Surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylosis

JN Alastair Gibson; Gordon Waddell

doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001352.pub3

Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Contenido relacionado

Ir a:

Revisiones y protocolos relacionados
Guías
Temas

Revisiones y protocolos relacionados

Topics

Temas

Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 DECOMPRESSION vs CONSERVATIVE, Outcome 1 Secondary surgery by 4 years.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 DECOMPRESSION vs CONSERVATIVE, Outcome 2 Bad result at 10 years.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 MULTIPLE LAMINOTOMY vs LAMINECTOMY, Outcome 1 No success: combined patient / surgeon rating.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 MULTIPLE LAMINOTOMY vs LAMINECTOMY, Outcome 2 Spondylolisthesis progression.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 LAMINECTOMY + FUSION ANY TYPE vs LAMINECTOMY, Outcome 1 Poor result 18‐24 months ‐ Surgeon rating.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.2

Comparison 3 LAMINECTOMY + FUSION ANY TYPE vs LAMINECTOMY, Outcome 2 Re‐operation 2‐4 years.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.3

Comparison 3 LAMINECTOMY + FUSION ANY TYPE vs LAMINECTOMY, Outcome 3 Spondylolisthesis progression.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.4

Comparison 3 LAMINECTOMY + FUSION ANY TYPE vs LAMINECTOMY, Outcome 4 No improvement in walking distance.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.5

Comparison 3 LAMINECTOMY + FUSION ANY TYPE vs LAMINECTOMY, Outcome 5 Good result at 18‐24 months.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.6

Comparison 3 LAMINECTOMY + FUSION ANY TYPE vs LAMINECTOMY, Outcome 6 No spondylolisthesis progression.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 4.1

Comparison 4 LAMINECTOMY PLUS MULTI‐LEVEL FUSION vs LAMINECTOMY, Outcome 1 Poor result as rated by patient ‐ at 2yrs.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 4.2

Comparison 4 LAMINECTOMY PLUS MULTI‐LEVEL FUSION vs LAMINECTOMY, Outcome 2 Poor result as rated by independent assessor ‐ at 2yrs.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 4.3

Comparison 4 LAMINECTOMY PLUS MULTI‐LEVEL FUSION vs LAMINECTOMY, Outcome 3 Re‐operation by 28mths.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 5.1

Comparison 5 LAMINECTOMY vs NO LAMINECTOMY (Isthmic spondylolisthesis), Outcome 1 No fusion at 4.5yrs.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 5.2

Comparison 5 LAMINECTOMY vs NO LAMINECTOMY (Isthmic spondylolisthesis), Outcome 2 No success ‐ Patient rating at 4.5yrs.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 6.1

Comparison 6 LAMINECTOMY PLUS ONE LEVEL FUSION (No instrumentation, spinal stenosis + degen spondylolisthesis vs LAMINECT, Outcome 1 Poor result as rated by surgeon ‐ at 36 mths (ave).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 6.2

Comparison 6 LAMINECTOMY PLUS ONE LEVEL FUSION (No instrumentation, spinal stenosis + degen spondylolisthesis vs LAMINECT, Outcome 2 Spondylolisthesis progression at 6 months.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 6.3

Comparison 6 LAMINECTOMY PLUS ONE LEVEL FUSION (No instrumentation, spinal stenosis + degen spondylolisthesis vs LAMINECT, Outcome 3 Re‐operation required within 4 years.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 7.1

Comparison 7 LUMBAR FUSION vs CONSERVATIVE (PHYSICAL) THERAPY, Outcome 1 Fair or Poor outcome (independent observer rated).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 7.2

Comparison 7 LUMBAR FUSION vs CONSERVATIVE (PHYSICAL) THERAPY, Outcome 2 Not back to work at 2 years.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 7.3

Comparison 7 LUMBAR FUSION vs CONSERVATIVE (PHYSICAL) THERAPY, Outcome 3 Unchanged / worse at two years (patient rating).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 8.1

Comparison 8 LUMBAR FUSION vs COGNITIVE EXERCISES (Degenerate disc), Outcome 1 Failure (patient rating) at 1 year.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 8.2

Comparison 8 LUMBAR FUSION vs COGNITIVE EXERCISES (Degenerate disc), Outcome 2 Failure (independent assessor) at 1 year.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 9.1

Comparison 9 INSTRUMENTED FUSION vs COGNITIVE EXERCISES (Post discectomy), Outcome 1 Failure (patient rating).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 9.2

Comparison 9 INSTRUMENTED FUSION vs COGNITIVE EXERCISES (Post discectomy), Outcome 2 Failure (Independent observer rating).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 10.1

Comparison 10 POSTERO‐LATERAL FUSION +/‐ INSTRUMENTATION vs EXERCISE THERAPY (Isthmic spondylolisthesis), Outcome 1 Sick leave post treatment.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 10.2

Comparison 10 POSTERO‐LATERAL FUSION +/‐ INSTRUMENTATION vs EXERCISE THERAPY (Isthmic spondylolisthesis), Outcome 2 Failure ‐ patient rating.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 10.3

Comparison 10 POSTERO‐LATERAL FUSION +/‐ INSTRUMENTATION vs EXERCISE THERAPY (Isthmic spondylolisthesis), Outcome 3 Failure ‐ Assessor rating.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 11.1

Comparison 11 INSTRUMENTED FUSION vs LAMINECTOMY (mixed, single/multi‐level), Outcome 1 Poor result as rated by patient ‐ at >2yrs.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 11.2

Comparison 11 INSTRUMENTED FUSION vs LAMINECTOMY (mixed, single/multi‐level), Outcome 2 Poor result at 2yrs ‐ surgeon rating.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 11.3

Comparison 11 INSTRUMENTED FUSION vs LAMINECTOMY (mixed, single/multi‐level), Outcome 3 Re‐operation at 28mths average.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 11.4

Comparison 11 INSTRUMENTED FUSION vs LAMINECTOMY (mixed, single/multi‐level), Outcome 4 Spondylolisthesis progression.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 12.1

Comparison 12 INSTRUMENTED POSTEROLATERAL FUSION vs GRAFT ONLY (mixed disease), Outcome 1 Fair/Poor outcome at 1 ‐ 2yr ‐ Surgeon rating.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 12.2

Comparison 12 INSTRUMENTED POSTEROLATERAL FUSION vs GRAFT ONLY (mixed disease), Outcome 2 2nd procedure by 2yrs.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 12.3

Comparison 12 INSTRUMENTED POSTEROLATERAL FUSION vs GRAFT ONLY (mixed disease), Outcome 3 No fusion at 2 yrs.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 12.4

Comparison 12 INSTRUMENTED POSTEROLATERAL FUSION vs GRAFT ONLY (mixed disease), Outcome 4 Poor clinical outcome.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 12.5

Comparison 12 INSTRUMENTED POSTEROLATERAL FUSION vs GRAFT ONLY (mixed disease), Outcome 5 Re‐operation at 5 years.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 12.6

Comparison 12 INSTRUMENTED POSTEROLATERAL FUSION vs GRAFT ONLY (mixed disease), Outcome 6 Pain score at 5 years.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 13.1

Comparison 13 INSTRUMENTED FUSION vs NON‐INSTRUMENTED FUSION (Isthmic spondylolisthesis), Outcome 1 Failure ‐ Patient rating at 2 yr.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 13.2

Comparison 13 INSTRUMENTED FUSION vs NON‐INSTRUMENTED FUSION (Isthmic spondylolisthesis), Outcome 2 Failure ‐ Assessor rating.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 13.3

Comparison 13 INSTRUMENTED FUSION vs NON‐INSTRUMENTED FUSION (Isthmic spondylolisthesis), Outcome 3 Failed fusion (definitely not solid).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 14.1

Comparison 14 INTERBODY FUSION + POSTEROLATERAL FUSION vs POSTERLATERAL FUSION, Outcome 1 Fusion failure.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 14.2

Comparison 14 INTERBODY FUSION + POSTEROLATERAL FUSION vs POSTERLATERAL FUSION, Outcome 2 Complications.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 14.3

Comparison 14 INTERBODY FUSION + POSTEROLATERAL FUSION vs POSTERLATERAL FUSION, Outcome 3 Not much better.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 14.4

Comparison 14 INTERBODY FUSION + POSTEROLATERAL FUSION vs POSTERLATERAL FUSION, Outcome 4 Re‐operation.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 15.1

Comparison 15 ALIF PLUS POSTEROLATERAL INSTRUMENTED vs ALIF plus INSTRUMENTED, Outcome 1 Fusion failure.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 15.2

Comparison 15 ALIF PLUS POSTEROLATERAL INSTRUMENTED vs ALIF plus INSTRUMENTED, Outcome 2 Re‐operation.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 16.1

Comparison 16 GRAF LIGAMENTOPLASTY vs ANTERIOR LUMBAR CAGED FUSION, Outcome 1 Re‐operation.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 17.1

Comparison 17 ANTERIOR THREADED CAGE vs FEMORAL RING FUSION, Outcome 1 Failure of fusion.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 17.2

Comparison 17 ANTERIOR THREADED CAGE vs FEMORAL RING FUSION, Outcome 2 Secondary procedure.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 18.1

Comparison 18 IDET vs SHAM, Outcome 1 No success (observer rated) ‐ at 8 weeks.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 19.1

Comparison 19 ANY FORM OF ELECTRICAL STIMULATION vs PLACEBO, Outcome 1 Failure of fusion with internal fixation.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 19.2

Comparison 19 ANY FORM OF ELECTRICAL STIMULATION vs PLACEBO, Outcome 2 Failure of fusion without internal fixation.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 19.3

Comparison 19 ANY FORM OF ELECTRICAL STIMULATION vs PLACEBO, Outcome 3 Poor clincical outcome.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 20.1

Comparison 20 X‐STOP INTERSPINOUS IMPLANT vs CONTROL, Outcome 1 Secondary surgery.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 20.2

Comparison 20 X‐STOP INTERSPINOUS IMPLANT vs CONTROL, Outcome 2 Moderate or severe pain.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 21.1

Comparison 21 CHARITE DISC REPLACEMENT vs BAK ANTERIOR INTERBODY FUSION, Outcome 1 Oswestry Disability Index at 2 years.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 21.2

Comparison 21 CHARITE DISC REPLACEMENT vs BAK ANTERIOR INTERBODY FUSION, Outcome 2 VAS‐pain.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 21.3

Comparison 21 CHARITE DISC REPLACEMENT vs BAK ANTERIOR INTERBODY FUSION, Outcome 3 Device failure.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1. DECOMPRESSION vs CONSERVATIVE

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Secondary surgery by 4 years Show forest plot	1	30	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.09 [0.01, 0.89]

2 Bad result at 10 years Show forest plot	1	19	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	2.43 [0.09, 67.57]

Comparison 1. DECOMPRESSION vs CONSERVATIVE

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 2. MULTIPLE LAMINOTOMY vs LAMINECTOMY

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 No success: combined patient / surgeon rating Show forest plot	1	67	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.85 [0.25, 2.88]

2 Spondylolisthesis progression Show forest plot	1	67	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.56 [0.16, 2.03]

Comparison 2. MULTIPLE LAMINOTOMY vs LAMINECTOMY

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 3. LAMINECTOMY + FUSION ANY TYPE vs LAMINECTOMY

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Poor result 18‐24 months ‐ Surgeon rating Show forest plot	3	138	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.44 [0.13, 1.48]

2 Re‐operation 2‐4 years Show forest plot	2	64	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	4.69 [0.51, 42.83]

3 Spondylolisthesis progression Show forest plot	2	93	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.09 [0.00, 2.07]

4 No improvement in walking distance Show forest plot	1	39	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.38 [0.06, 2.21]

5 Good result at 18‐24 months Show forest plot	2	93	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	4.41 [1.09, 17.76]

6 No spondylolisthesis progression Show forest plot	2	93	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	11.53 [0.48, 275.52]

Comparison 3. LAMINECTOMY + FUSION ANY TYPE vs LAMINECTOMY

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 4. LAMINECTOMY PLUS MULTI‐LEVEL FUSION vs LAMINECTOMY

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Poor result as rated by patient ‐ at 2yrs Show forest plot	1	30	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	5.74 [0.25, 130.37]

2 Poor result as rated by independent assessor ‐ at 2yrs Show forest plot	1	30	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	8.68 [0.41, 184.28]

3 Re‐operation by 28mths Show forest plot	1	30	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	3.21 [0.12, 85.20]

Comparison 4. LAMINECTOMY PLUS MULTI‐LEVEL FUSION vs LAMINECTOMY

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 5. LAMINECTOMY vs NO LAMINECTOMY (Isthmic spondylolisthesis)

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 No fusion at 4.5yrs Show forest plot	1	42	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	15.21 [0.76, 303.32]

2 No success ‐ Patient rating at 4.5yrs Show forest plot	1	42	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	11.5 [1.24, 106.85]

Comparison 5. LAMINECTOMY vs NO LAMINECTOMY (Isthmic spondylolisthesis)

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 6. LAMINECTOMY PLUS ONE LEVEL FUSION (No instrumentation, spinal stenosis + degen spondylolisthesis vs LAMINECT

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Poor result as rated by surgeon ‐ at 36 mths (ave) Show forest plot	1	50	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.18 [0.01, 4.04]

2 Spondylolisthesis progression at 6 months Show forest plot	1	19	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	4.67 [0.67, 32.36]

3 Re‐operation required within 4 years Show forest plot	1	19	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	3.00 [0.11, 83.36]

Comparison 6. LAMINECTOMY PLUS ONE LEVEL FUSION (No instrumentation, spinal stenosis + degen spondylolisthesis vs LAMINECT

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 7. LUMBAR FUSION vs CONSERVATIVE (PHYSICAL) THERAPY

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Fair or Poor outcome (independent observer rated) Show forest plot	1	262	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.26 [0.13, 0.52]

2 Not back to work at 2 years Show forest plot	1	208	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.26 [0.10, 0.64]

3 Unchanged / worse at two years (patient rating) Show forest plot	1	257	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.28 [0.15, 0.53]

Comparison 7. LUMBAR FUSION vs CONSERVATIVE (PHYSICAL) THERAPY

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 8. LUMBAR FUSION vs COGNITIVE EXERCISES (Degenerate disc)

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Failure (patient rating) at 1 year Show forest plot	1	61	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.76 [0.25, 2.25]

2 Failure (independent assessor) at 1 year Show forest plot	2	63	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.53 [0.48, 4.87]

Comparison 8. LUMBAR FUSION vs COGNITIVE EXERCISES (Degenerate disc)

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 9. INSTRUMENTED FUSION vs COGNITIVE EXERCISES (Post discectomy)

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Failure (patient rating) Show forest plot	1	57	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.07 [0.38, 3.03]

2 Failure (Independent observer rating) Show forest plot	1	57	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.42 [0.49, 4.08]

Comparison 9. INSTRUMENTED FUSION vs COGNITIVE EXERCISES (Post discectomy)

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 10. POSTERO‐LATERAL FUSION +/‐ INSTRUMENTATION vs EXERCISE THERAPY (Isthmic spondylolisthesis)

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Sick leave post treatment Show forest plot	1	106	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.06 [0.46, 2.46]

2 Failure ‐ patient rating Show forest plot	1	109	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.23 [0.10, 0.53]

3 Failure ‐ Assessor rating Show forest plot	1	109	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.09 [0.03, 0.23]

Comparison 10. POSTERO‐LATERAL FUSION +/‐ INSTRUMENTATION vs EXERCISE THERAPY (Isthmic spondylolisthesis)

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 11. INSTRUMENTED FUSION vs LAMINECTOMY (mixed, single/multi‐level)

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Poor result as rated by patient ‐ at >2yrs Show forest plot	1	45	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.3 [0.22, 7.64]

2 Poor result at 2yrs ‐ surgeon rating Show forest plot	2	113	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.96 [0.63, 6.16]

3 Re‐operation at 28mths average Show forest plot	1	45	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	6.69 [0.35, 129.43]

4 Spondylolisthesis progression Show forest plot	1	33	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.05 [0.00, 0.60]

Comparison 11. INSTRUMENTED FUSION vs LAMINECTOMY (mixed, single/multi‐level)

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 12. INSTRUMENTED POSTEROLATERAL FUSION vs GRAFT ONLY (mixed disease)

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Fair/Poor outcome at 1 ‐ 2yr ‐ Surgeon rating Show forest plot	3	193	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.58 [0.08, 4.26]

2 2nd procedure by 2yrs Show forest plot	7	494	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.05 [0.40, 2.73]

3 No fusion at 2 yrs Show forest plot	8	638	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.43 [0.21, 0.91]

4 Poor clinical outcome Show forest plot	8	653	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.49 [0.28, 0.84]

5 Re‐operation at 5 years Show forest plot	1	120	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	2.65 [1.08, 6.51]

6 Pain score at 5 years Show forest plot	1	109	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	0.03 [‐1.12, 1.18]

Comparison 12. INSTRUMENTED POSTEROLATERAL FUSION vs GRAFT ONLY (mixed disease)

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 13. INSTRUMENTED FUSION vs NON‐INSTRUMENTED FUSION (Isthmic spondylolisthesis)

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Failure ‐ Patient rating at 2 yr Show forest plot	1	75	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.37 [0.12, 1.12]

2 Failure ‐ Assessor rating Show forest plot	1	75	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.70 [0.25, 1.92]

3 Failed fusion (definitely not solid) Show forest plot	1	74	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.51 [0.18, 1.43]

Comparison 13. INSTRUMENTED FUSION vs NON‐INSTRUMENTED FUSION (Isthmic spondylolisthesis)

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 14. INTERBODY FUSION + POSTEROLATERAL FUSION vs POSTERLATERAL FUSION

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Fusion failure Show forest plot	2	201	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.08 [0.51, 2.29]

2 Complications Show forest plot	2	201	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.00 [0.24, 4.17]

3 Not much better Show forest plot	1	149	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.18 [0.59, 2.33]

4 Re‐operation Show forest plot	1	139	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.25 [0.09, 0.74]

Comparison 14. INTERBODY FUSION + POSTEROLATERAL FUSION vs POSTERLATERAL FUSION

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 15. ALIF PLUS POSTEROLATERAL INSTRUMENTED vs ALIF plus INSTRUMENTED

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Fusion failure Show forest plot	1	40	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	2.35 [0.40, 13.90]

2 Re‐operation Show forest plot	1	48	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.91 [0.28, 2.96]

Comparison 15. ALIF PLUS POSTEROLATERAL INSTRUMENTED vs ALIF plus INSTRUMENTED

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 16. GRAF LIGAMENTOPLASTY vs ANTERIOR LUMBAR CAGED FUSION

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Re‐operation Show forest plot	1	56	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.32 [0.01, 8.24]

Comparison 16. GRAF LIGAMENTOPLASTY vs ANTERIOR LUMBAR CAGED FUSION

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 17. ANTERIOR THREADED CAGE vs FEMORAL RING FUSION

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Failure of fusion Show forest plot	1	118	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.03 [0.01, 0.15]

2 Secondary procedure Show forest plot	1	139	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.38 [0.18, 0.76]

Comparison 17. ANTERIOR THREADED CAGE vs FEMORAL RING FUSION

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 18. IDET vs SHAM

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 No success (observer rated) ‐ at 8 weeks Show forest plot	1	28	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.85 [0.15, 23.07]

Comparison 18. IDET vs SHAM

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 19. ANY FORM OF ELECTRICAL STIMULATION vs PLACEBO

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Failure of fusion with internal fixation Show forest plot	3	290	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.59 [0.15, 2.30]

2 Failure of fusion without internal fixation Show forest plot	3	268	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.38 [0.22, 0.64]

3 Poor clincical outcome Show forest plot	3	357	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.58 [0.27, 1.24]

Comparison 19. ANY FORM OF ELECTRICAL STIMULATION vs PLACEBO

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 20. X‐STOP INTERSPINOUS IMPLANT vs CONTROL

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Secondary surgery Show forest plot	1	196	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.26 [0.09, 0.73]

2 Moderate or severe pain Show forest plot	1	167	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.14 [0.07, 0.29]

Comparison 20. X‐STOP INTERSPINOUS IMPLANT vs CONTROL

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 21. CHARITE DISC REPLACEMENT vs BAK ANTERIOR INTERBODY FUSION

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Oswestry Disability Index at 2 years Show forest plot	1	258	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐4.30 [‐10.28, 1.68]

2 VAS‐pain Show forest plot	1	258	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐5.70 [‐13.71, 2.31]

3 Device failure Show forest plot	1	304	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.88 [0.32, 2.45]

Comparison 21. CHARITE DISC REPLACEMENT vs BAK ANTERIOR INTERBODY FUSION

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

The Cochrane Library

Scolaris Language Selector Scolaris Language Selector

Idioma de la Revisión Cochrane

Idioma de la web

Scolaris Content Language Banner Portlet Scolaris Content Language Banner Portlet

Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Temas

Scolaris Language Selector Scolaris Language Selector

Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Instituciones a las que se accedió previamente

Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Usuarios institucionales

Instituciones a las que se accedió previamente

Otras opciones de acceso

	Idioma de la Revisión Cochrane Escoja su idioma de preferencia para las revisiones Cochrane y otros contenidos. Las secciones sin una traducción aparecerán en inglés.

	Idioma de la web Escoja su idioma de preferencia para la web de la Biblioteca Cochrane.

Idioma de la Revisión Cochrane

Idioma de la web

Contenido relacionado

Revisiones y protocolos relacionados

Temas

Copiar o descargar referencia

Idioma de la Revisión Cochrane

Idioma de la web

Instituciones a las que se accedió previamente

Usuarios institucionales

Instituciones a las que se accedió previamente

Otras opciones de acceso