Adjacent segment degeneration after lumbar spinal fusion compared with motion-preservation procedures: a meta-analysis
European Spine Journal, ISSN: 1432-0932, Vol: 25, Issue: 5, Page: 1522-1532
2016
- 63Citations
- 63Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations63
- Citation Indexes63
- 63
- CrossRef17
- Captures63
- Readers63
- 63
Review Description
Purpose: This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy of motion-preservation procedures to prevent the adjacent segment degeneration (ASDeg) or adjacent segment disease (ASDis) compared with fusion in lumbar spine. Methods: PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library were comprehensively searched and a meta-analysis was performed of all randomized controlled trials and well designed prospective or retrospective comparative cohort studies assessing the lumbar fusion and motion-preservation procedures. We compared the ASDeg and ASDis rate, reoperation rate, operation time, blood loss, length of hospital stay, visual analogue scale (VAS) and oswestry disability index (ODI) improvement of the two procedures. Results: A total of 15 studies consisting of 1474 patients were included in this study. The meta-analysis indicated that the prevalence of ASDeg, ASDis and reoperation rate on the adjacent level were lower in motion-preservation procedures group than in the fusion group (P = 0.001; P = 0.0004; P < 0.0001). Moreover, shorter length of hospital stay was found in motion-preservation procedures group (P < 0.0001). No difference was found in terms of operation time (P = 0.57), blood loss (P = 0.27), VAS (P = 0.76) and ODI improvement (P = 0.71) between the two groups. Conclusions: The present evidences indicated that the motion-preservation procedures had an advantage on reducing the prevalence of ASDeg, ASDis and the reoperation rate due to the adjacent segment degeneration compared with the lumbar fusion. And the clinical outcomes of the two procedures are similar.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84960391251&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4415-6; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26968875; http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00586-016-4415-6; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4415-6; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00586-016-4415-6
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know