Editorial: Interbody versus posterolateral fusion

Restricted access

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

Article Information

Contributor Notes

Please include this information when citing this paper: published online May 27, 2011; DOI: 10.3171/2010.12.SPINE10757.

© Copyright 1944-2019 American Association of Neurological Surgeons

Headings
References
  • 1

    Agency for Healthcare Research Quality: Meta-analysis of test performance evidence when there is an imperfect reference standard Rockville, MDU.S. Department of Health and Human Services2010. (http://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/ehc/products/255/567/Paper09_(Meta-analysis_II_10_Oct_101.pdf)) [Accessed April 4 2011]

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    Cheng LNie LZhang L: Posterior lumbar interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion in spondylolisthesis: a prospective controlled study in the Han nationality. Int Orthop 33:104310472009

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Cheong JYvan Gelder JM: Meta-analysis and use of tests of heterogeneity in neurosurgery. J Clin Neurosci 17:1631672010

  • 4

    Dantas FLPrandini MNFerreira MA: Comparison between posterior lumbar fusion with pedicle screws and posterior lumbar interbody fusion with pedicle screws in adult spondylolisthesis. Arq Neuropsiquiatr 65:3B7647702007

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    Dehoux EFourati EMadi KReddy BSegal P: Posterolateral versus interbody fusion in isthmic spondylolisthesis: functional results in 52 cases with a minimum follow-up of 6 years. Acta Orthop Belg 70:5785822004

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    Inamdar DNAlagappan MShyam LDevadoss SDevadoss A: Posterior lumbar interbody fusion versus intertransverse fusion in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 14:21262006

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    Kanayama MTogawa DHashimoto TShigenobou KOha F: Motion-preserving surgery can prevent early breakdown of adjacent segments: comparison of posterior dynamic stabilization with spinal fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech 22:4634672009

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Kim KTLee SHLee YHBae SCSuk KS: Clinical outcomes of 3 fusion methods through the posterior approach in the lumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:135113582006

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    La Rosa GConti ACacciola FCardali SLa Torre DGambadauro NMTomasello F: Pedicle screw fixation for isthmic spondylolisthesis: does posterior lumbar interbody fusion improve outcome over posterolateral fusion?. J Neurosurg 99:2 Suppl1431502003

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Ma YGuo LCai X: [Posterior interbody fusion or posterolateral fusion for discogenic low back pain.]. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi 81:125312552001. (Chinese)

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    Resnick DKChoudhri TFDailey ATGroff MWKhoo LMatz PG: Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 11: interbody techniques for lumbar fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 2:6926992005

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    Watters WC IIIBono CMGilbert TJKreiner DSMazanec DJShaffer WO: An evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Spine J 9:6096142009

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Zhao QHTian JWWang LDong SHWu ZKWang Z: [Posterior fusion versus posterior interbody fusion in segmental spinal fixation for aged spondylolisthesis.]. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi 89:177917822009. (Chinese)

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Zhou ZJZhao FDFang XQZhao XFan SW: Meta-analysis of instrumented posterior interbody fusion versus instrumented posterolateral fusion in the lumbar spine. A review. J Neurosurg Spine [epub ahead of print May 27 2011. DOI: 10.3171/2011.4.SPINE10330]

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 1

    Atkins DBest DBriss PAEccles MFalck-Ytter YFlottorp S: Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 328:14902004

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    Cheng LNie LZhang L: Posterior lumbar interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion in spondylolisthesis: a prospective controlled study in the Han nationality. Int Orthop 33:104310472009

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Dantas FLPrandini MNFerreira MA: Comparison between posterior lumbar fusion with pedicle screws and posterior lumbar interbody fusion with pedicle screw in adult spondylolisthesis. Arq Neuropsiquiatr 65:3B7647702007

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Dehoux EFourati EMadi KReddy BSegal P: Posterolateral versus interbody fusion in isthmic spondylolisthesis: functional results in 52 cases with a minimum follow-up of 6 years. Acta Orthop Belg 70:5785822004

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    DerSimonian RLaird N: Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 7:1771881986

  • 6

    Furlan ADPennick VBombardier Cvan Tulder M: Editorial Board Cochrane Back Review Group: 2009 Updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Back Review Group. Spine 34:192919412009

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    Inamdar DNAlagappan MShyam LDevadoss SDevadoss A: Posterior lumbar interbody fusion versus intertransverse fusion in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 14:21262006

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Kanayama MTogawa DHashimoto TShigenobu KOha F: Motion-preserving surgery can prevent early breakdown of adjacent segments: comparison of posterior dynamic stabilization with spinal fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech 22:4634672009

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Kim KTLee HSLee YHBae SCSuk KS: Clinical outcomes of 3 fusion methods through the posterior approach in the lumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:135113582006

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    La Rosa GCacciola FConti ACardali SLa Torre DGambadauro NM: Posterior fusion compared with posterior interbody fusion in segmental spinal fixation for adult spondylolisthesis. Neurosurg Focus 10:4E92001

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    Ma YGuo LCai X: [Posterior interbody fusion or posterolateral fusion for discogenic low back pain.]. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi 81:125312552001. (Chinese)

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    Moher DCook DJEastwood SOlkin IRennie DStroup DF: Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet 354:189619001999

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Resnick DKChoudhri TFDailey ATGroff MWKhoo LMatz PG: Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 11: interbody techniques for lumbar fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 2:6926992005

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Stroup DFBerlin JAMorton SCOlkin IWilliamson GDRennie D: Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 283:200821122000

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    Zhao QHTian JWWang LDong SHWu ZKWang Z: [Posterior fusion versus posterior interbody fusion in segmental spinal fixation for aged spondylolisthesis.]. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi 89:179917822009. (Chinese)

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
TrendMD
Metrics

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 140 140 13
Full Text Views 83 78 0
PDF Downloads 61 57 0
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0
PubMed
Google Scholar