Home > DARE Reviews > Comparison of artificial total disc...

PubMed Health. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews [Internet]. York (UK): Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (UK); 1995-.

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews [Internet].

Comparison of artificial total disc replacement versus fusion for lumbar degenerative disc disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Review published: 2013.

Bibliographic details: Wei J, Song Y, Sun L, Lv C.  Comparison of artificial total disc replacement versus fusion for lumbar degenerative disc disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. International Orthopaedics 2013; 37(7): 1315-1325. [PMC free article: PMC3685666] [PubMed: 23645003]

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and safety of TDR to that of the fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disc disease (LDDD).

METHODS: Randomized controlled trials comparing TDR with any other intervention for LDDD were acquired by a comprehensive search in PubMedCentral, MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the FDA trials register. Methodologic quality was assessed and relevant data were retrieved, and appropriate meta-analysis was performed. Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Results and upper bounds of confidence intervals were compared with predefined clinically relevant differences.

RESULTS: Six relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 1,603 patients were identified and reported two year follow-up results. Patients in TDR group compared with lumbar fusion group demonstrated significant improvements in ODI, VAS scores and complication rates at the two year follow-up. Meanwhile, except for operating time in anterior group, intra-operative blood loss, operating time in posterior group, and reoperation rate were without clinical significance between the two groups. In addition, the range of motion (ROM) was maintained within normal ranges after TDR.

CONCLUSIONS: The results showed the TDR has significant safety and efficacy comparable to lumbar fusion at two year follow-up. Although superiority compared to fusion could not be proved, by comparing clinical symptoms relieved, motion preserved, and the low reoperation rate during long-term follow-up on TDR, TDR was considered safe and effective. Therefore, the authors suggest adopting TDR on a large scale; with failure of TDR, interbody fusion would be performed.

CRD has determined that this article meets the DARE scientific quality criteria for a systematic review.

Copyright © 2014 University of York.

PMID: 23645003

PubMed Health Blog...

read all...

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...