The Meta-analysis For Posterior Lumbar Spine Fusion And Interspinous Process Decompression In The Treatment Of Patients With The Single-level Degenerative Lumbar Spine Disorders

[Background and Objective] Interspinous process decompression challenged the primary status for treating posterior lumbar spine fusion.Therefore,the systematic review was aimed to comparative the efficacy and safety of the posterior lumbar spine fusion with the interspinous process decompression in the treatment of patients with the single-level degenerative lumbar spine disorders.[Methods] A search was conducted for published articles in Pubmed,the Cochrane library,CBM,CNKI and other databases until March 2015. After collecting all the clinical controlled trials and randomized controlled trials compared interspinous process decompression with posterior lumbar spine fusion,we conducted the literature quality assessment one by one according the planned criteria of inclusion and exclusion.Then,Review Manager4.2 brought by The Cochrane collaboration was used to make a Meta-analysis of the data from the included studies.Finally,related conclusions was given consistent with the results of the Meta-analysis.[Results] A total of 20 trials which meet the requirements and 1292 patients were included in the Meta-analysis.In short-term follow-up,interspinous process decompression had advantages of less operation time,less intraoperative hemorrhage and less hospitalization day over posterior lumbar spine fusion.Besides,both of the two groups showed a satisfying results of treatment evaluated by VAS,JOA,ODI scores(%).Interspinous process decompression kept the range of motion in some degrees and reduced the increasing adjacent segment compensatory activity on the basis of image,which may be a symbol of effectively avoid/remission of occurrence/process of the adjacent segment pathology.[Conclusion] Interspinous process decompression is better than posterior lumbar spine fusion in the operative injury and recovery after operations of patients.While both of the short-term outcome of the two groups have no statistically difference. It is necessary to collect the long-term follow-up outcome and include in more and more high-quality randomized controlled trials to evaluate continuously.