Sarah E Johnson, Ryan Nguyen, Karthik Papisetty, Mahani Aljanaahi, Zach Pennington, Giorgos Michalopoulos, Karim Rizwan Nathani, Sufyan Ibrahim, Konstantinos Katsos, Mohamad Bydon
{"title":"Reduction versus fusion in situ for isthmic spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Sarah E Johnson, Ryan Nguyen, Karthik Papisetty, Mahani Aljanaahi, Zach Pennington, Giorgos Michalopoulos, Karim Rizwan Nathani, Sufyan Ibrahim, Konstantinos Katsos, Mohamad Bydon","doi":"10.3171/2025.4.SPINE241213","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Isthmic spondylolisthesis impacts up to 11.5% of the general population. For patients who have failed conservative therapy, decompression and fusion or decompression alone are options for surgical management. However, there remains debate as to whether reduction of mobile spondylolisthesis is integral to good patient outcomes. The present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to address this by comparing clinical and radiological outcomes between patients treated with fusion in situ and those undergoing fusion with reduction of isthmic spondylolisthesis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The Scopus, EMBASE, Medline, and Cochrane databases were systematically queried on the basis of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to identify studies comparing treatment outcomes in patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis after in situ fusion or fusion with spondylolisthesis reduction. Endpoints of interest included Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score, hospitalization duration, operative morbidity, and rates of surgical revision. Data from individual studies were aggregated using random-effects models to assess combined effects.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 277 identified studies, 7 studies were included with an aggregate 308 patients (143 underwent fusion in situ and 165 underwent reduction). Patients who underwent reduction for isthmic lumbar spondylolisthesis had significantly lower rates of pseudarthrosis at last follow-up (OR 0.22, p = 0.03). Estimated blood loss, operative time, hospitalization duration, change in ODI score, change in back pain (visual analog scale [VAS]), and reoperation rate did not differ significantly between groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>For patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis, the present data suggest that fusion with reduction of spondylolisthesis may lower rates of pseudarthrosis as compared to in situ fusion. However, operative morbidity and improvement in patient-reported outcomes were similar between strategies.</p>","PeriodicalId":16562,"journal":{"name":"Journal of neurosurgery. Spine","volume":" ","pages":"1-10"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of neurosurgery. Spine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3171/2025.4.SPINE241213","RegionNum":2,"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
Objective: Isthmic spondylolisthesis impacts up to 11.5% of the general population. For patients who have failed conservative therapy, decompression and fusion or decompression alone are options for surgical management. However, there remains debate as to whether reduction of mobile spondylolisthesis is integral to good patient outcomes. The present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to address this by comparing clinical and radiological outcomes between patients treated with fusion in situ and those undergoing fusion with reduction of isthmic spondylolisthesis.
Methods: The Scopus, EMBASE, Medline, and Cochrane databases were systematically queried on the basis of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to identify studies comparing treatment outcomes in patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis after in situ fusion or fusion with spondylolisthesis reduction. Endpoints of interest included Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score, hospitalization duration, operative morbidity, and rates of surgical revision. Data from individual studies were aggregated using random-effects models to assess combined effects.
Results: Of 277 identified studies, 7 studies were included with an aggregate 308 patients (143 underwent fusion in situ and 165 underwent reduction). Patients who underwent reduction for isthmic lumbar spondylolisthesis had significantly lower rates of pseudarthrosis at last follow-up (OR 0.22, p = 0.03). Estimated blood loss, operative time, hospitalization duration, change in ODI score, change in back pain (visual analog scale [VAS]), and reoperation rate did not differ significantly between groups.
Conclusions: For patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis, the present data suggest that fusion with reduction of spondylolisthesis may lower rates of pseudarthrosis as compared to in situ fusion. However, operative morbidity and improvement in patient-reported outcomes were similar between strategies.
目的:峡部滑脱影响到11.5%的普通人群。对于保守治疗失败的患者,减压融合或单独减压是手术治疗的选择。然而,关于减少活动椎体滑脱是否对患者的良好预后是不可或缺的,仍然存在争议。本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在通过比较原位融合术和峡部滑脱复位融合术患者的临床和影像学结果来解决这一问题。方法:根据系统评价和荟萃分析(PRISMA)指南的首选报告项目,系统地查询Scopus、EMBASE、Medline和Cochrane数据库,以确定比较原位融合术或融合术合并峡部滑脱患者治疗结果的研究。感兴趣的终点包括Oswestry残疾指数(ODI)评分、住院时间、手术发病率和手术翻修率。使用随机效应模型对来自个别研究的数据进行汇总,以评估综合效应。结果:在277项确定的研究中,7项研究共纳入308例患者(143例原位融合,165例复位)。在最后一次随访中,接受峡部腰椎滑脱复位的患者假关节发生率显著降低(OR 0.22, p = 0.03)。估计失血量、手术时间、住院时间、ODI评分变化、背部疼痛变化(视觉模拟量表[VAS])和再手术率组间无显著差异。结论:对于峡部滑脱患者,目前的数据表明,与原位融合术相比,椎体滑脱复位融合术可以降低假关节的发生率。然而,手术发病率和患者报告结果的改善在两种策略之间相似。
期刊介绍:
Primarily publish original works in neurosurgery but also include studies in clinical neurophysiology, organic neurology, ophthalmology, radiology, pathology, and molecular biology.