{"title":"评估低级别退行性腰椎滑脱的手术干预:单独减压、融合和动态稳定的网络荟萃分析。","authors":"Yize Zhao, Yong Huang, Zhe Wang, Yueming Song, Ganjun Feng","doi":"10.1007/s00586-025-08788-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to investigate which of the decompression alone (DA), decompression with fusion (DF), and decompression with dynamic stabilization (DS) produced the most favorable outcome for patients with low-grade degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (LDLS).</p><p><strong>Material and method: </strong>Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science were searched for all studies published before October 1, 2023. A review and data analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of three interventions was performed by Stata (version 17.0) and Review Manager (version 5.4).</p><p><strong>Result: </strong>21 RCT studies with 3192 patients were included in the network meta-analysis. DA was superior to DF (MD = -92.05, P < 0.05; MD = -295.57, P < 0.05; MD = -2.19, P < 0.05; RR = 0.54, P < 0.05, respectively) and DS (MD = -35.69, P < 0.05; MD = -100.7, P < 0.05; MD = -295.57, P < 0.05; MD = -2.19, P < 0.05; RR = 0.54, P < 0.05, respectively) in reducing operative time, intraoperative blood loss, length of hospital stay, and postoperative adverse events. DS was superior to DF in reducing operative time, intraoperative blood loss, and length of hospital stay (MD = -56.35, P < 0.05; MD = -194.84, P < 0.05; MD = -1.12, P < 0.05, respectively). DF was superior to DA in reducing reoperations (RR = 0.55, p < 0.05). DF was superior to DA (MD = -1.44, p < 0.05) and DS (MD = -0.41, p < 0.05) in controlling the progression of olisthesis.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>DA was the most favorable treatment for LDLS, reducing operative time, bleeding, hospital stay, and postoperative complications. DF outperformed DA in reducing reoperation rates. Although DS showed benefits in operative time and bleeding compared to DF, it did not offer a significant advantage over DA.</p>","PeriodicalId":12323,"journal":{"name":"European Spine Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating surgical interventions for low-grade degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a network meta-analysis of decompression alone, fusion, and dynamic stabilization.\",\"authors\":\"Yize Zhao, Yong Huang, Zhe Wang, Yueming Song, Ganjun Feng\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00586-025-08788-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to investigate which of the decompression alone (DA), decompression with fusion (DF), and decompression with dynamic stabilization (DS) produced the most favorable outcome for patients with low-grade degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (LDLS).</p><p><strong>Material and method: </strong>Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science were searched for all studies published before October 1, 2023. A review and data analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of three interventions was performed by Stata (version 17.0) and Review Manager (version 5.4).</p><p><strong>Result: </strong>21 RCT studies with 3192 patients were included in the network meta-analysis. DA was superior to DF (MD = -92.05, P < 0.05; MD = -295.57, P < 0.05; MD = -2.19, P < 0.05; RR = 0.54, P < 0.05, respectively) and DS (MD = -35.69, P < 0.05; MD = -100.7, P < 0.05; MD = -295.57, P < 0.05; MD = -2.19, P < 0.05; RR = 0.54, P < 0.05, respectively) in reducing operative time, intraoperative blood loss, length of hospital stay, and postoperative adverse events. DS was superior to DF in reducing operative time, intraoperative blood loss, and length of hospital stay (MD = -56.35, P < 0.05; MD = -194.84, P < 0.05; MD = -1.12, P < 0.05, respectively). DF was superior to DA in reducing reoperations (RR = 0.55, p < 0.05). DF was superior to DA (MD = -1.44, p < 0.05) and DS (MD = -0.41, p < 0.05) in controlling the progression of olisthesis.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>DA was the most favorable treatment for LDLS, reducing operative time, bleeding, hospital stay, and postoperative complications. DF outperformed DA in reducing reoperation rates. Although DS showed benefits in operative time and bleeding compared to DF, it did not offer a significant advantage over DA.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12323,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Spine Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Spine Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-025-08788-y\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-025-08788-y","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
摘要
目的:本研究旨在探讨单纯减压(DA)、减压融合(DF)和减压动力稳定(DS)中哪一种对低级别退行性腰椎滑脱(LDLS)患者产生最有利的结果。材料和方法:检索2023年10月1日之前发表的所有研究,检索Pubmed、Embase、Cochrane和Web of Science。采用Stata(17.0版本)和review Manager(5.4版本)对三种干预措施的所有随机对照试验(rct)进行回顾和数据分析。结果:21项RCT研究3192例患者被纳入网络荟萃分析。DA优于DF (MD = -92.05, P)结论:DA是LDLS最有利的治疗方法,可减少手术时间、出血、住院时间和术后并发症。DF在降低再手术率方面优于DA。虽然与DF相比,DS在手术时间和出血方面有明显的优势,但与DA相比,DS没有明显的优势。
Evaluating surgical interventions for low-grade degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a network meta-analysis of decompression alone, fusion, and dynamic stabilization.
Objective: This study aimed to investigate which of the decompression alone (DA), decompression with fusion (DF), and decompression with dynamic stabilization (DS) produced the most favorable outcome for patients with low-grade degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (LDLS).
Material and method: Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science were searched for all studies published before October 1, 2023. A review and data analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of three interventions was performed by Stata (version 17.0) and Review Manager (version 5.4).
Result: 21 RCT studies with 3192 patients were included in the network meta-analysis. DA was superior to DF (MD = -92.05, P < 0.05; MD = -295.57, P < 0.05; MD = -2.19, P < 0.05; RR = 0.54, P < 0.05, respectively) and DS (MD = -35.69, P < 0.05; MD = -100.7, P < 0.05; MD = -295.57, P < 0.05; MD = -2.19, P < 0.05; RR = 0.54, P < 0.05, respectively) in reducing operative time, intraoperative blood loss, length of hospital stay, and postoperative adverse events. DS was superior to DF in reducing operative time, intraoperative blood loss, and length of hospital stay (MD = -56.35, P < 0.05; MD = -194.84, P < 0.05; MD = -1.12, P < 0.05, respectively). DF was superior to DA in reducing reoperations (RR = 0.55, p < 0.05). DF was superior to DA (MD = -1.44, p < 0.05) and DS (MD = -0.41, p < 0.05) in controlling the progression of olisthesis.
Conclusion: DA was the most favorable treatment for LDLS, reducing operative time, bleeding, hospital stay, and postoperative complications. DF outperformed DA in reducing reoperation rates. Although DS showed benefits in operative time and bleeding compared to DF, it did not offer a significant advantage over DA.
期刊介绍:
"European Spine Journal" is a publication founded in response to the increasing trend toward specialization in spinal surgery and spinal pathology in general. The Journal is devoted to all spine related disciplines, including functional and surgical anatomy of the spine, biomechanics and pathophysiology, diagnostic procedures, and neurology, surgery and outcomes. The aim of "European Spine Journal" is to support the further development of highly innovative spine treatments including but not restricted to surgery and to provide an integrated and balanced view of diagnostic, research and treatment procedures as well as outcomes that will enhance effective collaboration among specialists worldwide. The “European Spine Journal” also participates in education by means of videos, interactive meetings and the endorsement of educative efforts.
Official publication of EUROSPINE, The Spine Society of Europe