Streamlining the Journey of Research Into Clinical Practice: Making Your Patients and Practice Flourish: When to Fuse? An Evidence Based Review of Treatment Strategies in Degenerative Spondylolisthesis.

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Christopher T Martin, Luca Ambrosio, Juan P Cabrera Cousiño, Xiaolong Chen, Jason Py Cheung, Waeel Hamouda, Hai V Le, Philip K Louie, Sathish Muthu, Hardeep Singh, Mohamed A R Soliman, Veranis Sotirios, Javad Tavakoli, Sven Y Vetter, Zorica Buser, Andreas K Demetriades, Ashish Diwan, Patrick C Hsieh, Amit Jain, Gianluca Vadalà, Charles G Fisher, S Tim Yoon
{"title":"Streamlining the Journey of Research Into Clinical Practice: Making Your Patients and Practice Flourish: When to Fuse? An Evidence Based Review of Treatment Strategies in Degenerative Spondylolisthesis.","authors":"Christopher T Martin, Luca Ambrosio, Juan P Cabrera Cousiño, Xiaolong Chen, Jason Py Cheung, Waeel Hamouda, Hai V Le, Philip K Louie, Sathish Muthu, Hardeep Singh, Mohamed A R Soliman, Veranis Sotirios, Javad Tavakoli, Sven Y Vetter, Zorica Buser, Andreas K Demetriades, Ashish Diwan, Patrick C Hsieh, Amit Jain, Gianluca Vadalà, Charles G Fisher, S Tim Yoon","doi":"10.1177/21925682251336755","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Study DesignLiterature review.ObjectiveTo provide a concise review of outcomes of decompression and fusion (D + F) vs decompression (D) alone for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS).Methods6 articles were selected, including 3 randomized clinical trials (RCT), 2 meta-analyses, and 1 radiographic cohort study. Summarized factors affecting the outcomes of D + F vs D alone for DLS and provide expert level clinical recommendations.ResultsGhogawala included DLS patients showing improved SF-36 scores (<i>P</i> = 0.046) and lower re-operation rates (<i>P</i> = 0.05) in D + F patients compared to D alone. Forsth, included patients with stenosis both with and without DLS, and showed no difference in any reported outcome measure or reoperation rate. Austevoll included DLS patients that found that D alone was non-inferior to D + F in the primary outcome measure of ODI reduction at 2-year after surgery. Gadjradi included studies showing higher morbidity in the D + F group, as compared to D alone. Shukla included studies which found there was no difference in the raw patient outcome scores at final follow-up. Blumenthal included DLS patients who received D and reported disc height of >6.5 mm, facet angle >50°, and dynamic motion >1.25 mm were associated with high re-operation rates (45%, 39%, and 54% respectively).ConclusionsThe RCT's and meta-analyses report contradictory conclusions and no blanket statement regarding the efficacy of D + F vs D alone can be made for all patients with DLS. Surgeons should closely review pre-operative imaging for signs of instability in order to better identify appropriate patients for each indication.</p>","PeriodicalId":12680,"journal":{"name":"Global Spine Journal","volume":" ","pages":"21925682251336755"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12158961/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/21925682251336755","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

Study DesignLiterature review.ObjectiveTo provide a concise review of outcomes of decompression and fusion (D + F) vs decompression (D) alone for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS).Methods6 articles were selected, including 3 randomized clinical trials (RCT), 2 meta-analyses, and 1 radiographic cohort study. Summarized factors affecting the outcomes of D + F vs D alone for DLS and provide expert level clinical recommendations.ResultsGhogawala included DLS patients showing improved SF-36 scores (P = 0.046) and lower re-operation rates (P = 0.05) in D + F patients compared to D alone. Forsth, included patients with stenosis both with and without DLS, and showed no difference in any reported outcome measure or reoperation rate. Austevoll included DLS patients that found that D alone was non-inferior to D + F in the primary outcome measure of ODI reduction at 2-year after surgery. Gadjradi included studies showing higher morbidity in the D + F group, as compared to D alone. Shukla included studies which found there was no difference in the raw patient outcome scores at final follow-up. Blumenthal included DLS patients who received D and reported disc height of >6.5 mm, facet angle >50°, and dynamic motion >1.25 mm were associated with high re-operation rates (45%, 39%, and 54% respectively).ConclusionsThe RCT's and meta-analyses report contradictory conclusions and no blanket statement regarding the efficacy of D + F vs D alone can be made for all patients with DLS. Surgeons should closely review pre-operative imaging for signs of instability in order to better identify appropriate patients for each indication.

精简研究之旅到临床实践:让你的病人和实践蓬勃发展:何时融合?退行性椎体滑脱治疗策略的循证回顾。
研究设计:文献综述。目的总结减压融合(D + F)与单纯减压(D)治疗退行性腰椎滑脱(DLS)的疗效。方法选取6篇文献,包括3篇随机临床试验(RCT)、2篇荟萃分析和1篇影像学队列研究。总结影响D + F vs D单用治疗DLS结果的因素,并提供专家级临床建议。结果ghogawala纳入的DLS患者SF-36评分提高(P = 0.046), D + F组再手术率较D组低(P = 0.05)。Forsth纳入了伴有和不伴有DLS的狭窄患者,并且在任何报道的结果测量或再手术率方面没有差异。austrevoll纳入了DLS患者,发现在术后2年ODI减少的主要结局指标中,D单独并不逊于D + F。Gadjradi纳入的研究显示,与单独服用D相比,D + F组发病率更高。Shukla纳入的研究发现,在最终随访时,原始患者结局评分没有差异。Blumenthal纳入了接受D手术的DLS患者,报告的椎间盘高度>6.5 mm,关节突角度>50°,动态运动>1.25 mm与高再手术率相关(分别为45%,39%和54%)。RCT和荟萃分析报告了相互矛盾的结论,对于所有DLS患者,不能对D + F与D单独治疗的疗效做出全面的说明。外科医生应仔细检查术前影像学不稳定的迹象,以便更好地为每个适应症确定合适的患者。
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
Global Spine Journal
Global Spine Journal Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
8.30%
发文量
278
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: Global Spine Journal (GSJ) is the official scientific publication of AOSpine. A peer-reviewed, open access journal, devoted to the study and treatment of spinal disorders, including diagnosis, operative and non-operative treatment options, surgical techniques, and emerging research and clinical developments.GSJ is indexed in PubMedCentral, SCOPUS, and Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI).
×
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