posterior interbody fusion along with pedicle screw system. Orthop J China 18:888–891Google Scholar
- 13.Jin LIU, Hao LIU, Tao LI, Jiancheng Z, Yueming S, Limin LIU, Quan G et al (2011) Coflex interspinous dynamic reconstruction and 360 degrees fusion for single level lumbar degenerative disease: a cost-utility analysis. Chin J Evid Based Med 11:893–898Google Scholar
- 14.Jiangming YU, Yunrong ZHU, Peng XU et al (2011) A comparative study of Coflex interspinous internal fixation versus posterior interbody fusion used in the surgical treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Orthop J China 19:885–888Google Scholar
- 15.Davis RJ, Errico TJ, Bae H, Auerbach JD (2013) Decompression and Coflex interlaminar stabilization compared with decompression and instrumented spinal fusion for spinal stenosis and low-grade degenerative spondylolisthesis two-year results from the prospective, randomized, multicenter, food and drug administration investigational device exemption trial. Spine 38:1529–1539CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 16.Awei F, Zhong R, Wang L, Liu S, Cui S, Pan X, Sun H, Huang Y et al (2014) Analysis of adjacent segment disease after different lumbar instrumented fusion by using magnetic resonance T1p. J Sun Yat-sen Univ Med Sci 35:545–551Google Scholar
- 22.Zhao H, Guo M, Mei Y et al (2012) Coflex versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of lumbar spine degenerative diseases: a meta analysis. Orthop J China 20:2129–2134Google Scholar
- 24.Deyo RA, Martin BI, Ching A, Tosteson AN, Jarvik JG, Kreuter W, Mirza SK (2013) Interspinous spacers compared with decompression or fusion for lumbar stenosis: complications and repeat operations in the medicare population. Spine 38:865–872. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31828631b8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar