Comparison between spinal fusion vs. nonoperative treatment for lumbar degenerative pathology: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Khaled Moghib, Gergis Altalab, Arwa Jader, Thoria I Essa Ghanm, Mesan Hijazy, Dana Y Tarawneh, Ramish Hannat, Izere Salomon, Ahmed Ibrahim Edress, Muhannad Wael Abu Arafeh, Olivier Uwishema, Joshua Limantoro, Antonio Medina Luna, Ismail Bozkurt
{"title":"Comparison between spinal fusion vs. nonoperative treatment for lumbar degenerative pathology: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Khaled Moghib, Gergis Altalab, Arwa Jader, Thoria I Essa Ghanm, Mesan Hijazy, Dana Y Tarawneh, Ramish Hannat, Izere Salomon, Ahmed Ibrahim Edress, Muhannad Wael Abu Arafeh, Olivier Uwishema, Joshua Limantoro, Antonio Medina Luna, Ismail Bozkurt","doi":"10.1007/s10143-025-03671-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Lumbar fusion is widely used to treat chronic lumbar degenerative pathology; however, its effectiveness and safety compared with nonoperative management remain controversial.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate and compare the effectiveness and safety of spinal fusion and conservative management in treating lumbar degenerative pathology.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. The PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Central, Web of Science, and Embase databases were searched in October 2024. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies reporting pain reduction and functional disability outcomes. The primary outcomes were changes in the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain. Data were analyzed using a random-effects model in RevMan 5.4.1, with subgroup and sensitivity analyses performed to address heterogeneity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fourteen studies comprising 13 RCTs and one cohort study, involving 2,399 participants, were included. Spinal fusion showed significant improvements in ODI scores compared to conservative treatment (MD = -6.3; 95% CI [-12.02, -0.57]; p = 0.03), indicating reduced disability. VAS back pain scores also favored spinal fusion (MD = -3.02; 95% CI [-5, 1.04]; p = 0.003), with long-term outcomes showing consistent benefits (MD = -2.26; 95% CI [-3.16, 1.37]; p < 0.00001). However, spinal fusion did not significantly reduce leg pain compared to non-operative options (MD = -2.27; 95% CI [-8.37, 3.83]; p = 0.47).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Spinal fusion offers statistically significant benefits in reducing disability and back pain compared with conservative treatments for lumbar degenerative pathology. However, it does not confer substantial advantages to leg pain and carries a high surgical risk. These findings emphasize the importance of individualized treatment selection based on patient characteristics and clinical indications.</p>","PeriodicalId":19184,"journal":{"name":"Neurosurgical Review","volume":"48 1","pages":"502"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurosurgical Review","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-025-03671-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Lumbar fusion is widely used to treat chronic lumbar degenerative pathology; however, its effectiveness and safety compared with nonoperative management remain controversial.

Objectives: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate and compare the effectiveness and safety of spinal fusion and conservative management in treating lumbar degenerative pathology.

Method: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. The PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Central, Web of Science, and Embase databases were searched in October 2024. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies reporting pain reduction and functional disability outcomes. The primary outcomes were changes in the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain. Data were analyzed using a random-effects model in RevMan 5.4.1, with subgroup and sensitivity analyses performed to address heterogeneity.

Results: Fourteen studies comprising 13 RCTs and one cohort study, involving 2,399 participants, were included. Spinal fusion showed significant improvements in ODI scores compared to conservative treatment (MD = -6.3; 95% CI [-12.02, -0.57]; p = 0.03), indicating reduced disability. VAS back pain scores also favored spinal fusion (MD = -3.02; 95% CI [-5, 1.04]; p = 0.003), with long-term outcomes showing consistent benefits (MD = -2.26; 95% CI [-3.16, 1.37]; p < 0.00001). However, spinal fusion did not significantly reduce leg pain compared to non-operative options (MD = -2.27; 95% CI [-8.37, 3.83]; p = 0.47).

Conclusion: Spinal fusion offers statistically significant benefits in reducing disability and back pain compared with conservative treatments for lumbar degenerative pathology. However, it does not confer substantial advantages to leg pain and carries a high surgical risk. These findings emphasize the importance of individualized treatment selection based on patient characteristics and clinical indications.

脊柱融合术与非手术治疗腰椎退行性病理的比较:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:腰椎融合术被广泛用于治疗慢性腰椎退行性病理;然而,与非手术治疗相比,其有效性和安全性仍存在争议。目的:本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在评估和比较脊柱融合术和保守治疗腰椎退行性病理的有效性和安全性。方法:根据PRISMA指南进行系统评价和荟萃分析。2024年10月检索了PubMed、Scopus、Cochrane Central、Web of Science和Embase数据库。符合条件的研究包括报告疼痛减轻和功能残疾结果的随机对照试验(rct)和观察性研究。主要结局是Oswestry残疾指数(ODI)和视觉模拟量表(VAS)背部和腿部疼痛评分的变化。使用RevMan 5.4.1中的随机效应模型分析数据,并进行亚组分析和敏感性分析以解决异质性。结果:纳入14项研究,包括13项随机对照试验和1项队列研究,涉及2399名参与者。与保守治疗相比,脊柱融合术的ODI评分有显著改善(MD = -6.3;95% ci [-12.02, -0.57];P = 0.03),表明残疾程度降低。VAS背痛评分也有利于脊柱融合术(MD = -3.02;95% ci [-5, 1.04];p = 0.003),长期结果显示一致的益处(MD = -2.26;95% ci [-3.16, 1.37];结论:与腰椎退行性病理的保守治疗相比,脊柱融合术在减少残疾和背部疼痛方面具有统计学上显著的益处。然而,它对腿部疼痛并没有实质性的好处,而且有很高的手术风险。这些发现强调了根据患者特点和临床适应症进行个体化治疗选择的重要性。
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
Neurosurgical Review
Neurosurgical Review 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
7.10%
发文量
191
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The goal of Neurosurgical Review is to provide a forum for comprehensive reviews on current issues in neurosurgery. Each issue contains up to three reviews, reflecting all important aspects of one topic (a disease or a surgical approach). Comments by a panel of experts within the same issue complete the topic. By providing comprehensive coverage of one topic per issue, Neurosurgical Review combines the topicality of professional journals with the indepth treatment of a monograph. Original papers of high quality are also welcome.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信