-
Spine Jan 2016A systematic review with meta-analysis. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
STUDY DESIGN
A systematic review with meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of current evidence evaluating the effectiveness of rehabilitation following lumbar fusion surgery (LFS).
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA
LFS for the management of lower back pain, with(out) neurogenic leg pain, is increasing as the population ages. Clinical outcomes commonly lag behind surgical outcomes and 40% of patients experience significant back-related disability 12 months after LFS. Identifying rehabilitation strategies to improve function and quality of life following LFS is important.
METHODS
A systematic review of databases were searched, including MEDLINE, CINAHL, and grey literature. Studies identified were screened for inclusion by title and abstract. Full text of eligible/potentially eligible studies was evaluated against predetermined eligibility criteria. Included studies were subjected to critical appraisal and risk of bias evaluation. The GRADE approach to quality of evidence was utilized. A meta-analysis comparing usual care with "complex rehabilitation," comprising exercise and cognitive behavioral therapy, for outcomes relating to pain, disability, fear of movement, and mental health was conducted at short and longer term (<3 and >12 months postsurgery) time points.
RESULTS
Three studies were identified for the systematic review and 2 included in the meta-analysis (n = 237, female = 62%, mean age = 55). Low-quality evidence suggests that "complex rehabilitation" provides short-term improvement in disability [effect size, -0.85, 95% confidence interval (95% CI), -1.41 to -0.29] and fear avoidance behavior (-1.07, 95% CI -1.33, -0.80), compared with usual care. Low-quality evidence exists favoring "complex rehabilitation" over usual care for longer term disability (-0.84, 95% CI -1.11 to -0.58) and fear avoidance behavior (-1.40, 95% CI -1.69 to -1.12).
CONCLUSIONS
A small number of low-quality studies suggest that "complex rehabilitation" reduces short and long-term disability and fear avoidance behavior following LFS. More, high-quality research is required to confirm the effectiveness of "complex rehabilitation" programs.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Exercise Therapy; Female; Humans; Lumbar Vertebrae; Male; Middle Aged; Physical Therapy Modalities; Quality of Life; Spinal Fusion; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 26555833
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001132 -
Journal of Neurosurgery. Spine Jun 2017OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to provide a systematic and comprehensive review of the existing literature regarding postfusion rehabilitation. METHODS Using... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to provide a systematic and comprehensive review of the existing literature regarding postfusion rehabilitation. METHODS Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, the authors conducted an exhaustive review of multiple electronic databases. Potential articles were screened using inclusion/exclusion criteria. Two authors independently analyzed these studies using predefined data fields, including study quality indicators such as level of evidence and availability of accepted patient-reported outcomes measures. These findings were synthesized in a narrative format. A third author resolved disagreements regarding the inclusion of a study. RESULTS Twenty-one articles with I or II levels of evidence were included in the review. The authors divided the findings of the literature review into several groups: rehabilitation terminology, timing and duration of postfusion rehabilitation, the need for rehabilitation relative to surgery-related morbidity, rehabilitation's relationship to outcomes, and cognitive and psychosocial aspects of postsurgical rehabilitation. Current evidence generally supports formal rehabilitation after lumbar fusion surgery. Starting physical therapy at the 12-week postoperative mark results in better outcomes at lower cost than an earlier, 6-week start. Where available, psychosocial support improves outcomes. However, a number of the questions could not be answered with high-grade evidence. In these cases, the authors used "best evidence available" to make recommendations. There are many cases in which different types of caregivers use clinical terminology differently. The data supporting an optimal protocol for postfusion rehabilitation remains elusive but, using the data available, the authors have crafted recommendations and a model protocol, which is currently undergoing prospective study. CONCLUSIONS Rehabilitation has long been a common feature in the postoperative management of patients undergoing spinal fusion. Although caregivers from multiple disciplines agree that the majority of their patients will benefit from this effort, the supporting data remain sparse. In creating a model protocol for postlumbar fusion rehabilitation, the authors hope to share a starting point for future postoperative lumbar fusion rehabilitation research.
Topics: Humans; Intervertebral Disc Degeneration; Lumbar Vertebrae; Physical Therapy Modalities; Spinal Fusion
PubMed: 28291412
DOI: 10.3171/2016.10.SPINE16627 -
The Journal of Hand Surgery Mar 2022Scaphotrapeziotrapezoid (STT) arthrodesis surgery is used for various types of wrist pathologies. The objective of our study was to perform a systematic review of...
PURPOSE
Scaphotrapeziotrapezoid (STT) arthrodesis surgery is used for various types of wrist pathologies. The objective of our study was to perform a systematic review of complications and outcomes after STT arthrodesis.
METHODS
Several major databases were used to perform a systematic literature review in order to obtain articles reporting complications and outcomes following STT arthrodesis. The primary purpose was to identify rates of nonunion and conversion to total wrist arthrodesis. Secondary outcomes included wrist range of motion, grip strength, and Disabilities of the Arm Shoulder and Hand scores. A multivariable analysis was performed to evaluate factors associated with the primary and secondary outcomes of interest.
RESULTS
Out of the 854 records identified in the primary literature search, 30 studies were included in the analysis. A total of 1,429 procedures were performed for 1,404 patients. The pooled nonunion rate was 6.3% (95% CI, 3.5-9.9) and the rate of conversion to total wrist arthrodesis following the index STT was 4.2% (95% CI, 2.2-6.7). The mean pooled wrist flexion was 40.7° (95% CI, 30.8-50.5) and extension was 49.7° (95% CI, 43.5-55.8). At final follow-up, the mean pooled grip strength was 75.9% (95% CI, 69.3-82.5) of the nonsurgical contralateral hand. Compared with all other known indications, Kienbock disease had a statistically significant lower nonunion rate (14.1% vs 3.3%, respectively). Mixed-effects linear regression using patient-level data revealed that increasing age was significantly associated with complications, independent of occupation and diagnosis.
CONCLUSIONS
Our study demonstrated a low failure rate and conversion to total wrist arthrodesis after STT arthrodesis and acceptable postoperative wrist range of motion and strength when compared to the contralateral hand.
TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Therapeutic IV.
Topics: Arthrodesis; Hand Strength; Humans; Range of Motion, Articular; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome; Wrist Joint
PubMed: 35033404
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2021.09.029 -
The Spine Journal : Official Journal of... Nov 2017Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) are both frequently used as a surgical treatment for lumbar spondylolisthesis.... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND CONTEXT
Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) are both frequently used as a surgical treatment for lumbar spondylolisthesis. Because of the unilateral transforaminal route to the intervertebral space used in TLIF, as opposed to the bilateral route used in PLIF, TLIF could be associated with fewer complications, shorter duration of surgery, and less blood loss, whereas the effectiveness of both techniques on back or leg pain is equal.
PURPOSE
The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of both TLIF and PLIF in reducing disability, and to compare the intra- and postoperative complications of both techniques in patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis.
STUDY DESIGN/SETTING
A systematic literature review and meta-analysis were carried out.
METHODS
We conducted a Medline (using PubMed), Embase (using Ovid), Cochrane Library, Current Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov and NHS Centre for Review and Dissemination search for studies reporting TLIF, PLIF, lumbar spondylolisthesis and disability, pain, complications, duration of surgery, and estimated blood loss. A meta-analysis was performed to compute pooled estimates of the differences between TLIF and PLIF. Forest plots were constructed for each analysis group.
RESULTS
A total of 192 studies were identified; nine studies were included (one randomized controlled trial and eight case series), including 990 patients (450 TLIF and 540 PLIF). The pooled mean difference in postoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores between TLIF and PLIF was -3.46 (95% confidence interval [CI] -4.72 to -2.20, p≤.001). The pooled mean difference in the postoperative VAS scores was -0.05 (95% CI -0.18 to 0.09, p=.480). The overall complication rate was 8.7% (range 0%-25%) for TLIF and 17.0% (range 4.7-28.8%) for PLIF; the pooled odds ratio was 0.47 (95% CI 0.28-0.81, p=.006). The average duration of surgery was 169 minutes for TLIF and 190 minutes for PLIF (mean difference -20.1, 95% CI -33.5 to -6.6, p=.003). The estimated blood loss was 350 mL for TLIF and 418 mL for PLIF (mean difference -43.9 mL, 95% CI -71.2 to -16.6, p=.002).
CONCLUSIONS
TLIF has advantages over PLIF in the complication rate, blood loss, and operation duration. The clinical outcome is similar, with a slightly lower postoperative ODI score for TLIF.
Topics: Female; Humans; Lumbosacral Region; Male; Middle Aged; Postoperative Complications; Spinal Fusion; Spondylolisthesis
PubMed: 28647584
DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2017.06.018 -
BioMed Research International 2023We conducted this meta-analysis to provide better evidence of the efficacy of manual therapy (MT) on adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
We conducted this meta-analysis to provide better evidence of the efficacy of manual therapy (MT) on adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS).
METHODS
All RCTs of MT for the management of patients with AIS were included in the present study. The treatment difference between the experimental and control group was mainly MT. The outcomes consisted of the total effective rate, the Cobb angle, and Scoliosis Research Society-22 (SRS-22) questionnaire score. Electronic database searches were conducted from database inception to July 2022, including the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Wanfang Data, CNKI, and VIP. The pooled data were analyzed using RevMan 5.4 software.
RESULTS
Four RCTs with 213 patients in the experimental group were finally included. There are 2 studies of standalone MT in the experimental group and 3 studies of MT with identical conservative treatments in the control group. Three trials reported total effective rate, and a statistically significant difference was found ( = 0.004). Three trials reported Cobb angle, and a statistical difference was found ( = 0.01). Then, sensitivity analysis showed that there was a significant difference in the additional MT subgroup ( < 0.00001) while not in the standalone MT subgroup ( = 0.41). Three trials reported SRS-22 scores ( = 0.55) without significant differences.
CONCLUSION
There is insufficient data to determine the effectiveness of spinal manipulation limited by the very low quality of included studies. High-quality studies with appropriate design and follow-up periods are warranted to determine if MT may be beneficial as an adjunct therapy for AIS. Currently, there is no evidence to support spinal manipulation.
Topics: Humans; Adolescent; Scoliosis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Kyphosis; Manipulation, Spinal; Spinal Fusion
PubMed: 36644168
DOI: 10.1155/2023/7928429 -
Hand Surgery & Rehabilitation Apr 2023Intercarpal arthrodesis is a well-established option to treat various disorders of the carpus, such as localized osteoarthritis, carpal instability, and Kienböck's... (Review)
Review
Intercarpal arthrodesis is a well-established option to treat various disorders of the carpus, such as localized osteoarthritis, carpal instability, and Kienböck's disease. This is a non-conservative procedure aimed at obtaining a stable and congruent interface between the radius and the proximal carpal row, which restores wrist function by minimizing pain and restoring grip strength. These procedures generally yield good predictable results that are maintained over time. However, all intracarpal arthrodesis procedures cause a loss of wrist range of motion. To optimize outcomes and minimize complications, especially nonunion, this surgery may require a learning curve. A precise surgical technique for preparing the bone surfaces, bringing enough bone graft, and using reliable fixation is essential. Since the late 1960s, several intracarpal arthrodesis procedures have been described. Commonly used fusions target the scaphotrapeziotrapezoid, scaphocapitate, four corners, capitolunate or capitohamatolunate regions. Lesser used fusions focus on specific lesions such as the scapholunate, scapholunocapitate, lunotriquetral and triquetrohamate. Here, we propose a systematic review of the various types of intercarpal arthrodesis procedures described in the literature. After having described each arthrodesis, we specify their indications, the variations of the surgical techniques, and then present an overview of the results and complications. Finally, we discuss how these surgeries affect wrist biomechanics. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
Topics: Humans; Carpal Bones; Wrist Joint; Wrist; Osteoarthritis; Arthrodesis
PubMed: 36642245
DOI: 10.1016/j.hansur.2022.12.006 -
The Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery :... 2021Orthobiologics are biologically-derived materials intended to promote bone formation and union. We review evidence on effectiveness and harms of orthobiologics compared... (Review)
Review
Orthobiologics are biologically-derived materials intended to promote bone formation and union. We review evidence on effectiveness and harms of orthobiologics compared to no orthobiologics for foot and ankle arthrodesis. We searched multiple databases (1995-2019) and included clinical trials and other studies with concurrent controls, English language, and reporting patient-centered outcomes, union/time to union, costs/resource utilization, or harms. Studies were organized by orthobiologic used. We describe quality and limitations of available evidence but did not formally rate risk of bias or certainty of evidence. Most of the 21 studies included were retrospective chart reviews with orthobiologics used at surgeon's discretion for patients considered at higher risk for nonunion. Ten studies compared autologous bone graft versus no graft and 2 compared remote versus local graft with few studies of other orthobiologics. All studies reported a measure of fusion and about half reported on function/quality of life. Few studies reported harms. Due to limited reporting, we were unable to assess whether effectiveness varies by risk factors for nonunion (eg, age, gender, smoking status, obesity, diabetes) or whether orthobiologics were cost-effective. Available evidence is of poor quality with small sample sizes, inadequate reporting of risk factors for nonunion, variations in orthobiologics, surgical techniques used, and outcome assessment, and potential selection bias. Research is needed to adequately inform surgeons about benefits and harms and guide patient selection for use, or type, of orthobiologics. Careful assessment of individual patient risk for nonunion is critical prior to orthobiologic use.
Topics: Ankle; Arthrodesis; Bone Transplantation; Humans; Quality of Life; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 34039511
DOI: 10.1053/j.jfas.2020.09.022 -
The Journal of Hand Surgery Apr 2020To compile and review the indications, outcomes, and complications of capitolunate arthrodesis (CLA).
PURPOSE
To compile and review the indications, outcomes, and complications of capitolunate arthrodesis (CLA).
METHODS
We performed a literature search identifying 33 articles, 6 of which met inclusion criteria, including 80 patients. Included publications contained the results of CLA with minimum 12-month follow-up between 2000 and 2018. Data were pooled and analyzed focusing on the primary outcomes of union and complications.
RESULTS
Average age of patients was 48 years (range, 22-86 years), median follow-up was 34 months (range, 12-198 months), and most common indication was scaphoid nonunion advanced collapse (59%). Nearly half underwent a concomitant triquetrum excision (49%). Most patients were pain-free (78%) and returned to work (92%). Grip strength and visual analog pain scale both improved after CLA. Whereas 96% fused within a reported 42 to 210 days (median, 70 days), 11% of patients had complications including nonunion (3.8%) and loose hardware (6.3%). The reoperation rate was 14%, including wrist arthrodeses and wrist arthroplasty.
CONCLUSIONS
Capitolunate arthrodesis is a feasible option for scapholunate advanced collapse and scaphoid nonunion advanced collapse wrists with complications similar to those encountered in 4-corner arthrodesis.
TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Therapeutic IV.
Topics: Arthrodesis; Child; Child, Preschool; Hand Strength; Humans; Infant; Radiography; Range of Motion, Articular; Scaphoid Bone; Treatment Outcome; Wrist Joint
PubMed: 31818538
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2019.10.007 -
Clinical Spine Surgery May 2023This was a systematic review.
STUDY DESIGN
This was a systematic review.
OBJECTIVE
The present study aims to review the available literature concerning sacroiliac joint (SIJ) pain and degeneration after lumbosacral fixation to identify the prevalence and potential risk factors.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA
Although numerous factors can predispose patients to SIJ degeneration and pain various clinical studies indicate lumbosacral arthrodesis as a major cause.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The PubMed-MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials, and Embase Biomedical database were searched. Peer-reviewed comparative studies, cohort studies, case series studies and case control studies, conducted either in a retrospective or prospective design, that registered data about SIJ pain and degeneration after lumbosacral fixation were included.
RESULTS
Twenty-one studies including 2678 patients met the inclusion criteria. The percentage of SIJ pain after lumbosacral fixation diagnosed with injections and physical examination varied widely, from 3% to 90%. Among patients who underwent spinal fusion, SIJ pain prevalence was higher when arthrodesis was fixed compared with floating fusions (59% vs. 10%, P -value >0.05). The prevalence of SIJ degenerative changes at computed tomography scan was more frequent in patients who underwent spinal arthrodesis than in those who did not (75% vs. 38.2%, P -value ≤0.05).
CONCLUSION
According to current evidence, patients who received lumbosacral fixation are at risk of SIJ pain. Number of fused levels, involvement of pelvis or sacrum in the arthrodesis area, inadequate lumbosacral sagittal alignment, and site of bone graft harvesting could be possible risk factor leading to sacroiliac degeneration and pain after lumbar spine fixation that should be investigated by physicians. However, there is a lack of homogeneity of the studies that address the problem, therefore, further prospective comparative studies, with a homogeneous architecture and cohorts are needed.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Level III.
Topics: Humans; Spinal Fusion; Sacroiliac Joint; Retrospective Studies; Cohort Studies; Arthralgia
PubMed: 35551147
DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000001341 -
European Spine Journal : Official... Jun 2023The rate of elective lumbar fusion has continued to increase over the past two decades. However, there remains to be a consensus on the optimal fusion technique. This... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
A systematic review of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF).
PURPOSE
The rate of elective lumbar fusion has continued to increase over the past two decades. However, there remains to be a consensus on the optimal fusion technique. This study aims to compare stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) with posterior fusion techniques in patients with spondylolisthesis and degenerative disc disease through a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available literature.
METHODS
A systematic review was performed by searching the Cochrane Register of Trials, MEDLINE, and EMBASE from inception to 2022. In the two-stage screening process, three reviewers independently reviewed titles and abstracts. The full-text reports of the remaining studies were then inspected for eligibility. Conflicts were resolved through consensus discussion. Two reviewers then extracted study data, assessed it for quality, and analysed it.
RESULTS
After the initial search and removal of duplicate records, 16,435 studies were screened. Twenty-one eligible studies (3686 patients) were ultimately included, which compared stand-alone ALIF with posterior approaches such as posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), and posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF). A meta-analysis showed surgical time and blood loss was significantly lower in ALIF than in TLIF/PLIF, but not in those who underwent PLF (p = 0.08). The length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in ALIF than in TLIF, but not in PLIF or PLF. Fusion rates were similar between the ALIF and posterior approaches. The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain were not significantly different between the ALIF and PLIF/TLIF groups. However, VAS back pain favoured ALIF over PLF at one year (n = 21, MD - 1.00, CI - 1.47, - 0.53), and at two years (2 studies, n = 67, MD - 1.39, CI - 1.67, - 1.11). The VAS leg pain scores (n = 46, MD 0.50, CI 0.12 to 0.88) at two years significantly favoured PLF. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores at one year were not significantly different between ALIF and the posterior approaches. At two years, ODI scores were also similar between the ALIF and the TLIF/PLIF. However, the ODI scores at two years (2 studies, n = 67, MD - 7.59, CI - 13.33, - 1.85) significantly favoured ALIF over PLF (I = 70%). The Japanese Orthopaedic Association Score (JOAS) for low back pain at one year (n = 21, MD - 0.50, CI - 0.78) and two years (two studies, n = 67, MD - 0.36, CI - 0.65, - 0.07) significantly favoured ALIF over PLF. No significant differences were found in leg pain at the 2-year follow-up. Adverse events displayed no significant differences between the ALIF and posterior approaches.
CONCLUSIONS
Stand-alone-ALIF demonstrated a shorter operative time and less blood loss than the PLIF/TLIF approach. Hospitalisation time is reduced with ALIF compared with TLIF. Patient-reported outcome measures were equivocal with PLIF or TLIF. VAS and JOAS, back pain, and ODI scores mainly favoured ALIF over PLF. Adverse events were equivocal between the ALIF and posterior fusion approaches.
Topics: Humans; Spinal Fusion; Lumbar Vertebrae; Back Pain; Lumbosacral Region; Low Back Pain; Spondylolisthesis; Treatment Outcome; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 37071155
DOI: 10.1007/s00586-023-07567-x