Radiologic Assessment of Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Review on the Use, Reliability, and Accuracy of Current Fusion Criteria.

IF 1.7 Q2 SURGERY
JBJS Reviews Pub Date : 2024-01-09 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.2106/JBJS.RVW.23.00065
Anneli A A Duits, Paul R van Urk, A Mechteld Lehr, Don Nutzinger, Maarten R L Reijnders, Harrie Weinans, Wouter Foppen, F Cuhmur Oner, Steven M van Gaalen, Moyo C Kruyt
{"title":"Radiologic Assessment of Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Review on the Use, Reliability, and Accuracy of Current Fusion Criteria.","authors":"Anneli A A Duits, Paul R van Urk, A Mechteld Lehr, Don Nutzinger, Maarten R L Reijnders, Harrie Weinans, Wouter Foppen, F Cuhmur Oner, Steven M van Gaalen, Moyo C Kruyt","doi":"10.2106/JBJS.RVW.23.00065","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Lumbar interbody fusion (IF) is a common procedure to fuse the anterior spine. However, a lack of consensus on image-based fusion assessment limits the validity and comparison of IF studies. This systematic review aims to (1) report on IF assessment strategies and definitions and (2) summarize available literature on the diagnostic reliability and accuracy of these assessments.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Two searches were performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. Search 1 identified studies on adult lumbar IF that provided a detailed description of image-based fusion assessment. Search 2 analyzed studies on the reliability of specific fusion criteria/classifications and the accuracy assessed with surgical exploration.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 442 studies were included for search 1 and 8 studies for search 2. Fusion assessment throughout the literature was highly variable. Eighteen definitions and more than 250 unique fusion assessment methods were identified. The criteria that showed most consistent use were continuity of bony bridging, radiolucency around the cage, and angular motion <5°. However, reliability and accuracy studies were scarce.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This review highlights the challenges in reaching consensus on IF assessment. The variability in IF assessment is very high, which limits the translatability of studies. Accuracy studies are needed to guide innovations of assessment. Future IF assessment strategies should focus on the standardization of computed tomography-based continuity of bony bridging. Knowledge from preclinical and imaging studies can add valuable information to this ongoing discussion.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Diagnostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":47098,"journal":{"name":"JBJS Reviews","volume":"12 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JBJS Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.RVW.23.00065","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Lumbar interbody fusion (IF) is a common procedure to fuse the anterior spine. However, a lack of consensus on image-based fusion assessment limits the validity and comparison of IF studies. This systematic review aims to (1) report on IF assessment strategies and definitions and (2) summarize available literature on the diagnostic reliability and accuracy of these assessments.

Methods: Two searches were performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. Search 1 identified studies on adult lumbar IF that provided a detailed description of image-based fusion assessment. Search 2 analyzed studies on the reliability of specific fusion criteria/classifications and the accuracy assessed with surgical exploration.

Results: A total of 442 studies were included for search 1 and 8 studies for search 2. Fusion assessment throughout the literature was highly variable. Eighteen definitions and more than 250 unique fusion assessment methods were identified. The criteria that showed most consistent use were continuity of bony bridging, radiolucency around the cage, and angular motion <5°. However, reliability and accuracy studies were scarce.

Conclusion: This review highlights the challenges in reaching consensus on IF assessment. The variability in IF assessment is very high, which limits the translatability of studies. Accuracy studies are needed to guide innovations of assessment. Future IF assessment strategies should focus on the standardization of computed tomography-based continuity of bony bridging. Knowledge from preclinical and imaging studies can add valuable information to this ongoing discussion.

Level of evidence: Diagnostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

椎间融合的放射学评估:关于当前融合标准的使用、可靠性和准确性的系统回顾。
背景:腰椎椎体间融合术(IF)是融合前椎的常见手术。然而,由于对基于图像的融合评估缺乏共识,限制了腰椎椎体间融合术研究的有效性和可比性。本系统性综述旨在:(1)报告 IF 评估策略和定义;(2)总结有关这些评估的诊断可靠性和准确性的现有文献:方法:根据《系统综述和元分析首选报告项目》指南进行了两次检索。检索1确定了详细描述基于图像的融合评估的成人腰椎间盘突出症研究。检索 2 分析了有关特定融合标准/分类的可靠性以及手术探查评估准确性的研究:检索 1 共纳入 442 项研究,检索 2 共纳入 8 项研究。文献中的融合评估差异很大。共发现 18 种定义和 250 多种独特的融合评估方法。使用最一致的标准是骨桥的连续性、骨笼周围的放射性透明以及角度运动 结论:本综述强调了就 IF 评估达成共识所面临的挑战。IF 评估的可变性非常高,这限制了研究的可转化性。需要进行准确性研究,以指导评估创新。未来的 IF 评估策略应侧重于基于计算机断层扫描的骨桥连续性标准化。临床前研究和影像学研究的知识可为这一正在进行的讨论增添有价值的信息:诊断级别 III。有关证据级别的完整描述,请参阅 "作者须知"。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
JBJS Reviews
JBJS Reviews SURGERY-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
4.30%
发文量
132
期刊介绍: JBJS Reviews is an innovative review journal from the publishers of The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery. This continuously published online journal provides comprehensive, objective, and authoritative review articles written by recognized experts in the field. Edited by Thomas A. Einhorn, MD, and a distinguished Editorial Board, each issue of JBJS Reviews, updates the orthopaedic community on important topics in a concise, time-saving manner, providing expert insights into orthopaedic research and clinical experience. Comprehensive reviews, special features, and integrated CME provide orthopaedic surgeons with valuable perspectives on surgical practice and the latest advances in the field within twelve subspecialty areas: Basic Science, Education & Training, Elbow, Ethics, Foot & Ankle, Hand & Wrist, Hip, Infection, Knee, Oncology, Pediatrics, Pain Management, Rehabilitation, Shoulder, Spine, Sports Medicine, Trauma.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信