Effects of three common lumbar interbody fusion procedures for degenerative disc disease: A network meta-analysis of prospective studies. (December 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Lin, En-Yuan; Kuo, Yu-Kai; Kang, Yi-No
• Is Part Of: International journal of surgery. Volume 60(2018)
• Page Start: 224
• Page End: 230
• Publication Date: 2018-12
• Subjects: Degenerative disk disease -- Anterior lumbar interbody fusion -- Posterior lumbar interbody fusion -- Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion; CI confidence interval -- LIF lumbar interbody fusion -- ODI Oswestry disability index -- RCT randomized clinical trial -- SE standard error -- SUCRA surface under the cumulative ranking curve -- WMD weighted mean difference; Surgery -- Periodicals; Surgical Procedures, Operative -- Periodicals; 617.005
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2018.11.009
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1743-9191

Abstract

Abstract: Objectives: Lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) is a treatment option for patients with degenerative disc disease (DDD). However, the effects of the most common LIF procedures—posterior LIF, transforaminal LIF, and anterior LIF—for the treatment of patients with DDD remain controversial. This study evaluated the pain and function caused by the LIF procedures for the treatment of patients with DDD. Methods: Cochrane library, EMBASE, Ovid Medline, and PubMed were searched from inception to July 17, 2018. We only included prospective studies comparing the LIF procedures for treating patients with DDD. Pain score, Oswestry disability index (ODI) score, and operative time were analyzed in a contrast-based consistency model. Results are reported in weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: This study included eight prospective studies that recruited 503 patients for the LIF procedures. Minimally invasive posterior LIF resulted in lower pain scores than open transforaminal LIF (WMD: −1.45, 95% CI: −2.27 to −0.63) and open posterior LIF (WMD: −0.61, 95% CI: −1.10 to −0.12). It also resulted in a lower ODI score than open transforaminal LIF (WMD: −15.34, 95% CI: −21.76 to −8.91), anterior LIF (WMD: −15.64, 95% CI: −26.37 to −4.91), minimally invasive transforaminal LIF (WMD: −11.63, 95% CI: −16.86 to −6.40), and open posterior LIF (WMD: −10.93, 95% CI: −16.07 to −5.79). Small study effects were not detected in any consistency models. Conclusions: Although minimally invasive posterior LIF has longer operative time than anterior LIF, it is associated with lower pain and ODI scores. Therefore, minimally invasive posterior LIF may be a superior LIF procedure for patients with DDD. Highlights: This is the first network meta-analysis for lumbar interbody fusion (LIF). This study focused on degenerative disc disease (DDD). Minimally invasive posterior LIF may be a better procedure for DDD. Open transforaminal LIF may not be recommended for DDD. Anterior LIF was associated with shorter operative time.